tony_orlando said:

Fasting glucose improved within weeks and my HbA1c barely moved for three months, which I now understand and did not at the time.

PCOS success story with glycaemic control: as someone with polycystic ovary syndrome, this medication has been transformative beyond weight loss.

After 11 months: periods became regular for the first time in a decade, testosterone levels normalized, acne cleared significantly, and — unexpectedly — my fertility specialist is optimistic about future conception.

GLP-1 agonists address the insulin resistance at the root of PCOS. For PCOS patients, this isn't "just" a weight loss drug — it's treating our underlying metabolic dysfunction.

FDA_TrackerJim said:

PCOS success story with glycaemic control: as someone with polycystic ovary syndrome, this medication has been transformative beyond weight loss.

Fasting insulin is the lab my functional medicine doctor cares about most for glycaemic control: it's a much earlier marker of metabolic dysfunction than glucose or A1C.

My fasting insulin: 25 → 15 → 7 uIU/mL over 9 months. Target is <7. By the time your fasting glucose is elevated, your insulin has been elevated for YEARS trying to compensate.

Ask your doctor to include fasting insulin in your bloodwork panel. It's cheap (~$20) and incredibly informative.

tony_orlando said:

Fasting glucose improved within weeks and my HbA1c barely moved for three months, which I now understand and did not at the time.

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads.

Glycemic variability as the key metric for glycaemic control success: my coefficient of variation (CV) on CGM dropped from 41% to 21%. Target is <36%, with <30% being ideal.

Why this matters more than average glucose: large glucose swings cause oxidative stress, endothelial damage, and promote advanced glycation end-products (AGEs). A flat glucose line at 95 mg/dL is metabolically healthier than oscillating between 60 and 160, even if the average is the same.