What's different about Jennifer's Advice?
Chris Malcolm
cross-posting trolls so I'm restarting it here.
Kurt has claimed that Jennifer's "test test test" Advice is nothing
new or special, it's the pretty standard advice that medical
professionals have been giving out (or should have been giving out)
for for years if not decades before Jennifer started polishing her
summary advice to newbies in asd and mhd.
But her advice is more than the advice to test your BGs. It gives
advice about when, what to do with the test results, etc. Here it is.
"Jennifer's advice"
http://www.diabetes-support.org.uk/info/?page_id=136
Note the advice about when:
* Upon waking (fasting)
* 1 hour after each meal
* 2 hours after each meal
* At bedtime
Here's the advice about what BG targets to aim for:
* FBG under 110
* One hour after meals under 140
* Two hours after meals under 120
Those are substantially lower target values than those advised by the
ADA or Joslin. The method she advises of trying to get to those target
values is also rather different from the general treatment plans of
the ADA or Joslin. She gives more detailed dietary advice, shifting
more strongly in a low carbing direction, than do ADA or Joslin.
Of course it is true that the ADA & Joslin don't say that aiming for
and achieving such targets is bad, nor is that kind of low carbing
bad. They would be quite happy for an individual doctor to give such
advice to an individual patient based on their needs and
capabilities. But generally speaking they don't expect it.
For example the ADA's general Type 2 post mean BG target is to be
under 180 at one or two hrs post meal, and if you're failing to meet
that then the primary intervention is intensification of
pharmacological treatment. See for example:
"Medical Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes: A Consensus
Algorithm for the Initiation and Adjustment of Therapy"
"A consensus statement of the American Diabetes Association and the
European Association for the Study of Diabetes"
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/1/193.full
I think these differences in emphasis are important.
--
Chris Malcolm
kurtwh...@yahoo.com
> The previous discussion about this has got rather polluted by
> cross-posting trolls so I'm restarting it here.
The only trolling and pollution I see is what you wrote in this post,
which is nothng more than a straw man premise built on something you
say I said, but I never said. You are doing that kind of thing now on
such a regular basis and in so many posts that when others do it they
should be accused of "Pulling a Malcolmism." In other words, it is now
your m.o. to own. Congratulations.
Kurt
Ozgirl
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:99986b...@mid.individual.net...
You know if you were anyone but you, PP, Cheri and a few others you
would have been told to let this go already or to stop arguing with the
pigs in mud or whatever that commonly quoted saying is that pops up in
here :) Just sayinzall.
Julie Bove
Her advice is pretty much standard to what I was told by every Endo. I saw.
Granted the first Endo. told me to keep <180. Well he didn't actually tell
me that but it was on something printed that he gave me. When questioned he
said that was old info and gave me the new guidelines.
My current Endo. gives me the goal of between 90 and 130 at all times. But
that is *my* goal. Not necessarily for everyone.
I don't think the advice is in question. I think the problem is the
constant going on about how it is Jennifer's advice. She didn't invent it.
kurtwh...@yahoo.com
> Her advice is pretty much standard to what I was told by every Endo. I saw.
> Granted the first Endo. told me to keep <180. Well he didn't actually tell
> me that but it was on something printed that he gave me. When questioned he
> said that was old info and gave me the new guidelines.
>
> My current Endo. gives me the goal of between 90 and 130 at all times. But
> that is *my* goal. Not necessarily for everyone.
>
> I don't think the advice is in question. I think the problem is the
> constant going on about how it is Jennifer's advice. She didn't invent it.
Bingo! Give that woman a cee-gar! The smokeless kind of course. :)
Kurt
Budd Cochran
you.
I test 2X / day: before breakfast and before supper.
Mornings are running in the 103-109 range and evenings are in the 80-95
range. A1c's have been very good in the 5's
I'm still losing weight ... down to 215 from a max of 300 in '05, I doing
more work than I could a year ago, and my medical provider is reducing med
dosages.
Malcolm, you're parroting the "test till you drop from blood loss and my
skin looks like pure scar tissue" mantra and not allowing for good ol' YMMV
to fit in for others besides yourself.
And the fact that I'm doing so well without looking like an overused
pincushion, eating any kind of special diet (including ABC's non-biblical
garbage), nad being "overly active" just proves the point.
Newbies, listen up, there is no absolute method of treating Diabetes. Find
your own way by giving sensible ideas a try, but seek your own best method.
Budd
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:99986b...@mid.individual.net...
