9/7 Herman amps 369 +7 265 pmps 403 :( +2 376

I'm sorry for not checking back in like I meant to. :oops: That was at my bedtime. I just happened to look at FDMD and saw the 50.

You did awesome with the boosting and retesting!! Grab one more test to make sure he's still bouncing then treat yourself to a nap. :bighug:
 
Mandy & Rex (GA) said:
I'm sorry for not checking back in like I meant to. :oops: That was at my bedtime. I just happened to look at FDMD and saw the 50.

You did awesome with the boosting and retesting!! Grab one more test to make sure he's still bouncing then treat yourself to a nap. :bighug:
Click to expand...
All good - thanks! Just tested his +2 and he is still high - Ill check again mid-cycle just in case. He was a VERY good patient last night and deserves an ear prick break!

Question, maybe you can give insight? It's about retesting low numbers: I retested that first 50 (2.8mmol) and then got a 2.9mmol (50 & 52). Later in the cycle I got a 2.2mmol (40), retested a few minutes later (needed to settle him and regather supplies) and got a 3.8mmol (68), a big variance. In this instance should I have retested a third time? I was very wary of getting him too annoyed with me as we still had to hit nadir so I just recorded the 3.8mmol and fed 15% which is the same thing I'd have done for the 2.2.
I know there is an expected meter variance test to test but how is that recorded, documented and acted upon? If I had taken the 2.2mmol (40) as the "true" number then technically he earned a reduction... But given the second test that's not the case.... Given his confirmed 2.8 (50) earlier in the night am I still good to hold the dose safely? I assume that yes, I should hold the dose. And BTW I did shoot the full dose this morning, especially given the bounce.
 
I'm glad you retested the low numbers. I have never come across that situation before about one test being lime and one not being lime, especially when it comes to reductions. Personally, I think it's good to keep the 2.25 dose because it's giving you good numbers when Herman is not bouncing. If he had given you trouble about coming back up (ie staying in the 50s no matter what), I would have suggested taking the reduction. It would be a good idea to tag the frequent visitors to your condo for their thoughts.
 
Curious if anyone has any thoughts: @Bandit's Mom @tiffmaxee @Angela & Cleo
RE: retesting low numbers.
Last night I retested that first 50 (2.8mmol) and then got a 2.9mmol (50 & 52). Later on in the cycle I got a 2.2mmol (40), retested a few minutes later (needed to settle him and regather supplies) and got a 3.8mmol (68), a big variance. In this instance should I have retested a third time? I was very wary of getting him too annoyed with me as we still had to hit nadir so I just recorded the 3.8mmol and fed 15% which is the same thing I'd have done for the 2.2.
I know there is an expected meter variance test to test but how is that recorded, documented and acted upon? If I had taken the 2.2mmol (40) as the "true" number then technically he earned a reduction... But given the second test that's not the case.... Given his confirmed 2.8 (50) earlier in the night am I still good to hold the dose safely? I assume that yes, I should hold the dose. And BTW I did shoot the full dose this morning, especially given the bounce.
 
Mandy & Rex (GA) said:
I'm glad you retested the low numbers. I have never come across that situation before about one test being lime and one not being lime, especially when it comes to reductions. Personally, I think it's good to keep the 2.25 dose because it's giving you good numbers when Herman is not bouncing. If he had given you trouble about coming back up (ie staying in the 50s no matter what), I would have suggested taking the reduction. It would be a good idea to tag the frequent visitors to your condo for their thoughts.
Click to expand...
Ok thanks reposted with some tags. Yes - While it was a labour intensive 4 hours, keeping him bumped up safely with 15%mc was manageable so unless I hear otherwise I do intend on holding this dose. Hoping this bounce doesn't last too long!
 
JL and Chip said:
He did have a 34 a couple of days prior without taking a reduction, if I recall…
Click to expand...
Hmmmm yes and no. The shot prior to that was an increased dose of 2.5units. Then I went right back to 2.25 given the lime morning. So he only got the increased dose of 2.5 once. I struggled to decide what to do with the amount that morning because the "depot" would not have been filled? (I don't even know if I am saying that right.) I also knew he would bounce so was hesitant to go down to 2. :confused:
 
Amy & Herman said:
Hmmmm yes and no. The shot prior to that was an increased dose of 2.5units. Then I went right back to 2.25 given the lime morning. So he only got the increased dose of 2.5 once. I struggled to decide what to do with the amount that morning because the "depot" would not have been filled? (I don't even know if I am saying that right.) I also knew he would bounce so was hesitant to go down to 2. :confused:
Click to expand...
I thought about that, too, because it's likely the lime was from the 2.25u, but there were a couple well-experienced people who encouraged you to go up to 2.5u that evening. It's hard to tell with the bouncing. They would also say you didn't see a lime last night. :p
 
Mandy & Rex (GA) said:
I thought about that, too, because it's likely the lime was from the 2.25u, but there were a couple well-experienced people who encouraged you to go up to 2.5u that evening. It's hard to tell with the bouncing. They would also say you didn't see a lime last night. :p
Click to expand...
Yes - given the 50 (not 49!) and then the retest higher at my second "lime" later that evening I would think the experts would say that neither was a "true" lime which is why I kept the squares dark green. I am trying to be conservative with my decreases and get him to more greens. I will give a few more cycles at the 2.25 dose and keep a close eye on him!
 
