-
Help us improve the FDMB by sharing your feedback, ideas, or suggestions. Submit feedback here.
6/6 Frankie AMPS 157 +3 374 + 5 443 +9.5 561 PMPS 567
- Thread starter Sue484
- Start date
- Status
Tuxedo Mom
Member Since 2014
Nice run of blues last night! WOW does Frankie ever like to bounce though. His little body is just not used to getting into the healthy numbers.
Fingers crossed for a quick recovery from the bounce!
Sue484
Member Since 2015
He was over a year really high and it was only once I found this site he started coming down. His first ever blue number was 1st May so it's only been just over a month, but it's his new favourite hobby!!! Looks like Tuxie is joining him in a bounce. Hope his clears quickly.
Tuxedo Mom
Member Since 2014
Tuxie was also consistently high when he started 6 1/2 months ago. He seemed to like hanging out in the blacks or high reds all the time. Seems to be a lot of bouncing going on today
Tuxie has been warned that if he doesn't settle into some nice extended blues today there is a dose increase coming tomorrow.Good luck with Frankie..he sure seems to like doing that mid-cycle bounce.
Sue484
Member Since 2015
Frankie has always preferred the reds and blacks too. Frankie's bounce is getting higher when it usually is wearing off a bit by now. I can't threaten him with a dose increase as I am starting the other way. The vet put him too high, so I am bringing him down. Maybe if I give a 3 instead of a fat 3 units that will make a difference? At least Tuxie is coming down now. Can you tell him to bring Frankie with him?
MollynSkooter
Member Since 2014
Dear Frankie -- no need to bounce THAT high.....
Hopefully gets used to the lower numbers soon and the bouncing can settle some.....it can be the most frustrating thing ever....to see nice and pretty numbers and then BOOM back up....
Sending bounce clearing vines!
Hopefully gets used to the lower numbers soon and the bouncing can settle some.....it can be the most frustrating thing ever....to see nice and pretty numbers and then BOOM back up....
Sending bounce clearing vines!
Tuxedo Mom
Member Since 2014
Considering Frankie started off with an 8.7 (157 US) it is not surprising that he is bouncing like that. He is just like Tuxie where if he hits blues or green there is always a bounce...just a question of how high. Tuxie had a couple of back to back reductions that didn't hold for him. I don't have the experience to give dosing advise, but if it were my Tuxie I would hold another day. Tuxie is famous for holding out for 5 days before reacting to dose changes. But I would wait for a more experienced poster to make that decision.
Tuxie is calling Frankie and telling him to come hang out in the yellows at least. Tuxie has been threatened with a dose increase for tomorrow so I will see if the threat helps. Come on Frankie...level out and join Tuxie in the yellows !
Tuxedo Mom
Member Since 2014
YIKES!!! Frankie get down from there!!!! Tuxie is still hanging in the yellows waiting for you. He needs company or he may decide to go up to join you and his Momma bean would NOT like that!!!
Hopefully Frankie will come down to better levels once the shot kicks in. I am sure this must be so frustrating for you right now.
Tuxedo Mom
Member Since 2014
Keep going down there Frankie...not too fast but down, down down!!
Tuxie has hit the reds now but that was at his PMPS so maybe they can meet in the middle and bring each other down. Fingers crossed!
Tuxedo Mom
Member Since 2014
Tuxie just hit the pinks for his +3...time for Frankie and Tuxie to head for the low yellows or blues
Last edited:
Elizabeth and Bertie
Member Since 2010
Hi Sue,
Not necessarily so.... It isn't a blanket '35%' difference.
And in fact I've never actually seen that degree of difference when I've compared my AT with my One Touch Ultra. My experience was that the difference increased as the numbers went up. But typically I'd see a difference of 3-4 mmols at higher numbers and just one mmol at low numbers. (I haven't compared very high numbers.)
There is also some variation between human meters.
You could try an experiment comparing a human meter with your AT..? The information that provides might be very useful to you.
The Accu Check Aviva is available from many pharmacies and is one of the cheaper meters. (Or I can send you one of my spare OTU meters and some strips.)
