2006
Sixteen years living with diabetes. Sitting in the car driving through Boston, I picked up the monitor. It was slightly larger than my pump, and it read 141. It was one hour since I finished lunch. I had spent the morning getting all set on the system at the Joslin Center.
The glucose level, 141, was welcome. I kept glancing, waiting for the next reading to be displayed. Even if five minutes hadn't passed and on the screen was the same number, it was just exciting to see my glucose level readout without pricking my finger. As an athlete in the Medtronic clinical trial titled: The Boston Project, I would wear this device while running the infamous Boston Marathon. The monitor had no graphs, no trends, no arrows, and no alarms. A new technology that would be released later that year to the public, integrated into an insulin pump system. It was a continuous glucose monitor device that collected a glucose reading from interstitial fluid every 5 minutes. That equals 288 glucose readings per day. Finger pricks were necessary to calibrate the system, but it was highly innovative none the less.
This was revolutionary, getting a real-time continuous glucose reading. The next series of readings were 138, 133, 126, 118, and 112. I felt like a kid in a candy store, giddy. Chris Jarvis welcomed me to Boston, and he sat next to me in the back seat as we drove to Insulet for a conversation and a tour. (Chris is an incredible athlete living with type 1 diabetes, and for those living in Canada, I suggest you check out his organization: I Challenge Diabetes.) I enthusiastically shared my readings with Chris. What he said next, I remember quite clearly.
"Aren't you going to treat?" he questioned.
I looked at him dumbfounded. I thought to myself, "What did he just say? My glucose levels were IN target. Why would he suggest to treat?"
Curious, I asked. Chris replied, "Look at the trend. 141 to 112 in a short period, you will feel low in the next hour. Treat before you feel it."
Time stopped for me at that moment. This new piece of technology could keep me from feeling a low blood sugar? It seemed too good to be true. During a low blood sugar event, I feel a heightened sense of survival. Low blood sugars and injections are two aspects of living with diabetes that I aim to minimize. A low blood sugar event puts your body into life or death mode from a physiological perspective. Stress responses are triggered, cognitive abilities diminished, and every negative experience from previous low blood sugar events is remembered. There are times I wake up at night drenched from head to toe in sweat, as though I just completed an eight-mile run. I'm disoriented, shaking, and cold. At times my tongue goes numb. The symptoms are an immediate call to action. To remain reasonable is paradoxically challenged. I dislike low blood sugar events a lot. A lot, a lot. In 30 years of living with diabetes and two pregnancies, I feel fortunate I have not had to endure a low blood sugar event I couldn't manage. Grateful. Low blood sugar events suck.
I thought for a second. I looked at my lunch dose. It was probable I took too much insulin to match the carbohydrates in my sandwich. When around other people living with diabetes, I tend to aim for "perfect" blood sugars. I reached for my bag and grabbed the mini juice box. I downed it.
I called my Dad that day and explained the details of the new technology I was wearing. It was his birthday, and he commented it was the best birthday gift that year, knowing this was in my future.
The technology confirmed what we athletes suspected on race morning, glucose levels rise pre-race and diminished once we began moving. It was an enjoyable weekend with Chris, Bill, Anne and the other d-peeps running the Boston marathon. We slept in Chris's dorm and had spectators thanking us for running for diabetes. I had my fifth marathon in the books, my second one for diabetes!
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology is not the answer to diabetes management, but it was a tool to add to my arsenal, a kick-ass one. In 2020 I love seeing how even non-diabetics athletes are finding the technology useful for their performance goals.
Comments