Last 90 Days of Glucose Levels / Insulin Dosages / Calories / Exercise

[_]

Time in range, 91.6%, far higher than what
has been presented for every artificial pan-
creas project I've reviewed.

Here's the 90 day data:

Glucose levels

less than 55 mg/dl = 0.7% (goal is -0-)
55-69 mg/dl = 1.8% (higher than what I'd like)
Time in range 70-180 mg/dl = 91.6% (acceptable
but I'd like it to be higher)
181-250 mg/dl = 5.4% (not that bad)
> 250 mg/dl = 0.5% (goal is -0-, but not that bad)

Insulin, total averages over last 90 days,
8.1 units basil, 12.2 units bolus, 20.3 total units

Exercise, total averages over last 90 days,
a smidge over 97 minutes per day (slightly
over -3- 30 minute indoor exercise sessions
per day)

Calories, total averages over last 90 days
(keeping in mind my averages prior to reach-
ing my goal of 150 pounds on June 5 were
lower than they've been since I've switched
to maintenance mode), a bit less than 1,305
calories per day.

- - -

~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~

INSULINITIS (ISLIT)

New SUPERIOR clarifying name for near-
total to total loss of endogenous insulin
https://prohuman.net/pix2/new_superior_clarifying_name_is_INSULINITIS.jpg

The overwhelming majority of Islit caused
by autoimmune attacks on pancreatic beta
cells (Insulitis Islit) but there are

o 15 specific types of rapid onset Islit, a
rare condition (only present in < one-half
of 1% of Americans & in a much lower rate
in most of the world), when present is typ-
ically diagnosed at age under 30
(50% at age < 18, 20% at age 19 to 29)

o 1 slow onset specific type, Latent Auto-
immune Islit, frequency unknown but per
a recent report, misdiagnosed as Cellosis
(new clarifying name for type 2 diabetes)
almost 40% of the time due to slow onset
& occurrence typically at age over 30

Old outdated anachronistic name for Islit is
type 1 diabetes, confusing in that diabetes
without clarifier is often used to describe this
& the other 6 Disparate High Glucose Con-
ditions (DHGCs).

That makes figuring out which DHGC is actu-
ally being referred to (& it can be any 1, some,
or all of them when diabetes or diabetic word
used without clarifier) confusing / difficult:
https://prohuman.net/pix2/diabetesdiabeticguessinggame.jpg
https://prohuman.net/pix2/diabetesdiabeticconfusion.jpg
https://prohuman.net/pix2/diabetesdiabeticendingthemisunderstanding.jpg

Recent estimate that 20 million have Islit in the
world, 1 in 394 (2.583/10ths of 1%), less than
5% of the almost 470 million in the world who
have any of the 7 DHGCs, 95% having Cellosis
(see below for causalities):
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.health.diabetes/c/58ZoHZEZ51w/m/EBejqoJQAQAJ

Notably, one's relatives and one's birthplace
dramatically impact one's risk of getting the
Insulitis-caused Islit, as listed in details of all
15 specific types of rapid-onset Islit & the sole
specific type of slow onset Latent Autoimmune
Islit at
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.health.diabetes/c/aOsrugeqYqs/m/MlI8I6PzAAAJ

- - -

Insulin / Insulin Pump / CGM I use

Fiasp Ultra-Fast-Acting Insulin in a tubeless
Omnipod insulin pump catheter placed into
skin / pod with adhesive stuck onto skin every
80 hours, control via PDM (Personal Data
Manager)
https://prohuman.net/pix2/Fiaspinsulin_tubelessOmnipodDASHinsulinpump.jpg

Dexcom G6 CGM (continuous glucose monitor)
https://prohuman.net/pix2/Dexcom_G6_CGM.jpg

- - -

Stop Diabetes/Diabetic Confusion
with New Superior Clarifying Terms
https://www.change.org/stopdiabetesdiabeticconfusionwithNewSuperiorClarifyingTerms

- - -

o Preventable Cellosis is the only specific
type of Disparate High Glucose Condition
that is preventable & reversible (in many,
sometimes it's called type 2 diabetes, often
confusingly called diabetes with no clarifier)

Risk for Preventable Cellosis, Hypertension,
& Cardiovascular Disease increases as one's
weight increases but BMI risk increases at
lower BMI levels in non-white individuals:
https://prohuman.net/pix2/BMI-WaistCircumference-Cellosis&Hypertension&CardiovascularDisease-Risk.jpg
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-05-bmi-offs-obesity-diabetes-non-white.html

o PreCellosis (often confusingly called predia-
betes with no clarifier) is the oft-times preven-
table & reversible Cellosis precondition that all-
too-often the overwhelming majority having it
are unaware they have it (almost 3 times more
have PreCellosis than have Cellosis).

