[thefifthsetpin]

I have no credentials here, but I'm often working in this space and your take is the polar opposite of what I normally hear from the endos and diabetes researchers that I've worked with. More accurate terms might be diabetes and morbid diabetes.

That the cutoff for prediabetes is close to the median level is a statement that much of the population is actually unhealthy in this regard.

[AlbertCory]

No, it's a statement that the "cutoff" was chosen on questionable grounds. Defend it.

[guerby]

Did you check the litterature?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20697688/

Hba1c 6.0 to 6.5 (so called prediabetic range) has 2.5 times the hasard ratio of below 6.0.

Increasing Hba1c is the leading indicator of future health issues and by far.

[AlbertCory]

This comes closer to a cogent answer, which is what I was after.

> future health issues

like?

As I said, I'm not ready to publish this, but I wanted to hear some arguments that made sense. So thanks.

To me, "probability of progression from pre-diabetes to diabetes" is the only reason to say it's a real condition rather than just a risk factor.

Furthermore, it would be the derivative of the level, rather than the level itself.

And finally, it would have to be separated from other unhealthy conditions. Meaning, if they drink too much AND have pre-diabetic A1C, ERROR! Otherwise, how do you know it's not the alcohol?

[FireBeyond]

With all due respect, if you're "working on a paper" on this, but the hazard ratios for differing HbA1c values is a novel discussion point to you, I am wary of what else you "don't know".

[mlhpdx]

Get peer review and publish; let’s see what happens.

[mlhpdx]

According to what I understand from researches in this area is that even a slight increase in A1C is highly correlated with later progression. You may not like the term, but it effectively communicates the situation.