PING Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Marsha said:

Susan,

What do you think of these blood glucose numbers:

Fasting: 84
1 hr: 146
2 hr: 156
3 hr: 132
5 hr: 103

This was after doing Jenny's "test" with a bowl of sugar-laden cereal,
60-70 gm carbs. Had not been doing low carb for a couple weeks, just
1200 calorie/day fairly sensible eating plan.

Thanks,
Marsha

Marsha, for my money, they're too high, but they won't get you a
diabetes diagnosis because they're all under 200.

Your fasting is fine; healthy normal.

I don't like to go much above 100 at one hour after meals, and never
over 120. 140 is the threshold where permanent damage is occurring at
the cellular level to organs.

Something else I notice is that you took a long time to come back down
to close to 100. It appears that your first and second phase insulin
responses have both diminished to some degree.

So here's the thing; the medical literature is loaded with studies
showing that prediabetics get kidney, nerve and retinal and vascular
damage at a very high rate. If I were you, I'd low carb and treat
myself as a diabetic to prevent furhter loss of pancreatic function, and
possibly restore it a bit, through the improved insulin sensitivity that
low carbing induces.

Here's a great reference for ranges and the damage they cause:

www.phlaunt.com/diabetes

Susan

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

Marsha said:

Susan,

What do you think of these blood glucose numbers:

Fasting: 84
1 hr: 146
2 hr: 156
3 hr: 132
5 hr: 103

This was after doing Jenny's "test" with a bowl of sugar-laden cereal,
60-70 gm carbs. Had not been doing low carb for a couple weeks, just
1200 calorie/day fairly sensible eating plan.

Thanks,
Marsha

Marsha, for my money, they're too high, but they won't get you a
diabetes diagnosis because they're all under 200. Your fasting is fine; healthy normal.
I don't like to go much above 100 at one hour after meals, and never
over 120. 140 is the threshold where permanent damage is occurring at
the cellular level to organs.
Something else I notice is that you took a long time to come back down
to close to 100. It appears that your first and second phase insulin
responses have both diminished to some degree.

So here's the thing; the medical literature is loaded with studies
showing that prediabetics get kidney, nerve and retinal and vascular
damage at a very high rate. If I were you, I'd low carb and treat
myself as a diabetic to prevent furhter loss of pancreatic function, and
possibly restore it a bit, through the improved insulin sensitivity that
low carbing induces.

Here's a great reference for ranges and the damage they cause:

www.phlaunt.com/diabetes
Susan

Thanks, Susan. I respect your opinion with regards to
glucose levels and diabetes information.

Lunch was 3 oz turkey, two slices bread, mustard, and a
small apple, about 36 gm carbs. One hour glucose was
109. Two hour was 89. So a "normal" meal wasn't as bad.

Marsha

x-no-archive: yes

Marsha said:

Thanks, Susan. I respect your opinion with regards to glucose levels
and diabetes information.

Lunch was 3 oz turkey, two slices bread, mustard, and a small apple,
about 36 gm carbs. One hour glucose was 109. Two hour was 89. So a
"normal" meal wasn't as bad.

That's pretty darn good; you might try testing starting at 40 minutes,
in five minute increments to see when you peak, and how high you go.

Also, your bg will spike higher in the morning after carbs than it will
after, say, 3 p.m. as your cortisol starts to drop lower and lower
toward midnight.

Susan

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

Marsha said:

Thanks, Susan. I respect your opinion with regards to glucose levels
and diabetes information.

Lunch was 3 oz turkey, two slices bread, mustard, and a small apple,
about 36 gm carbs. One hour glucose was 109. Two hour was 89. So a
"normal" meal wasn't as bad.

That's pretty darn good; you might try testing starting at 40 minutes,
in five minute increments to see when you peak, and how high you go.

Ouch. This little experiment has my fingertips a bit
sore, and that's with different poking sites of fingers
on one hand.

Quoted message said:

Also, your bg will spike higher in the morning after carbs than it will
after, say, 3 p.m. as your cortisol starts to drop lower and lower
toward midnight.

Susan

Gotcha. Less carbs first thing in the a.m. BTW, I've
never been formally diagnosed as a diabetic - yet.
I've just been checking it off and on for several
years, as diabetes runs rampant on one side of the
family, but this is the first timed test. Usually, I
would just take a fasting and, since those were always
normal, never pursued it. Doesn't that sound familiar?

Thanks again.

Marsha

x-no-archive: yes

Marsha said:

Ouch. This little experiment has my fingertips a bit sore, and that's
with different poking sites of fingers on one hand.

Most of us find that certain fingers bleed better, without much trouble.
Also, taking some fish oil makes it happen easily, or running your
finger under very warm water before lancing. I never get sore, never
have. Experiment with hot water and see which of your fingers are the
easiest.

