Recent similar discussion about the various definitions of “pre-diabetes” here.
Linked to in that thread was this article that may interest some - defining pre-diabetes as any one of fasting glucose is 100 to 125 mg/dL, or A1C is 5.7 to 6.4 percent or an oral glucose tolerance test result of 2-h plasma glucose values ranging from 140 to 199 mg/dL would label 36.7% of the American adult population as pre-diabetic; only 3.2% are positive on all three. Between the fasting glucose and impaired glucose tolerance test which one begins to become abnormal first seems to be a function of the pathophysiology within the individual some - with impaired fasting glucose reflecting liver insulin resitance and impaired glucose tolerance test results reflecting more whole body insulin resistance. Not sure what that implies about future risks and best interventions.
The point though is that a huge mess of adult Americans are likely not perfectly normal on one or the other screen and being normal on one does not mean that you wouldn’t be abnormal if another one had been used.
QtM (and others) - any thoughts on where the line is between good case finding and excessive pathologizing?
Velocity, some people are BMI of 30 to 35 and think they are “not thin not fat” … and it matters where your fat is. You are in your 20s? If you do not exercise regularly and pay adequate atttention to eating a healthy diet, you may want to consider starting now. Just sayin’