I nearly spilled my hot tea when I stumbled upon this fresh out the oven news.

According to a study published by two doctors of the Mayo Clinic, tight glycemic control may not be the most important aspect when it comes to managing of diabetes.

Did he just say what I think he said?

“No significant benefit of tight glycemic control on patient-important micro- and macrovascular outcomes, with the exception of a 15% relative-risk reduction in nonfatal myocardial infarction,” reported the authors of the study.

Their findings probably shook the whole scientific community considering the widely purported recommendation of keeping blood sugar levels within optimal range. Heck, the success of most therapies (e.g. diet, lifestyle, medication) is based on blood sugar control. People prick themselves several times a day just to witness those perfect numbers.

Most (if not all) clinical guidelines and health experts agree that tight glycemic control is the way to go when it comes to avoiding complications of diabetes like amputation and blindness. However, Dr. Victor M. Montori, who is one of the authors, believes otherwise. In an interview with CBC, the doctor shared that “when we looked at the evidence for [the reduction of blindness, amputation, and dialysis by following a tight glycemic control], we could not see any signal that would suggest that is true despite the question being asked at least since the 1970s.” (Clearly, they did not look hard enough…)

“The widespread consensus about the value of tight glycemic control to prevent complications in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus needs to be recalibrated,” stressed the authors of the study.

This groundbreaking study did not go unnoticed by Dr. David C.W. Lau, the editor-in-chief of the Canadian Journal of Diabetics. The Calgary doctor argues that the research contains several flaws and that we need to “look at diabetes disease as a whole and look at the totality of the evidence and not just cherry picking.“

My Thoughts 

There is no absolute truth when it comes to science. Therefore, it is always wise to re-visit current knowledge. Despite the vast amount of research that has been poured into diabetes, we are still living in a time where we are more overwhelmed with questions rather than answers. A study like this forces researchers and health professionals to second-guess what is believed to be set in stone.

The study needs to be carefully interpreted. To dismiss blood sugar control (which is NOT what the authors are saying) would be a stretch. But to believe that there are other components to managing diabetes complications is a fair reasoning.

This study is published in the journal Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

Additional reference:

Calgary doctor disputes latest study on Type 2 diabetes treatment. CBC News. URL Link. Published September 16, 2016. Accessed September 23, 2016.