04/26 Bailey Uk, amps 337 dosecrease today!

Status
Not open for further replies.
thanks Suzanne! weve only had one red in five days.if you look at his spreadsheet that's also NEVER happened.we're getting there! im only back in work for 3 hours from now so then ill feel happier that im at home with him to check! ny lifes on hold in a way at the moment but i doont mind. i have to get him right!
 
good call, Anna. I'm reminding myself that his 337 this morning is equivalent to roughly 220ish on a human meter, so that would be starting his day fairly decently. I think that one red yesterday was the peak of the bounce in response to the day spent in yellow/blue numbers.

You're going to become a math whiz doing these comparisons every day! :-D
 
maths was and still isn't my strong point :roll:

its just what to do for the best Julie as im worried sick that hes going to go too low. plus i also have to remind myself to hold the dose 6-10 cycles when i get a couple of readings on the alphatrak at 205 and 212 because that's really ito the 100's isn't it. i honestly don't know whether to switch to the free style lite (this is the ONLY other option here in the uk that takes 0.3 of blood as i wouldn't be able to test as many times as i do cos i cant get much blood out). i know everyone will take in a huge gasp as breath as i say it but it worries me so much that the variance on this alphatak is soooo much higher than human metres!plus a lot of his yellows have really been blues so before we make decisions now about dosing we MUST rememeber im using alpha trak!
 
you are absolutely right - we have to keep in mind the AT numbers. You're not the only one here using at AT.

most computers have a calculator option on them. I can't see where to tell you to find it, but mine is on the desktop. Just take your AT number and multiply it by .6 to get the low number and .7 to get the high number on a human meter.

The AT is 40-30% higher than the human meter.

One thing to keep in mind is that speaking only in AT numbers, you wouldn't be concerned about Bailey being low until he was under 68AT. He's pretty far from there still. I don't think you need to worry prematurely about it.
 
well that's good know.if hes ANYWHERE near that il be aware!

im sorry i don't understand.i multiply not divide.sorry to be a pain and abit thick :oops: this is the girl who had to get help doing my spreadsheet.haha
 
no worries! not everyone loves math! :lol: and the world would be a dull place if everyone did.

Let's say that you just want an approximate number. We know the AT is 30-40% higher than the human meter. Since you are more worried about him being low, let's use 40% as the number, because that would tell you the lowest he would be.

Take your AT number and multiply it by .6 to get the equivalent on a human meter. That's going to get you close enough. If the AT says 300, then 300 x .6 = 180 on the human meter (see the 3x6 = 18 in the equation). That would be the lowest it would be on a human meter. No dividing necessary, thank goodness!

Then keep in mind the 68 on your AT meter. That's really your most important number. If he goes below 68, then you'll give him a teaspoon of gravy from a can of high carb gravy cat food, or a drop or two of corn syrup. whatever you have, and retest him again in about 20 minutes.
 
just having a thought, anna. are you using a lancet device? i had one that had a clear cap on it, and it said that if you were having trouble getting a large enough bead of blood, you should hold the device firmly against the skin for 5 seconds before you poke.

Continue to hold it there for 5 seconds after you poke.

Then remove the device and it should have caused a larger blood drop to bead up for you to test.

You might try that and see if it's helpful.
 
Great job increasing today Anna. All paws crossed Bailey keeps on bring down those averages. :-D

As Julie says, not everyone loves math. I did a major in math, Julie teaches it, who are we to say. :lol: However, the post that Eliz pointed out to you has an easy trick in it. From that post:
"If a serum chemistry analyzer or plasma-equivalent meter calibrated for cats is used (eg, AlphaTRAK from Abbott Animal Health), increase the target blood glucose concentration by about 1 mmol/L, 18 mg/dL, or adapt the normal range reported for cats as the target nadir glucose concentration (eg, change 2.8 to 3.8 mmol/L; change 50 to 68mg/dL)."
Click to expand...
For those of us who think in mmol/L (World numbers), it's easier to remember that normal green numbers on a human meter are from 2.8 to 5.5. With an AlphaTrack, just add 1, so it's 3.8 to 6.5 that are green. When Bailey gets to the point of green on his SS (and he will!), is when it's more critical to know where he is. Below 3.8, it's gravy time.
 
oh Elizabeth that literally made me laugh out loud.i tried so hard to understand ( im a team leader in a supermarket for a reason otherwise id be a lawyer) i had bailey chasing after a fly biting my feet in between trying to read and then re read. so to read the quote at the end of what you linked(if not you someone else did) "clear as mud" i laughed,and laughed and laughed! i haven't got a Scooby as they say in this country! BUT il re read when ive not done a 9 hour shift then looked after my 13month old niece for 3 hours!

all i know is that i need to look out for anywhere around 68 .you guys have also got to remember that i also have to change these numbers from English numbers to American (THANKS WENDY).
at least i can have a little chuckle at all this!

edited to say we don't use a lancet............hes scared of the noise when it goes off.hes scared of the bloomin beep when that goes off on the metre so its turned off.hes scared of his own shadow but theres not much i can do about that! i use a needle.(a new one of course)im lucky i work in a supermarket and get my discount on a hundred needles each time.
 
I use the lancet, without the clicking lancet device. Have you ever tried it like that?
 
anna and bailey.uk england said:
oh Elizabeth that literally made me laugh out loud....
Click to expand...
Sorry, Anna, that certainly wasn't the most helpful post I've ever written! :lol:
I should have done what Wendy did in her post above, and cut and pasted the most relevant bit (Doh!)... :roll:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top