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
I think my numb nuts GP (now fired)
resented that I tested at all and
would have skipped with joy if I'd gained weight and took
his holy water statins and BP meds. On the other hand,
he did allow readings above 100 aren't desirable.
Chris Malcolm
>> The previous discussion about this has got rather polluted by
>> cross-posting trolls so I'm restarting it here.
> The only trolling and pollution I see is what you wrote in this post,
I was referring specifically to the cross-posting trolls. I'm pleased
to hear that your own filtering/killfiling/whatever prevents you from
seeing the religious cross posted crap from smc, but some of us in asd
don't operate any filtering or killfiling, and some of us kill any
threads in which that cross-posted crap has started. So it's wise not
to continue asd threads in which that kind of stuff has started.
> which is nothng more than a straw man premise built on something you
> say I said, but I never said.
I'd like to keep this thread as far as possible free from
misunderstandings, baseless accusations, etc. I apologise if I've
misrepresented your views in any way in what I wrote. I shouldn't have
tried to summarise your views on what is obviously a contentious
thread. I was referring to such remarks of yours as these:-
"Oh please. Jennifer did not invent the test, test, test method. My
endo advised me to do that over 20 years ago and my current endo
advises the same thing. I like Jennifer and thought she was a nice
person, but her advice is based on basic diabetes information I've
heard from many other sources over the years."
"It just seems foolish that some here make it out to be some kind of
magic formula that the professional medical community is unaware of.
Well, here's a newsflash: They are and they have been for quite some
time."
Whereas I think there is something unusual and helpful in Jennifer's
Advice which you are *unlikely* to get from your doctor, your endo,
the ADA's web pages, and other professional medical sources.
Note the "unlikely". Jennifer's Advice is not inconsistent with the
conventional wisdom about type 2 treatment. Some people will get the
same advice from their doc, endo, etc.. Some will try it out for
themselves despite apparently different advice from their doc, endo,
etc., and will find that when presented with the results of their
experiments that their doc, endo, etc. approves of them following
Jennifer's Advice.
I've not seen any report by anyone following Jennifer's Advice and
getting good results from it that anyone on their medical team
disapproves of what they're doing and advises them to stop.
So in those senses Jennifer's advice is consistent with medical
advice. It's also true that some medical professionals have been
advocating the kind of approach summarised in Jennifer's Advice for a
long time. That's where she got it from. But the advice of those
medics is not so easily found or understood by a newbie.
But it does seem to provide a useful different emphasis which seems to
have led many into more successful BG control than they likely would
have achieved had their medical team followed such standard treatment
guidelines as those the ADA provide for the guidance and education of
medical professionals.
In that sense I do think there is something usefully different and
novel about Jennifer's Advice.
--
Chris Malcolm
Julie Bove
You *still* don't get it. Do you? It's not *her* advice! Just because she
said it once and saved it to her hard drive to copy again and again and
again doesn't make it *her* advice.
Paul L
> and achieving such targets is bad, nor is that kind of low carbing
> bad. They would be quite happy for an individual doctor to give such
> advice to an individual patient based on their needs and
> capabilities. But generally speaking they don't expect it.
>
> For example the ADA's general Type 2 post mean BG target is to be
> under 180 at one or two hrs post meal, and if you're failing to meet
> that then the primary intervention is intensification of
> pharmacological treatment. See for example:
>
> "Medical Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes: A Consensus
> Algorithm for the Initiation and Adjustment of Therapy"
>
> "A consensus statement of the American Diabetes Association and the
> European Association for the Study of Diabetes"
>
> http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/1/193.full
>
> I think these differences in emphasis are important.
>
Jennifer's advice has helped many many people. I am one. After three
months I looked like a pincushion but had a good understanding of how my
damaged metabolism handled different foods in many different situations.
The politics of why someone would ever devalue what she has done no
longer interest me.
Paul
kurtwh...@yahoo.com
> "Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
(snipping the novella)
> > In that sense I do think there is something usefully different and
> > novel about Jennifer's Advice.
>
> You *still* don't get it. Do you? It's not *her* advice! Just because she
> said it once and saved it to her hard drive to copy again and again and
> again doesn't make it *her* advice.
You'e right he...doesn't "get it." And history proves that he will
never get it and instead will continue to write volumes about it,
spinning it into something so
unrecognizable from what it started out to be and misinterpreting/
misquoting what people actually say. Trying to explain that to him is
futile.
Kurt
kurtwh...@yahoo.com
> Jennifer's advice has helped many many people. I am one. After three
> months I looked like a pincushion but had a good understanding of how my
> damaged metabolism handled different foods in many different situations.