o 20 specific types of Cellosis, unpreventable
& nonreversible (thus far, sometimes called
type 2 diabetes, all-too-often confusingly called
diabetes with no clarifier)

Per the following article, 5.3% with Cellosis
used exogenous insulin in 2019.
https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2019-12-13/tandem-diabetes-care-announces-fda-clearance-of-the-t-slim-x2-insulin-pump-with-control-iq-advanced-hybrid-closed-loop

- - -

o 4 other Disparate High Glucose Conditions
exist (Gestational Cellosis, Diminosis, Neonatal
Diminosis, Ohiglucons), all 7 DHGCs fully des-
cribed in the following article:

Logic and reasoning behind ceasing using
confusing / misleading / misinforming diabetes
& diabetic & reactive hypoglycemia words and
phrases, replacing all of that with vastly superior
clarifying names:

Diabetes Bubble / Diabetes Bubble Burst
https://prohuman.net/diabetesbubblediabetesbubbleburst.htm

~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~

[AntiPro&T1.1DM]

_ wrote:

> Here's the 90 day data:
>
> Glucose levels
>
> less than 55 mg/dl = 0.7% (goal is -0-)
> 55-69 mg/dl = 1.8% (higher than what I'd like)
> Time in range 70-180 mg/dl = 91.6% (acceptable
> but I'd like it to be higher)
> 181-250 mg/dl = 5.4% (not that bad)
>> 250 mg/dl = 0.5% (goal is -0-, but not that bad)

You can estimate your HbA1c at 6.1% from this data.

The math is an exercise for the reader.
--
APT1.1DM = SAID+T5 = SAID+(MARD/50) = T1.1, per Lancet 5 DM Groups.
Insulinitis = Insulitis: β-cell destruction by lymphocytes, not a disease name.
Islit, cellosis and diminosis are nonsense words used by 1 crazy person on Earth.

[_]

> _ wrote a lot, the replier inaccurately commenting
> (guessing incorrectly) about my latest lab tested
> HbA1c (full article is repeated below):
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.health.diabetes/c/IUIT6xassds/m/MFtsDRmKAwAJ

.> > Time in range, 91.6%, far higher than what
.> > has been presented for every artificial pan-
.> > creas project I've reviewed.
.> >
.> > Here's the 90 day data:
.> >
.> > Glucose levels
.> >
.> > less than 55 mg/dl = 0.7% (goal is -0-)
.> > 55-69 mg/dl = 1.8% (higher than what I'd like)
.> > Time in range 70-180 mg/dl = 91.6% (acceptable
.> > but I'd like it to be higher)
.> > 181-250 mg/dl = 5.4% (not that bad)
.> > > 250 mg/dl = 0.5% (goal is -0-, but not that bad)
.> >
.> > Insulin, total averages over last 90 days,
.> > 8.1 units basil, 12.2 units bolus, 20.3 total units
.> >
.> > Exercise, total averages over last 90 days,
.> > a smidge over 97 minutes per day (slightly
.> > over -3- 30 minute indoor exercise sessions
.> > per day)
.> >
.> > Calories, total averages over last 90 days
.> > (keeping in mind my averages prior to reach-
.> > ing my goal of 150 pounds on June 5 were
.> > lower than they've been since I've switched
.> > to maintenance mode), a bit less than 1,305
.> > calories per day.
.> >
.> > - - -

Latest HbA1c was 5.4%, obviously much
lower than the replier's inaccurate guess
due to my very high "time in range" of
91.6% & due to the manner in which the
Dexcom CGM's display typically is higher
than the actual glucose level when the
glucose level goes too high.
https://prohuman.net/clinicaltests.htm

~ * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - *
~
~ For clarity about the -7- Disparate High Glucose
~ Conditions (DHGCs) with -85- specific types, refer
~ to the following:
~ https://prohuman.net/diabetesbubblediabetesbubbleburst.htm
~ https://prohuman.net/pix2/diabetesbubblediabetesbubblebursttitle.jpg
~ https://prohuman.net/pix2/diabetesreactivehypoglycemiaoldnamesnewnames.jpg
~ https://prohuman.net/pix2/oldnamesnewimprovednames.jpg
~
~ Also, -6- specific types of a mostly non-glucose
~ anomaly Insipidus -and- -21- specific types of
~ Hypoglycemia Uncaused by Treatments for
~ High Glucose (Hut) are fully explained at the
~ following, beauteous bountiful Knowledge &
~ Power:
~
~ Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about
~ DHGCs, Insipidus, & Hut, but were afraid to
~ ask (or due to diabetes confusion, not knowing
~ enough to ask):
~ https://prohuman.net/diabetesbubblediabetesbubbleburst.htm
~
~ - - -
~
~ Stop Diabetes/Diabetic Confusion
~ with New Superior Clarifying Terms
~ https://www.change.org/stopdiabetesdiabeticconfusionwithNewSuperiorClarifyingTerms
~
~ * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - *

