Daily Scare

Liam’s receiver read 79 and level (he had gone from 83 - 75 for the past hour…and I was loving life)

@ErinElizabeth checked his sugars preparing to bolus him for food…his number is something we have never seen before: 22 (Twenty-Two!!!)

So I say, re-check him - there’s no way he’s that low. At the same time as she’s prepping the re-check, I dash upstairs, grab a juice box AND some sugar tablets and have them at the ready.

She re-checks and he’s 111.

After I wake back up from passing out (j/k…but almost), I breathed a sigh of relief.

Before this bogus reading, the lowest we’ve EVER seen was mid 30’s somewhere.


@ClaudnDaye Believe me, you’re not loving life if your Bg is 22. Unless your idea of fun is riding in an ambulance.

Glad it was justa weird reading error😊


You really freaked me out. I thought the rest of the story was a ride to the hospital :frowning:


This happens often when we don’t get quite enough blood on the strip. Can read high or low. Freaks us out nevertheless.


Do you use the Omnipod PDM? If we don’t get enough blood on our strip we receive a meter error!

1 Like

I occasionally get a wacky false low, but it is usually from wet fingers.

Not sure if parents ever do this…
You know the control solution is incredibly vague. Like a 50 point range or something very unhelpful.

But if you need to check a meter, you parents can always calibrate it on yourself! That is probably more useful than control solution.

But the control solution itself is a precise percentage glucose… the range is just because the meter and strips are junk… it’s not that the solution has much variation— the solution is spot on precise---- the range is just the allowable “correct” result accounting for all the slop in the meter and strips… pretty worthless

They don’t even tell you what the result should be! That’s what makes it totally worthless!

If they said, “It should be 125, but anything between 100 and 150 is considered within range”, at least you would know how far off it is.

I think non-diabetic parents who haven’t eaten in a while have a reasonable control solution built-in.

Sorry for the hijack Harold!


1 Like

Hardly… non diabetic blood sugars are all over the map too, justbin a much tighter range than a diabetics

They consider anything fasting from 60-126 to be normal… historically they didn’t start talking about diabetes until they saw 200— though they’ve tightened that up lately

1 Like

My kids and wife are alway 85 if they haven’t eaten recently. I should use them.

1 Like

Yea, me too. But occasionally there is a window where there is just enough to register, but not enough to give an accurate number.


Yes - I get the same thing. Got a 1.8 (32) with my son recently and went running for the glucose on the flight or flight response. My rational brain kicked in and said “that does not make sense” and I retested and everything was fine.

It is like just enough blood to trick the meter into thinking it is enough but not enough for a good reading.

What is weird is that this has never happened to me. I suspect it is easier to test your own blood sugar.