# What are ideal blood sugar levels for preventing repeat strokes, heart attacks?



## Northerner (Sep 30, 2021)

Blood sugar control has always been important for people with diabetes when it comes to preventing a stroke. But a new study finds for people with diabetes who have a stroke, there may be an ideal target blood sugar range to lower the risk of different types of vascular diseases like a stroke or heart attack later on. The research is published in the September 29, 2021, online issue of _Neurology®_, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology.

"We know that having diabetes may be associated with an increased risk of having a first stroke," said study author Moon-Ku Han, MD, PhD, of Seoul National University College of Medicine in Korea. "But our results indicate that there is an optimal blood sugar level that may start to minimize the risk of having another stroke, a heart attack or other vascular problems, and it's right in the 6.8% to 7.0% range."









						What are ideal blood sugar levels for preventing repeat strokes, heart attacks?
					

Blood sugar control has always been important for people with diabetes when it comes to preventing a stroke. But a new study finds for people with diabetes who have a stroke, there may be an ideal target blood sugar range to lower the risk of different types of vascular diseases like a stroke or...



					www.sciencedaily.com


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Sep 30, 2021)

To clarify, they're not saying you want an HbA1c between 6.8% and 7.0%. Lower is better and somewhere around 6.8-7.0% things get quite a bit worse.


----------



## Robin (Sep 30, 2021)

This is what really annoys me about those 'heart risk calculator' things. As soon as you add 'Diabetes' it lops about 10 years off your life expectancy, but nowhere can you put in what your HbA1c is. And given the recent Annual Diabetes Audit figures, which show a very small percentage of Type 1 diabetics achieving the recommended levels, surely this has to be relevant.








						National Diabetes Audit, 2019-20 , Type 1 Diabetes - NHS Digital
					

This is the first National Diabetes Audit (NDA)  report dedicated to people with type 1 diabetes.




					digital.nhs.uk


----------



## nonethewiser (Sep 30, 2021)

One fear is stroke, seen damage it does.


----------



## mikeyB (Sep 30, 2021)

Strokes are multifactorial, it's not just the diabetes, it's BP, cholesterol levels, smoking, obesity, and cheating on your wife or life partner, or in one genuine case I saw as a War Widow's Pension Claim, masturbating while watching porn while wife was out shopping. 

As far as being diabetic lops 10 years off your life expectancy, that's just an actuarial figure for insurance companies. It's all the folk who don't keep their diabetes under control through negligence that bring that average down. The whole population life expectancy has fallen by a couple of years recently, partly due to 50-60 year old and younger people dying from Covid, and an increase in younger male suicides.


----------



## trophywench (Sep 30, 2021)

Aaah @mikeyB - poor old bugger.


----------



## Deleted member 33972 (Sep 30, 2021)

nonethewiser said:


> One fear is stroke, seen damage it does.


I’m old! Things become normal


----------



## Deleted member 33972 (Sep 30, 2021)

mikeyB said:


> Strokes are multifactorial, it's not just the diabetes, it's BP, cholesterol levels, smoking, obesity, and cheating on your wife or life partner, or in one genuine case I saw as a War Widow's Pension Claim, masturbating while watching porn while wife was out shopping.
> 
> As far as being diabetic lops 10 years off your life expectancy, that's just an actuarial figure for insurance companies. It's all the folk who don't keep their diabetes under control through negligence that bring that average down. The whole population life expectancy has fallen by a couple of years recently, partly due to 50-60 year old and younger people dying from Covid, and an increase in younger male suicides.


¿seriousamente? !Dios  Mío !


----------



## Deleted member 33972 (Sep 30, 2021)

Bruce Stephens said:


> To clarify, they're not saying you want an HbA1c between 6.8% and 7.0%. Lower is better and somewhere around 6.8-7.0% things get quite a bit worse.


Thanks for that Bruce! I will sleep sound knowing this lol


----------



## travellor (Oct 1, 2021)

Bruce Stephens said:


> To clarify, they're not saying you want an HbA1c between 6.8% and 7.0%. Lower is better and somewhere around 6.8-7.0% things get quite a bit worse.


Yes, it's like that study that said women need really high cholesterol to live longer.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Oct 7, 2021)

Bruce Stephens said:


> To clarify, they're not saying you want an HbA1c between 6.8% and 7.0%. Lower is better and somewhere around 6.8-7.0% things get quite a bit worse.





Robin said:


> This is what really annoys me about those 'heart risk calculator' things. As soon as you add 'Diabetes' it lops about 10 years off your life expectancy, but nowhere can you put in what your HbA1c is. And given the recent Annual Diabetes Audit figures, which show a very small percentage of Type 1 diabetics achieving the recommended levels, surely this has to be relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think there’s possibly a confounder for people with T1 and low A1c, in that as a measure it does not capture glucose variability and severity/exposure to hypoglycaemia.

Frequent hypos, especially nasty ones, are associated with adverse cardiac events. 

Rock and a hard place!


----------



## Robin (Oct 7, 2021)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> I think there’s possibly a confounder for people with T1 and low A1c, in that as a measure it does not capture glucose variability and severity/exposure to hypoglycaemia.
> 
> Frequent hypos, especially nasty ones, are associated with adverse cardiac events.
> 
> Rock and a hard place!


Ah, hadn’t thought of that!


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Oct 7, 2021)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> think there’s possibly a confounder for people with T1 and low A1c, in that as a measure it does not capture glucose variability and severity/exposure to hypoglycaemia.


Yes, my point was just that they weren't suggesting that someone with an HbA1c of 48 (6.5%) ought to raise it a bit in order to reduce risks of repeated stroke and heart attack. (Quite likely a trivial confusion from the summary that only affected me )


----------

