Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Results of physical

The big numbers: Long term blood sugars measured by HbA1c, was 7.6, this time, 6.3 ... Normal is < 6.5

Blood pressure, 123/75, normal.


Alas, per my testing scale, my bodyfat% is disgustingly high, and I DID have it trending down before I went on the program to change all this around.

So. Healthier but fatter. And all I need to do is some exercise to help deal with that, right?
My doctor had a new diet plan based on logging everything you eat and tracking the nutrients, which seems to me to be a great idea ... so great that I've done it several times before, and ... it works, but I have to remind myself to keep with it. Every time it failed in the past was because for some reason I stopped logging, and stopped PLANNING.

I also got a referral to a new endocrinologist. The old one I was going to was useless, refused to address anything at all until the diabetes was fixed, and I didn't need to spend $50 per visit to have him tell me the same thing my regular doctor could.


( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
Jan. 21st, 2010 06:47 am (UTC)
Congratulations, I'm all too aware at how stressful waiting for those numbers to come back can be.
Jan. 21st, 2010 02:44 pm (UTC)
congratulations to you re: diabetes and blood pressure.
Jan. 21st, 2010 03:29 pm (UTC)
Woot! Love it when the numbers come back good!
Jan. 21st, 2010 05:04 pm (UTC)
"Not out of shape, just fat." - Sammo Law
Jan. 22nd, 2010 07:41 pm (UTC)
Sadly, I'm also out of shape. But I'm getting better on the indices that measure how much damage I am doing to myself by being sedentary.

Now to stop being so sedentary.
Jan. 21st, 2010 08:41 pm (UTC)
What makes it possible for those body-mass index scales to work? I've never seen one before and it sounds like something you'd use a Star Trek medical tricorder for instead of a floor scale.
Jan. 21st, 2010 11:28 pm (UTC)
Electrical conductivity. Lean body mass has a different electrical resistance than fatty body mass. If you deviate too much from the norms, they do a poor job of giving an absolute body fat percentage, but they're pretty reliable for tracking changes. You may not be able to trust that it says you're 25% fat, but if it tells you that you went from 20% to 25% you can be pretty sure you picked up a quarter as much fat as you used to have. (i.e, maybe you really want from 16% to 20% or 24% to 30%.)

Anyway, that's why I stick with the one at the diabetes center. It may not be telling the absolute truth, but I can believe it when it says I've gained or lost fat percentage.
Jan. 22nd, 2010 07:40 pm (UTC)
The home unit I use is one that had good ratings with various consumer groups. (I no longer use Consumer Reports since their online site requires a fee to access their results; I have no valid reason for this really.)

Anyway, I can tell whether or not my hydration levels have changed based on the post-decimal numbers, but the large number is (I fear) pretty accurate.

The most common test method is to use a caliper and "pinch" skin thickness at various standard sites on the body, then use a complex formula to get the result.
This requires the test to be given by the same tester multiple times, and that they be good enough that they can identify the same spot over time.

The most accurate test method is to weigh the body, then perform a dissection and chemical analysis. Unfortunately you can only do it once and it hurts.

The second most accurate test method (disputed!) is to weigh the person on a sort of "crane" scale, then lower them into water, have them exhale as completely as possible, and weigh them again. Since the density of fat tissue is pretty much a standard thing across humans, and it's somewhat lighter than water, it's possible to get an accurate reading. The REALLY accurate test requires measuring lung capacity, exhalation volume, and then adjusting for the residual air that nobody can ever completely expel.
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )