I understand this now… Eric, a couple of months ago you told me to try to think about what my blood sugar was before testing or looking at a CGM. A couple of days later I reported back to you that I had been “guessing at my BG” with mixed success. You corrected me by saying you had never meant for me to guess but for me to use context, knowledge, experience, etc. to try to see if I could figure out where I was. I’ve been thinking that way since. It’s not that I always know the difference between an 80 and 110, but sometimes I do, and even when I don’t, I still know I’m not a 200– or even a 150. If I’m not thinking about it throughout the day, then it’s absolutely a guess, but I’m thinking about it. I also use the CGM to an extent, but it’s for a vague bigger picture. I know when it’s wrong, and it’s “wrong” quite often. Between finger sticks, CGM, and my own understanding, I’ve got a great team.
@T1Allison My Endo had me do an experiment last summer based on some research she had been following on hypo-unawareness. The research purported that the triggers or signs for a hypo while individual for everyone could be partially “re-calibrated” . The theory was based on what many of us have gone through when we run much higher numbers for a time period, followed by in-range bgs . The in range bgs “feel” like a low even though aren’t because your body is basing the feedback on the range and not the actual bg.
The test she had me run last summer was:
2-3 weeks of +200 bg (continuous, with no bg below 200)
followed by 2 weeks of 85-140 bgs with no bg over 160.
The last 2 weeks were insanely hard as we were vacationing back home in the South (think grits, Boudin, johnnycake, sweet tea, etc…) After a minor struggle to get to the lower threshhold the end result is that I do now have some hypo triggers that have long been absent.
So to answer your original question, yes I think the hypo triggers can be “reset”, but that it also requires that our awareness of the trigger also gets “reset”. While the trigger (sweating, confusion, etc. ) may work again to a limited or full degree, can we still recognize it as such and utilize it as actionable information?