In my experience an ounce of fact is worth a ton of speculation.
.
Tuxedo Mom
Member Since 2014
Hi Sue,
Not necessarily so.... It isn't a blanket '35%' difference.
And in fact I've never actually seen that degree of difference when I've compared my AT with my One Touch Ultra. My experience was that the difference increased as the numbers went up. But typically I'd see a difference of 3-4 mmols at higher numbers and just one mmol at low numbers. (I haven't compared very high numbers.)
There is also some variation between human meters.
You could try an experiment comparing a human meter with your AT..? The information that provides might be very useful to you.
The Accu Check Aviva is available from many pharmacies and is one of the cheaper meters. (Or I can send you one of my spare OTU meters and some strips.)
In my experience an ounce of fact is worth a ton of speculation.
.
Sue and I were talking and I was the one who mentioned that that is the average % that I have have found. I have been using the AT2 meter since the start., but I also got a FressStyle Lite meter (human) made by the same company a month or so after. Over months doing random comparison testing between the two meters MY readings have been consistently 30-40% higher on the AT2 meter. Tests done at higher numbers will show a bigger variance number wise because the numbers are bigger to start with . Lower numbers have less of a spread because there is a lower spread % wise.
Recent (last month) examples in mmol/L:
AT2 12.8 FS Lite 8.3
AT2 13.8 FS Lite 9.7
AT2 23.1 FS Lite 15.2
AT2 14.9 FS Lite 10.9
AT2 8.2 FS Lite 5.3
AT2 21.4 FS Lite 15.9
AT2 19.9 FS Lite 14.2
AT2 27.2 FS Lite 18.6
AT2 17.2 FS Lite 10.7
AT2 6.1 FS Lite 4.3
AT2 3.6 FS Lite 2.4
Of course this may vary with other human meters, but the AT2 definitely reads higher and from my findings the average difference is 35%. Sue can definitely try comparisons with another human meter and the % may vary.
Last edited:
Tuxedo Mom
Member Since 2014
Tuxie is still waking up. He won't be tested until his +3..another hour (trying to give his poor ears a break today
) so hopefully he will be coming down to meet up with Frankie. If Frankie wants to be a really good example for Tuxie he should get down into the blues. Go Frankie!!!
Elizabeth and Bertie
Member Since 2010
It does indeed read higher, Mary Ann. There's no question about that. And I think what your post highlights is not only that but the fact that there is variation in the human meters the AT is compared to. (I've even found slight variations in the 3 different OTU meters I've used over the years (even though it's exactly the same meter)).Of course this may vary with other human meters, but the AT2 definitely reads higher and from my findings the average difference is 35%. Sue can definitely try comparisons with another human meter and the % may vary.
I do think it's hard for folks using the AT to try to translate their AT numbers into human meter numbers, because there are no absolutes for comparison.
I found it very helpful to do my own comparisons (I was trying the AT at the time as a main meter and my trusty OTU just as back up at that point, so I needed to know how the numbers compared.) Most importantly, it was helpful to know which numbers were likely to be harmful; ie, what constituted potential hypo numbers on the AT (since Bertie has visited that territory a number of times...
).
Tuxedo Mom
Member Since 2014
It does indeed read higher, Mary Ann. There's no question about that. And I think what your post highlights is not only that but the fact that there is variation in the human meters the AT is compared to. (I've even found slight variations in the 3 different OTU meters I've used over the years (even though it's exactly the same meter)).
I do think it's hard for folks using the AT to try to translate their AT numbers into human meter numbers, because there are no absolutes for comparison.
I found it very helpful to do my own comparisons (I was trying the AT at the time as a main meter and my trusty OTU just as back up at that point, so I needed to know how the numbers compared.) Most importantly, it was helpful to know which numbers were likely to be harmful; ie, what constituted potential hypo numbers on the AT (since Bertie has visited that territory a number of times...
.