May I ask, did you happen to take notice of the size of the blood drop @40 then @68? I'm not denying it's existence, merely going by stickies. Sometimes too small a sample will give a lower reading which is one of the reasons we should always re/test low (especially lime) readings.
If it were me, I would have done the same as you last night, except I might have switched to LC after +7 logic being to extend duration in the second half of the cycle and coast in greens awhile longer. But that's based on my experience with Cleo. ECID.
I'm not experienced enough to give dosing advice but FWIW I would hold as well until the bounce clears. And the bounces do seem to be clearing faster. :)
 
Angela & Cleo said:
May I ask, did you happen to take notice of the size of the blood drop @40 then @68?
Click to expand...
I actually did!!!! @40 was a "normal" drop (I definitely have noticed sometimes the low numbers are when I have had to "add more blood" so I have begun to make mental note.) @68 was a gusher:eek: (I felt horrible - I must have gotten too close to the vein).

Angela & Cleo said:
I might have switched to LC after +7 logic being to extend duration in the second half of the cycle
Click to expand...
Ohhhh the internal battle in my head at +7! lc??? mc???? lc???? Exhaustion and probably being overly cautious won out. He still had a good run for him though!

Angela & Cleo said:
And the bounces do seem to be clearing faster
Click to expand...
The do seem to be - no jinx!:p
 
For what it’s worth, I think you’re doing great.

It’s often hard to know what to do — you had a pretty steep drop into that 50 and I always vote “safety first” when deciding what to feed and for how long. The more data one gets regarding cycles, food effects, and so forth, it becomes easier to make decisions. It’s very much about knowing thy cat (and that takes awhile).

I’ve also had wonky readings with too much blood as well as too little. Figures, right? I liked to test a few of my non-diabetic cats to see where their BG typically ran. It helped me get a feel for my glucometer, including what was a “normalish” range for it, and gave me a bit more confidence in evaluating the readings in the context of my diabetic cat.
 
Amy & Herman said:
Ohhhh the internal battle in my head at +7! lc??? mc???? lc???? Exhaustion and probably being overly cautious won out. He still had a good run for him though!
Click to expand...
Herman had a fabulous run! And its great to see the longer stretch of greens. In hindsight, it makes all that angst in reds and pinks seem like wasted energy and reminds us (especially me) to trust the protocol and the stickies!
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being overly cautious especially at that hour of the night! I was just that an hour ago when I left out HC-LC mix instead of LC for Cleo because I had to leave to go to work. I reconcile this decision knowing that she may go up, but she does eventually come back down. And also, after a lime, she bounces to the moon anyway.
 
Angela & Cleo said:
Herman had a fabulous run! And its great to see the longer stretch of greens. In hindsight, it makes all that angst in reds and pinks seem like wasted energy and reminds us (especially me) to trust the protocol and the stickies!
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being overly cautious especially at that hour of the night! I was just that an hour ago when I left out HC-LC mix instead of LC for Cleo because I had to leave to go to work. I reconcile this decision knowing that she may go up, but she does eventually come back down. And also, after a lime, she bounces to the moon anyway.
Click to expand...
Yes it's such a learning curve...and it's a moving target as they are constantly evolving and (hopefully) healing and getting used to low numbers. Thank goodness we have this group to lean on and learn from each other. :oops:
 
JL and Chip said:
For what it’s worth, I think you’re doing great.

It’s often hard to know what to do — you had a pretty steep drop into that 50 and I always vote “safety first” when deciding what to feed and for how long. The more data one gets regarding cycles, food effects, and so forth, it becomes easier to make decisions. It’s very much about knowing thy cat (and that takes awhile).

I’ve also had wonky readings with too much blood as well as too little. Figures, right? I liked to test a few of my non-diabetic cats to see where their BG typically ran. It helped me get a feel for my glucometer, including what was a “normalish” range for it, and gave me a bit more confidence in evaluating the readings in the context of my diabetic cat.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this!!!
Having "data" and working to "know thy cat" as best as we can is key. But I am with you, safety first - always!
 
Red at pmps :( poor herm. When I saw a midday yellow I let myself be hopeful the bounce was only going to be a blip. Nope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top