A great number does not mean an easy 90 days
My latest 90-day report showed 92% of readings between 3.9 and 9.5 mmol/L. I am proud of that result, especially alongside just 1% low and 0% very low.
But I want to be honest about what a number like 92% does—and does not—mean.
It does not mean Type 1 has become easy. It does not mean every day was smooth. It certainly does not mean anyone with a lower time in range is trying less hard.
It represents thousands of tiny decisions, a lot of technology, accumulated experience and some good fortune too.
Time in range is useful because it reflects real life
HbA1c has traditionally been one of the main ways of assessing glucose management, but it cannot show whether the average came from steady readings or repeated swings between high and low.
Time in range adds that missing detail. It shows how much time is spent inside the selected target range, while time below range and time above range show what is happening outside it.
Ninety-two per cent works out at approximately 22 hours and five minutes per day in range on average. That sounds wonderfully precise, but diabetes is not. Some days will be higher, some lower, and a 90-day result smooths all of those days together.
The unglamorous habits behind the result
There is no single trick that produces a strong time in range. For me, it comes from paying attention to patterns and repeatedly making small adjustments with the support of diabetes technology.
The things that can help include:
-
Looking at trends instead of reacting to one isolated reading
-
Using CGM direction arrows as context
-
Remembering how much active insulin may still be working
-
Pre-Bolusing for meals
-
Reviewing recurring highs or lows rather than blaming myself
-
Keeping hypo treatments within reach
-
Rotating pump and sensor sites
-
Accounting for exercise, stress, illness, hormones and disrupted sleep
-
Allowing an automated insulin system to work without constantly fighting it
None of these makes glucose completely predictable. They simply give me a better chance of responding thoughtfully.
More insulin is not always the answer
When a CGM shows a stubborn high, it is incredibly tempting to keep correcting. I know the frustration of watching a number refuse to move while an arrow seems to be personally insulting me.
But rapid corrections can overlap. The insulin may then arrive all at once, turning a frustrating high into a fast, exhausting low.
This is one reason I look at time below range alongside time in range. A higher time in range is not a victory if it depends on repeatedly walking along the edge of hypoglycaemia.
Why I am not aiming for 100%
One hundred per cent sounds like the obvious goal, but Type 1 diabetes takes place inside a living body—not a laboratory.
Meals digest differently. Exercise can affect glucose immediately or hours later. Insulin absorption varies. Sensors sometimes lag. Pods and infusion sites can fail. Hormones change insulin needs and stress can send glucose in either direction.
Trying to eliminate every excursion could encourage constant corrections, unnecessary restriction, anxiety and more hypoglycaemia. My aim is not to create a flawless graph at any cost. It is to live safely, feel well and reduce long-term risk without allowing diabetes to consume every thought.
Your percentage is not your value
It is easy for diabetes statistics to become competitive, especially online. Someone shares a completely flat graph or a remarkable time in range and suddenly our own perfectly respectable day feels like failure.
But we do not see the full context. Different target ranges may be used. Someone may be newly diagnosed and still producing some insulin. Another person may be dealing with pregnancy, puberty, menopause, illness, steroids, shift work or diabetes burnout.
A graph cannot measure effort. It cannot show the meal that was carefully calculated but absorbed unpredictably, the alarm that interrupted sleep or the courage it took simply to keep going after a difficult week.
What I want to protect as well as improve
If I work on my numbers, I want the improvement to be sustainable. That means protecting:
-
Hypo awareness
-
Sleep
-
Mental health
-
Freedom to eat and socialise
-
Confidence around exercise
-
A healthy relationship with diabetes data
Time in range is a helpful health measurement. It is not a moral score, and it should never be allowed to become one.