K'neH'a'Iw wrote:
Me, too, but, for me, that's potentially because of my ignorance.

If your A1c is x and my A1c is y and y>x, but each is within the range or
'norma', does this mean I should try harder to get mine down? I wouldn't think
so. It even looks like getting into the 5% club may be easier for some, than
others. Does anyone else see it this way?

Whatever, it is a little Twilight Zone..... maybe even a lot.

Jennifer wrote:
Ah ha. I'm not as ignorant as I thought. I posted something similar before
reading your post. I merely indicated that it appeared to be easier for some ,
than others, to get into the 5% club.

In case we vote on this <VBG>, I second your proposal.

(Now, will you please tell me if you use an endo, and if so, at UCLA. TIA)

NormC wrote:

I think everyone should be trying to get theirs down.
I don't want to be in th normal range I want to be in
the exceptional range. What is the normal range for
your lab includes more people who have impaired
glucose tolerance?

It is probably easier for some than other.

The lack of a universal standard is what troubles me.

--
K'neH'a'Iw

Uncloaking, Shields up.

Frank Roy wrote:

this sounds like the testing methods are faulty.
Remember that the Aic is reported as percentage. If
the lab is accurately measuring the prercentage of
blood glyciated with the A1c. All accurate lab results
shhould be that same within a reasonable margin for
error and avriability. That some lab are consistently
reporting differant results means that they are not
measuring the same thing.

It worries me a lot that this important yard stick is
not better standardized.
--
K'neH'a'Iw

Uncloaking, Shields up.

NormC wrote:


Actually, I was dx'd by my primary care doctor, and she is a professor
of women's health at UCLA, and a physician in their "Family Health
Center". I've used her as my only diabetes doc for the entire time.

She's been great. I do go to an eye specialist once a year for a
retinopathy test.

Jennifer

First step is to determine who has the answer..... the receptionist?
phflebotomist (sp?)? Both unlikely.

If the lab is off-site and/or part of a chain, one might have to contact the
central office.

Be interesting to ask the referring doctor.

John wrote:

K'neH'a'Iw wrote:
Indeed. But learning that there doesn't seem to be one is great.

Jennifer wrote:
Thank you.

The real answer is in the specific piece of lab testing equipment
instruction manual or with the design engineers.

Has anyone established whether the difference in lab "normals" is a
difference in what has been measured or a difference in interpretation.

For example: If my tire pressure is 28 psi and measures 28 psi on all
accurate tire guages, one garage might tell me that 28 is "normal" inflation
for that tire. Another might tell me that 32 is the normal inflation for
that tire. The inflation of the tired hasn't changed, it is still 28 psi,
all that changes is the garage's definition of normal. (This happened to me,
BTW <g>)

Or is this like measuring the tire pressure and one guage says 28 psi and
the other says 32 psi for the same tire?

I find it hard to believe it is the latter.

-- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes,
hba1c 5.2.
Cut the carbs to respond to my email address!

Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes and more at
http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/

Looking for help controlling your blood sugar?
Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/...0Diagnosed.htm



"John" <bounce@here.org> wrote in message
news:aTnLb.5544$CM4.2992@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

And we haven't even explored the whole issue of what "sample" these labs use
to calibrate their equipment. Calibration may be a far more important
issue.

"K'neH'a'Iw" <K'neH'a'Iw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ROkLb.19096$7D3.6944@fed1read02...

"Jenny" <> wrote in message news.rcn.com...
it's the calibration that varies...... so the above tire pressure guage
statement is the one that applies to the varying "lab normal" ranges

Chakolate <chakolateDeathToSpammers@hotmail.com> quoth:
Chak, the printout with my results on it shows the normal range for the
lab for all the ones I've had (from two different medical practices).

Priscilla

Priscilla H Ballou <phb@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in
news:btmu75$d5r$2@pcls4.std.com:

Okay, thanks. I'll ask to see it next time. Last time the A1c results
weren't ready yet, so they're not on my printout.

Chakolate


--
You might as well fall flat on your face as lean over too far backward.
--James Thurber

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:14:45 -0500, Frank Roy <froy@erols.com> wrote:

In a nutshell, that is my concern.

Sleepy


-----------------------------------------------------------
You can tell those republicans sure do like the poor folks,
They just keep helping create more and more of them!
-----------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 09:04:58 -0800, Jennifer
<jenniferNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote:

club! I wish I could be there, but I don't think I will ever make it
on a regular basis, though I did make it once. Confusion reigns.

Sleepy


-----------------------------------------------------------
You can tell those republicans sure do like the poor folks,
They just keep helping create more and more of them!
-----------------------------------------------------------

MrBill wrote:
The "normal" range for TSH according to many labs
(and until last year, according to the AACE) is
0.5 to 4.5 and how that was derived is that it is
the range that 95% of people tested fit into.

However, one of the reasons the AACE adjusted it
also applies to A1C: It is said that more than
five percent of the population have diabetes.
The percentage of people having an A1c test may be
even higher. Therefore, the 95% includes people
with diabetes!

HOWEVER, I do not know if the 95% method is how they
decided the "normal" range (reference range) for A1c