>
> The politics of why someone would ever devalue what she has done no
> longer interest me.
Th only politics at play here is claiming that Jennifer's advice was
devalued. If someone here made the statement "People with diabetes
should use a glucose meter to check their bg" but some had never heard
of doing that and then others explained that it was something their
doctor advised them to do many many years ago, it would no doubt cause
the same problems in this newsgroup. That's what's going on here.
Hey, Ozgirl says the world is round. She's brilliant. Unlike the dopey
scientist I go to for my science information because he said the world
is flat. Therefore ALL scientists aren't as smart or helpful as Ozgirl
and she was the first to discover the world is round!!! ;)
Kurt
W. Baker
: On Jul 27, 3:14?am, "Julie Bove" <julieb...@frontier.com> wrote:
: > "Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
: (snipping the novella)
: > > In that sense I do think there is something usefully different and
: > > novel about Jennifer's Advice.
: >
: > You *still* don't get it. ?Do you? ?It's not *her* advice! ?Just because she
: > said it once and saved it to her hard drive to copy again and again and
: > again doesn't make it *her* advice.
: You'e right he...doesn't "get it." And history proves that he will
: never get it and instead will continue to write volumes about it,
: spinning it into something so
: unrecognizable from what it started out to be and misinterpreting/
: misquoting what people actually say. Trying to explain that to him is
: futile.
: Kurt
I have noticedthat very often,when I,or others report talking to thie GPs
or Endos or other medical personel about their successwith Jennifers
advice,there is often a statement frmthe medicalprofessionalabout why the
need to test at 1 hour,as well as 2. It seems that medical personel do
not seemto thnkthat finding your high point( or reasonably close to it) is
important in controlling diabetes. What many of usfound important about
the 1 hor test was in correcting our diet to reduce or limit foods or
combinations of foods that caused our bgs to rise quite a lot in that
first hour, but may well have been resolved by 2 hours. It has helped us
establish the diets that work for us better than just testing at 2 hours.
This seems to be the concept that Jennifer has added to the sual pre and
post prandial testing that is sometimes discussed with some diabetic
patients by their medical professionals(It was never discussed with me
until I brough it up.).
If you don't need it, fine. If it didn't work for you because of other
conditions, fine, but don't keep trying to sell it short as "unoriginal"
"adds nothing new" etc.
Wendy
BlueBrooke
wrote:
>Kurt has claimed that Jennifer's "test test test" Advice is nothing
>new or special, it's the pretty standard advice that medical
>professionals have been giving out (or should have been giving out)
>for for years if not decades before Jennifer started polishing her
>summary advice to newbies in asd and mhd.
Perhaps Jennifer's contribution was wording the information in a way
that the "great unwashed" can relate to -- specifically the
information about non-diabetic numbers, as well as testing at one
hour. Apparently, when the doctors said to test at one hour, it was
couched in such scientifically confusing terms as "don't test at one
hour because you don't need to know how high your BG goes," and we
just couldn't understand those big words.
Julie Bove
"Paul L" <pa...@kbtrans.net> wrote in message
news:j0oqrm$ofn$1...@dont-email.me...
Nobody is devaluing anything. It's just not *her* advice!
Julie Bove
Yeah. I think I'll go teach a pig to sing. I'll have a better shot at
that.
Peppermint Patootie
Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Of course it is true that the ADA & Joslin don't say that aiming for
> and achieving such targets is bad, nor is that kind of low carbing
> bad. They would be quite happy for an individual doctor to give such
> advice to an individual patient based on their needs and
> capabilities.
No "of course" about it. Joslin clinicians told me NOT to low carb,
that it was dangerous to me. A Joslin nurse was shocked to hear I might
test at 1 hour PP. "But your glucose might not have come down by then!"
she exclaimed.
PP
Julie Bove
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 7/27/2011 2:27 PM, BlueBrooke wrote:
>
>> Perhaps Jennifer's contribution was wording the information in a way
>> that the "great unwashed" can relate to -- specifically the
>> information about non-diabetic numbers, as well as testing at one
>> hour. Apparently, when the doctors said to test at one hour, it was
>> couched in such scientifically confusing terms as "don't test at one
>> hour because you don't need to know how high your BG goes," and we
>> just couldn't understand those big words.
>
> hours after eating so the sugar has time to clear out of your blood."
> That's a quote from what my mother was told and many folks have told
> me that and reported it here as well.
So the sugar has time to clear out of your blood? That's a new one to me.
A REAL new one. If the sugar clears out of your blood, you'll be dead.