[AntiPro&T1.1DM]

AntiPro&T1.1DM wrote:

> _ wrote:
>
>> Here's the 90 day data:
>>
>> Glucose levels
>>
>> less than 55 mg/dl = 0.7% (goal is -0-)
>> 55-69 mg/dl = 1.8% (higher than what I'd like)
>> Time in range 70-180 mg/dl = 91.6% (acceptable
>> but I'd like it to be higher)
>> 181-250 mg/dl = 5.4% (not that bad)
>>> 250 mg/dl = 0.5% (goal is -0-, but not that bad)
>
> You can estimate your HbA1c at 6.1% from this data.
>
> The math is an exercise for the reader.

Follow-up 19 for a typo:

The estimated HbA1c is 6.2%. Added a 0.1% fudge.

[_]

https://groups.google.com/g/misc.health.diabetes/c/IUIT6xassds/m/73tpfqO-AwAJ

My last 90 days CGM readings, latest HbA1c
= 5.4, my time in range = 91.6%. The following
chart/article indicates why my HbA1c is so low
(note the time in range graphic which indicates
the higher one's time in range, the lower one's
HbA1c level):

Clinical Targets for CGM Data Interpretation
https://www.novomedlink.com/content/dam/novonordisk/novomedlink/patient-support/product-education/insulin/docs/Clinical_Targets_For_CGM_Data-Interpretation.pdf

Excerpt from chart/graphic on page 2:

Estimated A1C for a given TIR (time in range) level*

TIR 70-180 mg/dL A1C

........... 20% ......... 10.6%
........... 30% ......... 9.8%
........... 40% ......... 9.0%
........... 50% ......... 8.3%
........... 60% ......... 7.5%
........... 70% ......... 6.7%
........... 80% ......... 5.9%
........... 90% ......... 5.1%

Every 10% increase in TIR = ~0.8% A1C reduction.

