Has the American Diabetes Association changed it's mind on blood sugar number.

By RosalieM Latest Reply 2015-02-27 13:58:33 -0600
Started 2015-02-24 16:46:20 -0600

The last time I checked (a long time ago) the American diabetes Association said before meal blood sugar and fasting should be 100 or less. 2 hours after a meal 150.
Now they say Before meal 70-130 and 2 hours after a meal 180 or less. The new target for A1c is 7.
that is an average blood sugar reading of 154. Why is everyone still trying to get A1c down to 5
or less? Has your doctor been updated. I know why they changed, because their experiments with
tight control using drugs and insulin and no diet, killed people they had to stop early because of the deaths. I knew this as I read medical journals. I told my doctor and he agreed with me. Those bastards, they wouldn't admit to their failure up front so we would know. Those drugs are dangerous,
if you can get your blood sugar to an A1c of 7 with out drugs, you will be much better off than an A1c of 5 and those drugs. I have never had an A1c below 7 in the last 20 years and I have no problems
and don't take drugs. I suggested to my doctor that try to get my A1c down to five. He said NO don't do that. He is up to date.

22 replies

haoleboy 2015-02-25 09:56:30 -0600 Report

The theory that deaths occur because of lower A1c's was based on the ACCORD Study and has been shown to be false http://bit.ly/1DaQeeI
Not sure where you are getting this info but it appears to be outdated,


RosalieM 2015-02-25 12:40:58 -0600 Report

Hi Steve,
I read that article, thanks for it. It looks like a cover their but article to me.
They now say that they don't know the reason for the increased deaths.
If they don't know how can they rule something out. The real evidence is that the American Diabetes Association has changed their A1c target number to 7, no longer below 6.
This is my opinion just to make that clear. I suspect the drugs caused the
increased number of deaths. This is not my opinion. Diabetes drugs have heart warnings on them. Drugs also don't prevent complications and cause weight gain (accept for metformin)making diabetes worse.. Metformin causes B12 shortages and doesn't prevent complications. Why can't they just say that? If they would have used the correct diet, they wouldn't have had to use so many drugs and insulin on the people in the study and there wouldn't have so many deaths.

haoleboy 2015-02-25 14:47:50 -0600 Report

you keep saying that the ADA recently RAISED their recommendation for A1c to 7%.
I know for a fact that 7% was their recommendation when I was diagnosed in 2007.
It is my understanding that the ADA has NEVER recommended A1c's below 6% … if you can show me something I would be very grateful.

here's some additional reading on that flawed ACCORD study.


RosalieM 2015-02-27 10:51:13 -0600 Report

I haven't checked for a long time, so it may have been 7 for some time. I was diagnosed in1994.
Here is a question. If the ADA has had their A1c7 a long time, and I am not doubting what you say, then why are people being given drugs until they are 5 something. Why not stop drugs at A1c7
if that is safe? It looks to me like only when A1c 8 is or more that blood sugar becomes as dangerous than the drugs. Getting an A1c from 8 down to 6 with drugs doesn't prevent complications. That is well established. Shouldn't we be told this so we can
make a choice to get our diet right?

Toobsie 2015-02-27 11:14:04 -0600 Report

Hi Rosalie, is it possible to get my bs back to normal with diet and ex. I'm not on any meds. Diagnosed with A1c level of 6.5 4 months ago now 6.3 is it harder to get it below 6 without meds?

jayabee52 2015-02-27 11:25:37 -0600 Report

Howdy Toobsie
If you are asking if you can be shed of diabetes (as in "cure") it is not possible. However if you eat a very low carb and high protein meal plan you may well be able to get your A1c down to 5.5% without meds as I did.

God's best to you

jayabee52 2015-02-25 10:47:03 -0600 Report

Thanks for sharing this link Steve.
There is another link at the end of that article to which you linked which adds a bit to the study ~ http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/index.php?op...

Yes I agree that the info from the original ACCORD study is outdated.


RosalieM 2015-02-25 12:58:17 -0600 Report

The article says nothing new from the first one Steve mentioned. The ADA did raised it's A1c target to 7, from below 6. It says so in this article. They did not address the heart damaging affects of diabetes drugs themselves in this article. This is a cover up job. Nothing about diet at all. Some of the research subjects who had diabetes complications already may have been a factor in their deaths. Proper diet, if they complied, may have saved their lives. Giving lots of heart damaging drugs to people who already have heart damage makes no sense. Starting with a correct diet with smaller amounts of drugs and insulin, may have saved their lives.
The ADA doesn't get diet or doesn't want to admit to the fact that did no research on diet and diabetes.

haoleboy 2015-02-24 18:56:37 -0600 Report

The 2013 ADA Standards of Medical Care advise the following A1C levels:
• 6.5 percent or less for people with diabetes who are not prone to hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) or problems from treatment, such as weight gain from the use of insulin or metformin. The more stringent goal may be best for people who are younger, have had diabetes for no more than 10 years, or have no significant cardiovascular disease.
• 7 percent or less for newly diagnosed people with type 2 diabetes. At this level, studies have shown that people with type 2 diabetes have fewer long-term complications such as retinopathy and nerve damage if that target can be achieved and sustained over the years.
• 8 percent or less for people with a history of severe hypoglycemia, limited life expectancy (such as a debilitating illness), or type 2 diabetes for many years.

