4 ms·

You don't need a CGM, just get a GM. I had a case where I wanted to see the effect of foods, and the feeling of blood sugar levels that change during the day. I

You don't need a CGM, just get a GM. I had a case where I wanted to see the effect of foods, and the feeling of blood sugar levels that change during the day. I thought of going through one of the brands to get one but the per month price was decently high. The other issue with CGMs is they're for people with high blood sugar, so they're more tuned to high levels, not low levels you'd have from hypoglycemia, so I'm not sure how accurate those numbers would be. Besides, it's 15 minutes late and doesn't test the blood sugar directly (got this info when asked nutritionist friend who helps people with CGMs). Getting the normal glucose meter was great. The poking of the needle barely causes an effect, and you can get pretty ingrained with numbers. The first couple weeks with the thing I went through tons of tests, before meals, various times after meals, and then if the sugar level was high, meaning over 130 for me, I'd go for a 10 minute walk and could see and feel that the numbers dropped to the low 100s so quickly. At this point I can tell decently well what level my number is. The glucose monitor with poking stick is really great. Better, faster, cheaper, more trustworthy data than the current continuous monitors out there.

lurking_swe 3y ago
excluding cost (i recognize that’s a big con), is a traditional glucose meter really better? You have to plan/remember to take your readings. SUPER awkward if on the go with friends for example. I’m also not really seeing the big deal if it doesn’t measure the actual blood reading. Unless you’re trying to do a scientific study. A CGM is good at spotting large changes in blood sugar - that’s really all that matters for the average person that’s trying to learn what foods / activities bother them right? For example “i ate X and 15 min later my blood sugar spiked, maybe i should avoid X.” It’s also harder to see how quickly your body responds to light exercise unless you carry your poking stick with you lol. Maybe i’m missing the bigger picture?
- jackschultz 3y ago
  I found it was better. I didn't mention this in first comment, but nutritionalist friend got me a couple test CGMs after I'd been using normal GM with blood samples for a few weeks. I'd check them both at the same time, and many times the CGM was quite off, both on the super low and super high. There were points where I'd look at the CGM, see the number, feel that it was probably way off, and then test the blood and see that my feeling was correct. Your example is definitely the thing I wanted both glucose monitors for. The CGM didn't seem that great at the giant spikes. With the GM, I'd test numbers right before eating, then 10 minutes into eating, 20, 30, etc. Sure it involved poking my finger, but those were much more informative. than the 15 minutes CGM time frames and the fact the those numbers weren't close to as correct as the blood GM. True about the light exercise unless you have the poking stick with you. What I did was have an internal treadmill in my apartment building. Example would be test 20 minutes after food, see and feel a 140 reading from the GM, go down and walk for 10 minutes, come back up add see and feel the drop to 100. Learning the feels has been invaluable, and the CGM wouldn't have gotten me the same quick time information that I could trust compared with real time from the direct source.
  - lurking_swe 3y ago
    very interesting. thanks for sharing your experience!

lurking_swe 3y ago

excluding cost (i recognize that’s a big con), is a traditional glucose meter really better? You have to plan/remember to take your readings. SUPER awkward if on the go with friends for example. I’m also not really seeing the big deal if it doesn’t measure the actual blood reading. Unless you’re trying to do a scientific study. A CGM is good at spotting large changes in blood sugar - that’s really all that matters for the average person that’s trying to learn what foods / activities bother them right? For example “i ate X and 15 min later my blood sugar spiked, maybe i should avoid X.” It’s also harder to see how quickly your body responds to light exercise unless you carry your poking stick with you lol. Maybe i’m missing the bigger picture?

jackschultz 3y ago
I found it was better. I didn't mention this in first comment, but nutritionalist friend got me a couple test CGMs after I'd been using normal GM with blood samples for a few weeks. I'd check them both at the same time, and many times the CGM was quite off, both on the super low and super high. There were points where I'd look at the CGM, see the number, feel that it was probably way off, and then test the blood and see that my feeling was correct. Your example is definitely the thing I wanted both glucose monitors for. The CGM didn't seem that great at the giant spikes. With the GM, I'd test numbers right before eating, then 10 minutes into eating, 20, 30, etc. Sure it involved poking my finger, but those were much more informative. than the 15 minutes CGM time frames and the fact the those numbers weren't close to as correct as the blood GM. True about the light exercise unless you have the poking stick with you. What I did was have an internal treadmill in my apartment building. Example would be test 20 minutes after food, see and feel a 140 reading from the GM, go down and walk for 10 minutes, come back up add see and feel the drop to 100. Learning the feels has been invaluable, and the CGM wouldn't have gotten me the same quick time information that I could trust compared with real time from the direct source.
- lurking_swe 3y ago
  very interesting. thanks for sharing your experience!