* Participants with type 1 (Islit) or type 2 (Cellosis)
Disparate High Glucose Conditions within 18
randomized controlled trials, n=1,137.

~~~

So, my HbA1c = 5.4, per the above time
in range chart it should be 5.1, so I can
only guess why my HbA1c is .3 higher
than that chart says it should be, albeit
their inclusion of Cellosis individuals with
Islit individuals, 2 disparate conditions with ...

... different treatments / risk profiles, the
overwhelming majorityt of Cellosis indivi-
duals individuals *not* using exogenous
insulin, probably is enough to explain that.

End excerpt from linked to previous post:

. / Latest HbA1c was 5.4%, obviously much
. / lower than the replier's inaccurate guess
. / due to my very high "time in range" of
. / 91.6% & due to the manner in which the
. / Dexcom CGM's display typically is higher
. / than the actual glucose level when the
. / glucose level goes too high.
. / https://prohuman.net/clinicaltests.htm
. /
. / ~ * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - *
. / ~
. / ~ For clarity about the -7- Disparate High Glucose
. / ~ Conditions (DHGCs) with -85- specific types, refer
. / ~ to the following:
. / ~ https://prohuman.net/diabetesbubblediabetesbubbleburst.htm
. / ~ https://prohuman.net/pix2/diabetesbubblediabetesbubblebursttitle.jpg
. / ~ https://prohuman.net/pix2/diabetesreactivehypoglycemiaoldnamesnewnames.jpg
. / ~ https://prohuman.net/pix2/oldnamesnewimprovednames.jpg
. / ~
. / ~ Also, -6- specific types of a mostly non-glucose
. / ~ anomaly Insipidus -and- -21- specific types of
. / ~ Hypoglycemia Uncaused by Treatments for
. / ~ High Glucose (Hut) are fully explained at the
. / ~ following, beauteous bountiful Knowledge &
. / ~ Power:
. / ~
. / ~ Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about
. / ~ DHGCs, Insipidus, & Hut, but were afraid to
. / ~ ask (or due to diabetes confusion, not knowing
. / ~ enough to ask):
. / ~ https://prohuman.net/diabetesbubblediabetesbubbleburst.htm
. / ~
. / ~ - - -
. / ~
. / ~ Stop Diabetes/Diabetic Confusion
. / ~ with New Superior Clarifying Terms
. / ~ https://www.change.org/stopdiabetesdiabeticconfusionwithNewSuperiorClarifyingTerms
. / ~
. / ~ * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - *

[AntiPro&T1.1DM]

> AntiPro&T1.1DM wrote:
>
>> _ wrote:
>>
>>> Here's the 90 day data:
>>>
>>> Glucose levels
>>>
>>> less than 55 mg/dl = 0.7% (goal is -0-)
>>> 55-69 mg/dl = 1.8% (higher than what I'd like)
>>> Time in range 70-180 mg/dl = 91.6% (acceptable
>>> but I'd like it to be higher)
>>> 181-250 mg/dl = 5.4% (not that bad)
>>>> 250 mg/dl = 0.5% (goal is -0-, but not that bad)
>>
>> You can estimate your HbA1c at 6.1% from this data.
>>
>> The math is an exercise for the reader.
>
> Follow-up 19 for a typo:
>
> The estimated HbA1c is 6.2%. Added a 0.1% fudge.

Follow-up 11 for re-estimated HbA1c:

The average BG for 70-180 mg/dl is 125 mg/dl. That HbA1c is 6.0%.

Will skip the fudge this time. 6.0% is good enough for 90% TIR.

[_]

(repost to deal with google propensity
to arbitrarily replace sigs with "..." in
their effort to "control" what appears,
reminds me of what it must be like to
try to use the internet in mainland China,
but of course, not nearly as bad here as
it is there)

https://groups.google.com/g/misc.health.diabetes/c/IUIT6xassds/m/DSO6PZzHAwAJ

Last 90 days:

Per my CGM, my average glucose level
was 123 mg/dl, charts estimate that as an
HbA1c of 5.9, my HbA1c was 5.4, the article
referenced above says my Time in Range of
91.6%= HbA1c slightly less than 5.1, so I'll
leave it up to whomever understands these ...

... factors to explain why my HbA1c is higher
than what the referenced article of HbA1c for
Islit & Cellosis individuals (1,137 in 18 random-
ized controlled trials) reported in that article
https://www.novomedlink.com/content/dam/novonordisk/novomedlink/patient-support/product-education/insulin/docs/Clinical_Targets_For_CGM_Data-Interpretation.pdf

and lower than the HbA1c of 5.9 reported in
various HbA1c to estimated Average Glucose
(mg/dl) eAG for plasma calibrated meters charts.
https://www.diabeteschart.org/bloodsugarchart.html

Not sure what that is as my CGM is not a plasma
calibrated meter & my CGM uses interstitial fluid.
It's interesting that 5.4 is closer to the "time in
range" 5.1 than it is to the 5.9 in the chart above.

Things that make us go hmmm.

! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ !

Superior Clarifying Names first created &
defined in 2010, trying to replace outdated
anachronistic confusing misleading diabetes
/ diabetic / reactive hypoglycemia words &
phrases:

Diabetes Bubble / Diabetes Bubble Burst

Exemplary! https://prohuman.net/diabetesbubblediabetesbubbleburst.htm

C.ure I.nsulinitis A.ssociation
Outstanding! https://prohuman.net/cureinsulinitisassociation.htm

Glucose Anomalies Research regarding
Potential Cures / Improvements in Treatments
