jim_asheville said:

HbA1c reflects roughly three months of average glycaemia weighted toward the most recent weeks, which is why repeating it at six weeks tells you very…

Agreed, with the caveat that HbA1c is unreliable in anaemia, haemoglobinopathies and recent blood loss, all of which are commoner than people assume. If it disagrees with fasting glucose or a CGM, that is worth chasing.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

kate.chem said:

True, though the ladder is longer and that is not a neutral detail — six dose steps means six opportunities to stall on the way up, and plenty of…

Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.

jim_asheville said:

HbA1c reflects roughly three months of average glycaemia weighted toward the most recent weeks, which is why repeating it at six weeks tells you very…

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.

Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful. Tagging this one for the weekly digest.