T Nation

Blood Glucose Values - Cy?

Cy - I just skimmed your article (will read in depth later), but I saw your values for fasting glucose values and needed to comment. Granted there is a little room for interpretation, but a fasting glucose >120 mg/dl usually is indicative of diabetes. A glucose over 110 mg/dl or so is usually indicative of impaired glucose tolerance. Granted there is even more room for interpretation when it comes to non-fasted glucoses, but anything over 200 mg/dl is way too high. One hour post meal, it should be back down to 140 mg/dl or less. Where did you get your normal fasting range of 50-400 mg/dl?

This is an interesting issue, so does anybody else have some comments. I'll read through in more detail and add anything else.

Yes you are right. You really don’t want
fasted glucose to be any lower than 60, and
ideally (from a health perspective) not any
higher than maybe 90. According to an MD I’ve
recently talked to, a fasted reading greater
than 110 is now considered indicative of
diabetes. But I’m not Cy, so I’ll let him
respond…

Free Extropian - You are more than welcome to respond as well as anybody else. This is an area that we rarely touch on in the forum and I thought Cy’s article would be a good kick off. I do a lot of health screenings and see a lot of messed up glucose, HDL and total cholesterol numbers (these are the most commmon variables to measure for a health screen) and have to tell a lot of people that they are likely diabetic or have terrible cholesterol.

Anyway, one of the MD's I work with would agree with you. A fasting glucose of 90-110 mg/dl is usually considered high normal and anything over 110 mg/dl is considered abnormal. For our diabetes intervention program, we accept people with fasting glucose's >120 mg/dl and non-fasting glucoses >140 mg/dl.

Not an interesting issue at all, just a simple mistake I made in self-editing. I can’t believe I even wrote that! Anyhow, 50-400 mg/dl are the “Critical Values” meaning anything below 50 or above 400 in an adult is considered a serious medical condition or something is seriously wrong.

No, nothing interesting, just a mistake on my part when self-editing. The values I listed are “Critical Values” which are those that when reached are a sign of a serious medical condition and immediate action should be taken to treat it, or the results were badly skewed. Anyhow, I should have caught that mistake. The normal range is 65-120 mg/dl.

Yeah, I figure it was just a proofreading mistake. Anyway, I was not referring to your mistake when I mentioned that this was an interesting issue. Rather, I was referring to results of lab studies in general and was hoping to maybe use your article as a jumping ground to talk about some of the various tests and what the results really mean.