There are some different ideas about blood glucose. Some say it is the rollercoaster highs and lows that are more damaging rather than so much the absolute levels. Everyone agrees that high is bad. How high and/or how long it remains high compared to the lower numbers there is less agreement or understanding.

If you listen to Dr Bernstein, who is a 90 year old type I diabetic himself, he says type I or type II diabetics should have the same blood levels as normal people. He says 85 is the magic number for long life. He claims a person should eat low carb so they do not need as much insulin (both type I and II) and then if needed small amounts of insulin to keep them around the 85 level. And I would not be one to argue with him, him being type I and about 90 years old. Most type I do not live near that long. He is doing something right.

Then there is another line of thought (that I more closely align myself with) that high insulin levels itself is damaging and it causing inflammation. It is better to have a more constant blood sugar without the high spikes. It is mostly the spikes that are damaging. Of course you do not want continually high numbers, but want to avoid the wide variations. That is what my blood glucose does mostly. But it never gets down in the 85 range that Bernstein says is optimum. So would I be better off taking a small bolus of long lasting insulin to get my blood glucose level from its current 120-150 normal levels down to 85???? My fasting insulin levels are now low, down around 6. Which is great or at leas pretty good (the doctors I follow say around 3 is optimal). My blood test fasting insulin results call anything up to 25 "normal" which is complete BS. 25 is basically diabetic, the people just don't know it yet because the high insulin levels are able to keep blood glucose in check so the A1c is still outside diabetic range. For a bad type II diabetic fasting insulin levels can reach levels like 200. But I digress. Point is, do I follow Bernstein and take some insulin shots and shoot for 85, or do I take no medication and be happy with an A1c of 5.8 (considered pre-diabetic, 5.6 and below non-diabetic.

So there are different ideas on optimal blood sugar levels and insulin levels. I considered taking insulin again and actually got a sample insulin pen from my doctor to try it. I took a couple of small amount shots (a couple units each time) and it hardly made any difference. I just hated the idea of going back on insulin shots and threw away the rest of the pen. I still have two little pockets of fat on my stomach from the many years of insulin shots where the fat cells were permanently damaged and will not go away. Also diabetic insulin induced low sugars are not fun. Been there done that numerous times in the wee hours of the morning, being in a cold sweat and shaking and having to eat something before I pass out. Think the lowest I have seen my blood sugar was around 50 or 55 maybe. Anything below about 65 was shaky for me back then.

Dr Bikman (insulin researcher, not an MD) says giving insulin shots to a type II diabetic is like giving a beer to an alcoholic to fix his alcoholism. It is making the problem worse, not better. Type II diabetics have LOADS of insulin. There's is a problem of too much insulin (where type I have a lack of insulin - almost like an entirely different disease). I think extremely highly of Bikman's own research and his knowledge of all the research in the area of diabetes.

More than you ever wanted to know. As you can see, I have spent considerable time trying to learn and adapt to my disease. And still do not have all the answers. But one thing I am certain of, going low carb and getting off diabetic and blood pressure medication and off multiple insulin shots a day is a no brainer. My life has completely turned around for the better by ignoring conventional medical advice and conventional treatment. There is no going back for me. NUMEROUS health improvements, not just weight loss.

I don't think I answered your question. In my opinion (and opinion only) that the trend is what is much more important rather than a test result varying by 10 points. As long as the tester is giving a trend of the highs and lows as long as the error stays pretty consistent through out the range the error is less important.