|
|
Post by novafett on Nov 11, 2016 17:23:01 GMT -5
Wow, compound thanks for the summary. i had read that thread before and trying to keep up with it but nice to have it all boiled down like that. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 11, 2016 17:31:21 GMT -5
That was a great post. It makes me wonder how long it takes a user of current prandials (or even basals) to get dialed in. is it 3 months? I just cannot imagine it being better due to the delayed and residual characteristics of current prandials. As an engineer I try to come up with engineering analogies for all situations and current prandials are similar to what is called an over-damped response in a feedback loop. If you overshoot, you overshoot big. If you undershoot, you undershoot big. With Afrezza, the parameters of the control loop are tuned. Every industry that deals with these types of control systems make extreme efforts to optimize these loops. Its in our nature as human beings and will prove the same for a product that gets you closer to the response you want. I would love to see a transfer function comparison for different prandials against Afrezza over a large sample size of different people. It would allow mathematical proof that Afrezza is just a better solution to compensate for a currently poorly designed control loop. If the charts are not enough to convince someone, logic may be able to assist  The entire system is a pretty complicated non-linear system to model, but that is indeed what the recent paper based on FDA approved physiology simulator did... running responses for large number of "simulated" patients. |
|