RosalieM 2015-02-27 13:28:31 -0600 Report

That is certainly a valid conclusion. I wonder how many doctors understand
all those variables? Most of them don't get diet at all. Mine doesn't seem to. And he is conscientious.

haoleboy 2015-02-24 18:09:43 -0600 Report

Numerous studies have shown an increased likelihood of complications at blood glucose levels over 140 (and even perhaps 120).
Several cited here: http://bit.ly/1w9Fmv2

Excess glucose in the blood (excess defined as more than normal) leads to an increase in Advanced Glycation End-products (AGE's) . An increased presence of AGE's has been linked to the development and worsening of many diseases (diabetes is just one of those diseases).

You have been extremely lucky dodging the complications bullet … not all of us have been as fortunate.

My goal is to avoid further complications (like another stroke) and to keep the ones I have from getting worse by keeping my blood glucose levels normal (or as close as possible by way of lifestyle and, if needed, a relatively safe medication (metformin).


RosalieM 2015-02-27 13:58:33 -0600 Report

Hi Steve,
I read your link and more of the links on the link. Some about heart disease and blood sugar of 140. There is one thing that seemed consistent to me, that is most of the subjects had metabolic disease without diagnosable diabetes. Metabolic disease, includes high blood pressure and high cholesterol which includes triglycerides(from carbs) and obesity (which in one place said) leads to lack of exercise.. Now the nerve fiber damage could have come from poor circulation due to high blood pressure and a sedentary lifestyle. The slightly high blood sugar probably occurred along with the poor circulation. But was the high blood sugar or circulation the cause of the nerve fiber damage? Without that information, you could get blood sugar of A1C of 5 and still have complications and heart disease. In reading studies, I always try to look for what they don't say. Blood circulation is everything. It was not mentioned as a possible cause.
It should have been ruled out before concluding it was blood sugar.
They did suggest that this study justified giving metformin! Drugs do not prevent complications even though they lower blood sugar.. Something is not clear here. I have no complications but I have excellent blood circulation and no high blood pressure. That is what made me think of this possibility.

RosalieM 2015-02-25 06:16:36 -0600 Report

Hi Steve,
Avoiding further complications for you is a good thing. Can't argue with that. I have escaped problems because of my lifestyle, No processed foods ever and regular exercise. For most of the years that I have been diabetic.
I didn't have as low of carb diet as I do now. Weight loss and maintenance been most effective for me.

haoleboy 2015-02-25 11:38:47 -0600 Report

I have eaten low carb and exercised regularly and maintained an A1c at or under 6.0 since 6 months of diagnosis. While believe a healthy lifestyle helps, my experience has led me to believe there is a lot more to avoiding complications than just that (genetics perhaps?)


RosalieM 2015-02-25 13:03:53 -0600 Report

Do you know how long you had diabetes before you
were diagnosed? That may figure in. Was your lifestyle healthy before you were diagnosed?
My genetics include heart disease, dementia, diabetes and stroke.

RosalieM 2015-02-24 18:00:36 -0600 Report

The rules have been changed, google American Diabetes Association Blood Glucose numbers. Every doctor uses those numbers.

haoleboy 2015-02-24 18:12:24 -0600 Report

BOTH neurologists I have seen recommended keeping A1c UNDER 6.0

RosalieM 2015-02-25 06:25:17 -0600 Report

You neurologists follow the American Diabetes Association. They may not have been updated or they feel because of your
history, they are being very I cautious. I am not saying having an A1c of 6 is bad. What I am saying is getting an A1c of 6 or less often can be only done with the drugs. The experiments the ADA and the government did caused people to die at a higher rate. It wasn't their blood sugar that killed them, but the drugs. The ADA has not been honest and up front about that. We have the right to know so we can make choices. How many diabetics have felt guilty because they couldn't get an A1c of 5.

suecsdy 2015-02-24 17:15:06 -0600 Report

The more recent guidelines are what I was given as far as mealtime BG, but was still told less tan 6 for A1c I am at 6.4 and my brfore meal reads are consistently under 100 for the most part,but I am on insulin.

RosalieM 2015-02-25 06:27:38 -0600 Report

What you were told about your A1c being less than 6 is obsolete. If you can do it without drugs good for you.

RebDee 2015-02-25 13:42:39 -0600 Report

So what I think that I have learned is that our A1c should be between 7.0 and 5.5. Hurray, mine is 6.2!!