I would say that it is the percentage of hemoglobin that has glucose molecules attached which is Generally proportional to the average blood glucose levels over the previous 3 months
The problem is, I would want to distinguish that it is not a true āaverageā. An average would add highs and lows and divide by the total number. The A1C simply measures highs, and absences of highs. Nothing about lows.
Imagine two people:
- 250, 325, 190, 400
and the other:
- 250, 325, 190, 400, 80
One would have a lower āaverageā BG, but if you discount stripping of glucose from the RBCs (which is a minimal factor) both of those people would have the same A1C.
Again, this is probably not important to any newbie. The term āaverageā is probably okay for most purposes. So your definition is perfectly fine. But for those that like to get into the meaning, maybe we want to be more precise?
Iām not real passionate about this either way, just opening it up for discussion.
I get what youāre saying and it may be a topic some people want to explore and delve intoā¦ I added the ādirectly proportionalā term to water down the meaning of calling it the āaverageā
@Eric @Sam et al:
This is an old paper, but it certainly points out some of the problems with A1c, but does endorse it as a (crude) measure of mean Bg over time
I think it would be great to have on wiki on that. In fact, I learned quite a bit in this thread already. Would anyone be willing to take that on?
I will take that on.
2 Likes