If you're a diabetic person NOT on insulin, you probably don't need to be checking your blood sugar at home.
I like this paper for a couple reasons: first, it confirms what I already thought, which makes it my (and everyone else's, whether they admit it or not) favorite kind of paper. Second, it's by my old boss at UNC-Chapel Hill, John Buse (seen in that picture rocking a Willie Nelson-esque beard). Finally, it's a very practical look at what glucose monitoring is. If you're on insulin and can change your dose meal-to-meal and day-to-day, it makes sense to monitor glucose levels for safety and efficacy reasons. If you're on fixed doses of non-insulin medications, the act of glucose checking becomes much less practical, and just as big a pain in the ass as it always is. My screed against SMBG in this case, though, is called into question by the study. The investigators measured "health-related quality of life" at 1 year, and it didn't differ between the groups. So the people poking themselves didn't feel much worse than those who got off the hook. But I'm sticking to my guns: when it comes to self-monitored blood glucose levels in type 2 diabetics NOT on insulin, the juice (that's your blood) literally isn't worth the squeeze.
Some folks say that diet, physical inactivity, and the resultant obesity could overtake smoking in terms of cancer risk.
I say "no shit."