You may be at risk for diabetes if...

Anyone else here bristle when you are presented with these statements?

I mean, no $4!†, Sherlock. I have diabetes. I am no longer at risk for the condition, it exists in me.

So why does my lab's A1c, if it exceeds 5.8, say "You are at risk for diabetes" rather than "You are within guidelines for someone with diabetes"? Did my diabetes suddenly go away just because I don't need to take pills or shots to control it?

Now, I know I'd be really peeved if I didn't have diabetes and a 5.8 A1c read, "You have excellent control of your diabetes" -- but come on, some contextual information, please -- or better yet, placing 5.8 in the "higher than reference normal" category and letting my doctor do the talking.

...you are a woman who has had a baby weighing more than 9 pounds at birth

Considering how many of my once-pregnant younger friends and colleagues stated their doctors wanted their full-term newborns to weigh more than eight pounds to begin with, isn't that pretty much every woman under 40 who has borne a child? (Back when I was born, the typical weight of a full-term baby was between five and a half and seven pounds. Most babies weighing more than eight pounds -- what few of them there were -- had to be delivered by Caesarian section. There's a story in here, but not one which I've researched.)

...you are 65 years of age or older

Based on the Diabetes Detection Initiative's checklist, that alone is enough risk that just sitting on your butt most of the day means you're at high risk for diabetes. Just by getting old?

I'm going to skip the rest of the scare tactics, because many are right on the money -- including the note,

Even without these signs [the typical type 1 presentation], you could still have diabetes.

Awareness is a good thing. Screening is a good thing. Treatment is a good thing.

But why tell me I'm "at risk" for something I already have?