Quoted message said:

Gotcha. Less carbs first thing in the a.m. BTW, I've never been
formally diagnosed as a diabetic - yet. I've just been checking it off
and on for several years, as diabetes runs rampant on one side of the
family, but this is the first timed test. Usually, I would just take a
fasting and, since those were always normal, never pursued it. Doesn't
that sound familiar?

Yeah, it's what the ADA tells docs to do. I diagnosed my own DM with a
meter; I've still never had a DM fasting glucose, but can go well past
200 if I eat starch.

Quoted message said:

Thanks again.

Sure thing.

Susan

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 18:17:37 -0400, Marsha <[email hidden]> wrote:

|BTW, I've never been formally diagnosed as a diabetic - yet.
|I've just been checking it off and on for several
|years, as diabetes runs rampant on one side of the
|family, but this is the first timed test.

Marsha, you haven't mentioned it, but do you know what your HbA1C is?
Have you had it tested?

I'm asking because my individual BG readings were always seemingly in
a "normal" range. Then bout three years ago I had a complete physical
because I was getting extremely sleepy at inappropriate times; they
did an HbA1c as part of the blood work. It was 9.0 (very high) and I
was officially pronounced diabetic.

x-no-archive: yes

Marengo said:

I'm asking because my individual BG readings were always seemingly in
a "normal" range. Then bout three years ago I had a complete physical
because I was getting extremely sleepy at inappropriate times; they
did an HbA1c as part of the blood work. It was 9.0 (very high) and I
was officially pronounced diabetic.

Peter, there are a number of things that can affect A1c other than blood
glucose; anemia will lower it, slower rbc turnover will raise it, for
instance.

Testing your post meal bg is the most reliable way of knowing what your
bg is doing.

Susan

Susan said:

Here's a great reference for ranges and the damage they cause:

www.phlaunt.com/diabetes

Jenny's new site is VERY kewl. Lots of good info, solidly backed up
with research, but written to be accessible to laymen.

It's really quite well done!

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

Susan said:

Here's a great reference for ranges and the damage they cause:

www.phlaunt.com/diabetes

Jenny's new site is VERY kewl. Lots of good info, solidly backed up
with research, but written to be accessible to laymen.

It's really quite well done!

Yes, I agree. I differ with her about supplements, is all.

Susan

Susan said:

Marengo said:

I'm asking because my individual BG readings were always seemingly in
a "normal" range. Then bout three years ago I had a complete physical
because I was getting extremely sleepy at inappropriate times; they
did an HbA1c as part of the blood work. It was 9.0 (very high) and I
was officially pronounced diabetic.

Peter, there are a number of things that can affect A1c other than blood
glucose; anemia will lower it, slower rbc turnover will raise it, for
instance.

Testing your post meal bg is the most reliable way of knowing what your
bg is doing.

Susan

Well, that's good to know, because I was diagnosed as
anemic about six months ago and now take iron supplements.

Regarding the A1c, we cannot use that alone to diagnose
diabetes prior to one of our patients having open-heart
surgery, according to database rules. Now I know why,
at least partially.

Marsha

x-no-archive: yes

Marsha said:

Well, that's good to know, because I was diagnosed as anemic about six
months ago and now take iron supplements.

Regarding the A1c, we cannot use that alone to diagnose diabetes prior
to one of our patients having open-heart surgery, according to database
rules. Now I know why, at least partially.

A1c is never, in any circumstance, to be used to diagnose diabetes; it's
just an average, shows nothing about peaks and valleys.

Since it measures the amount of glucose sticking to rbcs, if total rbcs
are down, A1c will be lower.

Susan

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

Marsha said:

Well, that's good to know, because I was diagnosed as anemic about six
months ago and now take iron supplements.

Regarding the A1c, we cannot use that alone to diagnose diabetes prior
to one of our patients having open-heart surgery, according to
database rules. Now I know why, at least partially.

A1c is never, in any circumstance, to be used to diagnose diabetes; it's
just an average, shows nothing about peaks and valleys.

Since it measures the amount of glucose sticking to rbcs, if total rbcs
are down, A1c will be lower.

Susan

That's interesting. Since the glucose of normal
non-diabetic person should never go above a certain
level, why can't you use A1c to diagnose if it's, for
instance, 10?

Marsha

x-no-archive: yes

Marsha said:

That's interesting. Since the glucose of normal non-diabetic person
should never go above a certain level, why can't you use A1c to diagnose
if it's, for instance, 10?

You could, but it would be very unwise unless you also checked post
prandial numbers. The real issue could be a hematological one, not DM.

Certainly, if no other issues are found a 10 would be highly indicative,
as an average.

Susan

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Susan said:

Here's a great reference for ranges and the damage they cause:

www.phlaunt.com/diabetes

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=467357&in_page_id=1774

This is what some teenagers are doing here to lose weight🙁

I mentioned it the other day and now there is a newspaper report.