Definitely..the allowable variations in both pet and human meters and the variations between different makes of meters always leaves that room for error. When I was talking with Sue, it was basically a comment about how a black on an AT2 meter may only be a pink on a human meter, as per my example AT2 27.2 FS Lite 18.6. With the AT2 the number looks depressing, but doing a general conversion, the number is still not good, but not near as depressing as looking at a black. Unfortunately the colours and numbers are used by most people as to how their kitty is doing. In the end using one meter and tracking the highs and lows is what it is all about. I don't regularly do conversions to human numbers with my AT2 meter, but I do take it into account when discussing protocols and dose increases/decreases, especially the odd time Tuxie goes into the greens. He hit a 3.2 once, which I was much more concerned about on an AT2 meter than if I had been using a human meter. Even 1 mmol/l makes a difference at that point.
Definitely people need to do their own comparisons if figuring out the differences between pet and human meters. For myself anyway and the two meters I compared with the 35% average difference is a decent reference range for me, when I need to get a "human equivalent" in regards to protocols and increase/decrease levels. I have this need to have more information than many other people do..a little OCD when it comes to stats and the such.
Tuxedo Mom
Member Since 2014
Sue I didn't mean to tell you that my 35% average difference was written in stone. I was telling where my experiences were and the fact that no matter which comparison the AT2 meters do read higher than human meters. Sorry for any inconvenience or confusion I may have caused.
This was a link that I believe BJM had given me on pet vs human meters:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oI_34_EgqeKdpyttFW0oLoG1mbw16IkATAWHhoQD2JU/pub
Sue484
Member Since 2015
It's ok @Tuxedo Mom. I just thought the 35% was roughly true of all meters. I think I shall give up converting into human numbers as everyone would just base their advice on the meter they use, so I would rather just stick to the AT I think.
Tuxedo Mom
Member Since 2014
I don't use the human numbers for anything other than my own understanding. I won't quote my calculation when talking with someone, other than the dose reduction number using the TR protocol is different....50 on a human but 68 on a pet meter. The 30-40% higher is what BJM had suggested as an average difference between pet and human meters. I don't know if you read the link she has on glucometer notes but that is what is suggested there:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oI_34_EgqeKdpyttFW0oLoG1mbw16IkATAWHhoQD2JU/pub
It is a roundabout calculation, that for myself I want to understand, especially in the lower numbers where I would worry more. Maybe this was too confusing and I shouldn't have brought it up.
Elizabeth and Bertie
Member Since 2010
I guess so... Actually, while I was outside just now pulling up weeds I suddenly recalled a UK member here who did some comparisons, and some of these only showed .5 mmol difference (9 points) at some numbers. I only remember this at all because I was so surprised by it at the time (expecting there to be a much bigger difference).
It can get very confusing. Especially if you then try to allow for the +/-2o% variance that meters may also have.
I did have some really nice graphs and some notes that a member here sent me a long time ago (when I went though a crazy phase of obsessing about 'which numbers I was getting were the 'real' ones' (AT or human meter)) but sadly that info 'bit the dust' when my old computer died. I did just have a look online though and found this old Feline Diabetes page which shows some of the info that was sent to me. There are some little graphs comparing AT numbers with some human meters. They are tiny and not easy to see (for my old eyes anyway!) but you can still see the 'patterns'. (Ironically, my comparisons with my OTU meter didn't get the same results as the OTU graph in the document, ha-ha!)
http://www.felinediabetes.com/glucometer.htm
In essence though, 'high numbers are high numbers' (though I do understand how depressing it might be to have to look at red and black when you could well be seeing a different colour with a human meter). It's the low numbers though where accuracy is important; where, as Mary Ann says, even 1 mmol can make a difference at that point.
Incidentally, I was looking at my AT manual the other day (on another matter entirely) and happened to notice that the numbers suggested as potentially hypoglycemic are those below 3.6 mmol or 65 mg/dL. Interesting...
.
Sue484
Member Since 2015
Now that really is useful. I must admit I have never looked at the manual in any great detail. Now I think about it, my vet said try not to let him go below 4. As I think and react to AT and animal numbers I guess I should just stick to that, whether they be black numbers or not.
- Status