Sooner is Ideal! https://prohuman.net/glucoseanomaliesresearch.htm

! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ !

[AntiPro&T1.1DM]

_ wrote:

> Per my CGM, my average glucose level was 123 mg/dl, charts estimate that as an
> HbA1c of 5.9, my HbA1c was 5.4, the article referenced above says my Time
> in Range of 91.6%= HbA1c slightly less than 5.1, so I'll
> leave it up to whomever understands

OK. I understand your problem. You don't know how to use your CGM. That's
why you blow through so many sensors claiming they're defective. In reality,
you're the defective component in the CGM-pump-human system.

I also want to point out that the 70-180 mg/dl range for 100% TIR could have
an avreage BG of 70-180 mg/dl. This HbA1c range is 4.1% @70 to 7.9% @180.
So a 5.4% falls in that range. To expect a 5.1% from some study is stupid.

Your HbA1c can be 4.1-7.9% for 100% TIR. Don't be an islitIdiot.

[_]

In addition to the data in my previous posts
in this thread, other areas I excel at due to
my mastery of dealing with Islit with 24 hour
around the clock (even during sleep times,
waking up to increase insulin to lower glu-
cose levels too high or ingest carbs & turn ...

... off basil to respond to glucose levels too
low or near-too-low):

1) Coefficient of Variation (CV) April 18 to
July 16 was 28.1%, well below the recom-
mendation in the following article of "Gen-
erally speaking, most experts like to see a
CV of 33% or lower, which is considered a
marker of “stable” glucose levels. ..."

2) Standard Deviation (SD) of 35 mg/dl, be-
low the recommendation in the following art-
icle of "This means aiming for an SD that is
less than one third of the mean glucose."
https://diatribe.org/understanding-average-glucose-standard-deviation-cv-and-blood-sugar-variability

My mean glucose April 18 to July 16 was
123 mg/dl, so my SD per the article should
be < 41 mg/dl, which it is at SD of 35 mg/dl.

The above is in addition to my excellence
April 18 to July 16 with an Average (mean)
glucose of 123 mg/dl, a %time-in-range of
91.6%, a %High of 5.9%, a %Low of 2.5%.

Islit Excellence, exemplary, I'd estimate it's
better than close to 98% of Islit individuals,
and is the best that one can do without a
fully functional pancreas or an excellent
state-of-the-art closed loop CGM/insulin
pump system (which I'm planning on ...

... getting when the Omnipod 5 is available
early in 2022, hopefully).

Other details about my glucose levels not
in the previous posts in this thread, %s at
*every* glucose level range:

less than 55 mg/dl = 0.7%

55-59 mg/dl = 0.4%
60-64 mg/dl = 0.5%
65-69 mg/dl = 0.9%
70-79 mg/dl = 4.4%
80-89 mg/dl = 7.7%
90-99 mg/dl = 11.5%
100-109 mg/dl = 12.7%
110-119 mg/dl = 13.2%
120-129 mg/dl = 11.7%
130-139 mg/dl = 9.3%
140-149 mg/dl = 7.7%
150-159 mg/dl = 5.8%
160-169 mg/dl = 4.1%
170-180 mg/dl = 3.5%
181-189 mg/dl = 1.3%
190-199 mg/dl = 1.1%
200-209 mg/dl = 0.8%
210-219 mg/dl = 0.7%
220-229 mg/dl = 0.6%
230-239 mg/dl = 0.5%
240-250 mg/dl = 0.4%
greater than 250 mg/dl = 0.5%

.> https://groups.google.com/g/misc.health.diabetes/c/IUIT6xassds/m/DSO6PZzHAwAJ
.>
.> Last 90 days:
.>
.> Per my CGM, my average glucose level
.> was 123 mg/dl, charts estimate that as an
.> HbA1c of 5.9, my HbA1c was 5.4, the article
.> referenced above says my Time in Range of
.> 91.6%= HbA1c slightly less than 5.1, so I'll
.> leave it up to whomever understands these ...
.>
.> ... factors to explain why my HbA1c is higher
.> than what the referenced article of HbA1c for
.> Islit & Cellosis individuals (1,137 in 18 random-
.> ized controlled trials) reported in that article
.> https://www.novomedlink.com/content/dam/novonordisk/novomedlink/patient-support/product-education/insulin/docs/Clinical_Targets_For_CGM_Data-Interpretation.pdf
.>
.> and lower than the HbA1c of 5.9 reported in
.> various HbA1c to estimated Average Glucose
.> (mg/dl) eAG for plasma calibrated meters charts.
.> https://www.diabeteschart.org/bloodsugarchart.html
.>
.> Not sure what that is as my CGM is not a plasma
.> calibrated meter & my CGM uses interstitial fluid.
.> It's interesting that 5.4 is closer to the "time in
.> range" 5.1 than it is to the 5.9 in the chart above.
.>
.> Things that make us go hmmm.
.>
.> ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ !
.>
.> Superior Clarifying Names first created &
.> defined in 2010, trying to replace outdated
.> anachronistic confusing misleading diabetes
.> / diabetic / reactive hypoglycemia words &
.> phrases:
.> Diabetes Bubble / Diabetes Bubble Burst
.> Exemplary! https://prohuman.net/diabetesbubblediabetesbubbleburst.htm
.>
.> C.ure I.nsulinitis A.ssociation
.> Outstanding! https://prohuman.net/cureinsulinitisassociation.htm
.>
.> Glucose Anomalies Research regarding
.> Potential Cures / Improvements in Treatments
.> Sooner is Ideal! https://prohuman.net/glucoseanomaliesresearch.htm
.>
.> ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ !