Search Results

My relationship has changed, and I'm not happy. Over the past three weeks, I've lost so much trust in what I'm being told that I'm looking at "playing the field" again.

The relationship I'm talking about is the one with my glucometer.

Rating (0) 0

Email this Comments (1)

To everything there is a level of precision, a degree of reliability, or a standard beyond which improvement is either unachievable, or requires huge investments of time and money well beyond the benefit of that improvement. Companies may refer to this point as "zero return on investment". Most of us just call it "good enough for jazz", "good enough for government work", or simply, "good enough".

It has been said that our ideal blood glucose levels "should" never vary outside the range of 80-126, ever -- but most of us don't have CGMs, none of us have glucose measurement technology with accuracy of greater than 5% (expanding that range out to 76-132) and even if we had them, we'd need infinitesimally-small amounts of ultra-fast acting insulin to keep it there every time it budged a point or two. For most of us, a two-hour postprandial reading of 140 is "good enough".

Rating (0) 0

Email this Comments (0)

If anything can make having diabetes "fun", it's the cool toys I get to play with. While I don't consider myself within the normal confines of geekiness, I'm one of those folk who feel lost without multiple computers and a broadband Internet connection to-hand, and the ability to capture and analyze data up the wing-wah. (Whether or not I actually use that ability, or use it consistently, is another story.)

Managing diabetes falls right into the obsessions of a data wonk.

Rating (0) 0

Email this Comments (3)