No prob, I think it’ll be about 2 weeks before I can start and work obligations probably limit the length of the trial to 2 weeks…
Want to be clear that this isn’t some radical reckless idea. This is standard every day routine for tons of people all over the world even today… my intent is to prove that it’s not that big of a deal.
@Sam Pay close attention to the DIA curves of both NPH and R. It would pay to make a graph of how they intersect.
You’ll notice periods of low insulin activity and periods of very high insulin activity. Just time your meals for the periods of high insulin activity.
It’s really not that complicated, it’s just a bit confining. It requires consistent day to day meal times.
I’m sure you’ll do just fine. It did well for me for about 30 years, most of which time was also without a Bg meter.
BTW, if you really want to do a great test, do the NPH and R and only use urine testing😂
I’m interested to try it… looking at the curves now… I really don’t see how it can be that hard especially with a cgm… take smaller doses of basal throughout the day, prebolus further in advance, eat slower carbs. I’m really not expecting any problems… I agree it’s a whole different ballgame than when just testing your urine 1x daily. That’s the point— given all the tools we have now I think any insulin can work just fine it really is just a matter of how convenient they are…
Thinking I might start with NPH a little in advance while still using my usual bolus insulins just to see what that looks like first
I think it’s because the published research uses average populations that probably average out around 8.5 A1c. But, again, I could be wrong 
Why would that matter given the same level of effort and expertise wouldn’t you expect to see if substantially lower A1c with the analogs Even if they are higher than my own personal targets
What are your thoughts about expiration dates? If I have to get new stuff it might delay the experiment a little longer… It’s about a 200 mile drive to the nearest Walmart and this time of year it’s not always the best idea
Although I must admit one thing causing me a little concern is that recent Medscape article about the varying potency
As long as it’s clear it should be ok. The only time I ever threw any of it away was if I saw crystals starting to form in the liquid.
NpH is always cloudy isn’t it? Milky looking? Mine is
I think that it is possible for a sub-population with high targets to aim high with analogs, but yet the average A1c is much higher, because the sub-population that aims high is small (simply, I think, because they don’t realize they can). So they averages hide the capabilities.
On the other hand, from everything I have read, I don’t think it is possible to aim high with R and NPH. So here the average is simply what people could do. Again, we all test a lot more, so possibly I am wrong. We’ll see in your testing.
R is clear, NPH looks like 1% milk
have batches of humalin that expired in 2014 and novolinthat expired in 2016… if nothing else it’s a wake up to restock with some fresher. Also have quite a bit of 70/30
I suspect the 2016 batches should be fine…
Yeah, the cloudy is the marker for R, crystallized the marker for NPH. I personally never used NPH, only Lente.
I can’t imagine what crystallized milky looking NpH would look like. I’m staring right at it… if I can’t recognize it I suppose it must not be
You’ll see sediment on the bottom when you tilt the vial at 45°.
If memory serves, the NPH is cloudy because the isophane component is not fully dissolved in the carrier liquid - this is normal. NPH is cloudy and milky when ready to use. Don’t use it if the solution looks clear or has lumps in it, or if it appears like powder is stuck to the sides of the container.
Based on you’re recommendation… here’s my arts and crafts project.
Realize that these curves aren’t all that meaningful—- but here’s what 1/4 total basal every 6 hours looks like…
Scary…just like something I would make to figure out the stacks…
