these are my goals as well- though from my previous pregnancy. Under 90, and under 130 but preferably under 120. Current MWs have not discussed strict goals with me to be honest. But I've been within these numbers so it hasn't been an issue. And those are, from what I've read, true normal numbers (the "normal" that is out there of under 100 fasting, under 180 post-meal would be worrisome numbers, at least in a non-pregnant person.)
I was told under 90 for fasting (93 seems about average for me though, no matter what I do) and under 130 but preferably 120 for 1-hour which seems a lot lower than what others are being told.
Shonahsmom, I am so with you on the anger and frustration! Plus my regular OB was a dick last time and blew me off saying my body wasn't "storing insulin." Yeah, and neither is yours, doc, because insulin doesn't work that way.
What I find really frustrating is that I've never come across anything that looks at the numbers of NON-diabetic pregnant women, so is it really realistic to be aiming for the normal blood sugars of non-pregnant people. Why would this be so hard- to have a cohort of non-GD pregnant women test their fasting and post-prandial numbers? its not invasive, just annoying. "normal" non-pregnant people's blood sugar really doesn't spike that high, and it comes right back down, even when they eat a lot of sugar and carbs. Like my dad- he is usually around 80, even 2hrs post-meal when he's eaten bread, pasta, whatever. His system just keeps him right at that normal fasting number almost all the time. (my mom has type II and has convinced him to numerous random finger pricks "just to see"). The diabetes-in-pregnancy educator I saw did say, as I recall, that all pregnant women do take longer to return to fasting numbers, I think?