My glucose average over the last 3 months is 96. Me Happy
Damn right! Congrats man!
So help me to understand my blood work here.
Estimated Average Glucose
Average Glucose is calculated using the equation AG = (28.7 × HgbAic) - 46.7
I’ve never had to monitor this so I’m pretty ignorant about it so is this saying that my glucose is 103 or is it 46.7?
What was the value of your HbA1C?
“Average glucose” is a guess. It is based on the assumption that your erythrocytes (red blood corpuscles) last for 90 days. If you are healthy enough to have erythrocytes that last longer, they will pick up extra glucose, and therefore your HbA1C will appear artificially larger. Similarly, if you are unhealthy, and your erythrocytes don’t make it to the 90-day mark, then they won’t be as glycated, and your HbA1C will appear artificially lower.
Whiat this all means is that you have to treat HbA1C with caution, and that estimating your average glucose over the past three months is inherently a guess. It can be helpful, but should not be taken as gospel. The only way to know what your glucose actually was, is to have worn a continuous glucose monitor.
HbA1c is an estimate (sometimes poor) of your daily blood sugar for some time period, say 90 days, but it depends on how long your red blood cells live. You start with that, and then get an estimate of average blood sugar level:
That formula is here:
If you had 103, then your HbA1c = (103 + 46.7)/28.7 = 5.2.
5.2 as @ctviggen said and according to the test on another page.
From what little I understand, those numbers are decent, right?
I and surprised that they are as high as they are because I avoid all sugars and all sweeteners. I even check food labels and eat as clean as I can.
What was it before?
I think they’re great.
I’d also survey fasting blood glucose.
When I plug 5.2 into the formula you posted earlier, I get 98.9 as a three-month average, which is not bad.
So I don’t think you have anything to worry about.
LDL was 165 and I was on statins. As soon as I found out how worthless statins were I got off of them.
I forgot to convert the U.S. units to European: 98.9 mg/dL = 5.49 mmol/L.
And your glucose?
I know now many say high cholesterol is ok, but I don’t want to have anything high on me. I have a fobia of too much rolling into my capillaries as bricks inside a delicate pipe. I don’t see LDL as bad! I love mine. But I don’t want it to be too high, either. Fluffy, floaties, or whatever. I want to have my wonderful LDL not low, but also not too high.
But I try to control it with diet, not with statins. I also don’t want to take statins.
My glucose was 103.
Not only is high cholesterol ok but it’s essential to a metabolicly healthy body.
Many studies have showed than those with higher LDL’s, higher HDL’s and lower triglycerides have better cardiovascular health than those with low LDL and of course this all relates to having low glucose also.
I need to do more reading on the high cholesterol issue.
Just for the record, I don’t want to have low LDL. But I’m not sure the higher the better. My questions are like: how high was the LDL of the subjects of the research papers that concluded that the higher LDL the better? Perhaps the highest was 130 mg/dL. Or was it 700? That’s what I need to research.
Also, who were these subjects? Young men? Old men? Menopausal women?
Before I research deeper on it, I’m cautious. I don’t want my LDL exploding while I’m not sure the higher the better really means the sky is the limit, and that “the sky is the limit” applies for women in my condition.
From the little I know about animals like us, there’s always un upper limit, a threshold above which it’s not good anymore.
From my research there is no danger to having high LDL’s when you are metabolically healthy.
The real marker would be your triglycerides and HDL ratio. It is best if your Triglycerides are less than 100 and you HDL’s are greater than 50. You divide the Triglycerides by the HDL to get the ratio and what you are shooting for is 1.5 or lower.
For instance, my triglycerides as of last week were 87 and my HDL was 57 so that puts my ratio at 1.5. Those are good numbers for good cardiovascular health.
My total cholesterol is 299 with my LDL at 225. The LDL has absolutely no bearing on my health and good for my metabolic health.
Check out this Shawn Baker podcast with David Diamond. It’s very informative.
Among the studies to check out are MRFIT, the Women’s Health Initiative, and the Nurses’ Study. They were large, well-funded studies. You could also look at the Framingham Study, but I’m told they buried the cholesterol results in an obscure part of one of the reports, so you’d probably have to do your own data reanalysis. Then there are also the Minnesota Coronary Survey and the Sydney Heart Study.
There are also a number of studies on people with familial hypercholesterolaemia, which are very interesting, because half of that population doesn’t get heart disease, despite their elevated LDL. Some of those studies have focussed on what makes the people who do get heart disease different from their relatives who don’t, and they’ve come up will really interesting results.
It’s a shame we don’t know more about cholesterol and its role in the body, apart from the fact that it forms part of every cell wall, has a role in the immune system, is the precursor of Vitamin D and the reproductive hormones, is necessary for the transmission of nerve impulses and the formation of memories, forms part of the myelin sheathes of nerves, and makes up something like 25% of the fat in the brain. Other than that, we know very little, so far.
In American units, a ratio of triglycerides/HDL that is 2.0 or lower indicates minimal cardiovascular risk. The 1.5 you cite is a good indicator of insulin sensitivity. The equivalent ratios in the units used elsewhare in the world are 0.9 and 0.7, respectively.
From my understanding that is a good thing. Are you saying it’s not?
Absolutely not. A ratio of 1.5 is superb. The point of the post was merely to provide the equivalent numbers in European units. I’m sorry that the wording sounded off.