There is *always* sugar in the blood. Or there should be. Even when having
a hypo there is some sugar in there. Sheesh. I mean, freaking SHEESH! I
have never heard that. Never EVER heard that. Except for just not.
Sheesh! And I'll say it again. SHEESH!
>
> The other thing about Jennifer's advice that was so important and
> generous was that she prepared it as a response for worried newbies
> and always replied immediately to them by sharing it without having
> to write up something new each time. It was so helpful and highly
> regarded that it became a permanent part of the asd faq that I know I
> frequently provide to newly diagnosed diabetics here and elsewhere.
>
> The fasting recommendation is out of date, but on the whole, it's
> incredibly valuable. Anyone trying to diminish her accomplishment and
> generosity of her service to other diabetics is just a lowlife.
You are missing the point too. Sheesh.
Peppermint Patootie
"Julie Bove" <juli...@frontier.com> wrote:
> > In that sense I do think there is something usefully different and
> > novel about Jennifer's Advice.
>
> You *still* don't get it. Do you? It's not *her* advice! Just because she
> said it once and saved it to her hard drive to copy again and again and
> again doesn't make it *her* advice.
Oh, those plays you say are "by" that Shakespeare guy aren't really HIS.
Other people before him wrote stuff on the same themes, and every word
he used was used by someone before him!
So stop saying they're "by Shakespeare." They're not!
PP
Julie Bove
Again... I gave people pretty much the same advice that Jennifer did. Lots
of people did. But it was never called *our* advice. Only *Jennifer's*
advice. Why? Because she took the time to save it to her hard drive then
copy and paste it?
outsider
Logic obviously isn't your strong suit.
outsider
Here is is again, the underlying rule in a.s.d.
"It doesn't so much matter what is said as it matters who said it."
I have no doubt that Jennifer was a wonderful participant. But here
they've canonized her into a saint.
Julie Bove
Yes they have. And IMO if she really cared so much, she would have stayed.
But she didn't.
Chris Malcolm
> And now you see why I don't follow the "advice" given by some, including
> you.
> I test 2X / day: before breakfast and before supper.
> Mornings are running in the 103-109 range and evenings are in the 80-95
> range. A1c's have been very good in the 5's
> I'm still losing weight ... down to 215 from a max of 300 in '05, I doing
> more work than I could a year ago, and my medical provider is reducing med
> dosages.
> Malcolm, you're parroting the "test till you drop from blood loss and my
> skin looks like pure scar tissue" mantra and not allowing for good ol' YMMV
> to fit in for others besides yourself.
No I'm not. Because my own doc because of UK NHS policy can't
prescribe that many test strips for a T2 I wasn't able to test nearly as
often as Jennifer recommended.
But in this thread I'm specifically discussing the general usefulness
of Jennifer's Advice. She recommended testing 8 times a day until
you'd established a good stable regime. Then you didn't need to test
so often.
People like me and Alan whose docs can't or won't prescribe that many
testing strips had to invent more economical variations of that kind
of testing regime. Alan devised an easily understood version for
newbies which IIRC he wrote up on a blog page which many found
useful. He also wrote up a useful page of testing methods for people
who had problems of bruising, scarring, etc. which prevented them from
doing as much testing as they wanted to do.
There's been lots of ingenuity and discussion of ways round the
problem of being unable or unwilling to test so much, even just for a
few months.
But I'm not addressing those kinds of issues in this particular
thread. And I'm certainly not telling anyone they have to follow
Jennifer's Advice at all, let alone follow it to the exact letter.
--
Chris Malcolm
Wes Groleau
> If you don't need it, fine. If it didn't work for you because of other
> conditions, fine, but don't keep trying to sell it short as "unoriginal"
> "adds nothing new" etc.
Who cares whether it's new or not? Good advice is good advice.
--
Wes Groleau
There are two types of people in the world …
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1157
Tiger Lily
Parody not your strong suit?
Please, why are we making snide remarks to each other on a SUPPORT group!
Sider, my first statement was only illustrative, not meant personally.
kate
Chris Malcolm
> On Jul 26, 6:32�pm, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> The previous discussion about this has got rather polluted by
>> cross-posting trolls so I'm restarting it here.
> The only trolling and pollution I see is what you wrote in this post,
I thought you didn't operate any kind of kill file or filtering, Kurt?
How come you didn't see the usual cross-posted trollery from the
religious doc and his dog pack of taunters?
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
And kept on improving it in response to comment and criticism. In
other words she put in the effort to develop a good summary which not
only she but others could cut and paste.
Would you have the same objections if it had got called "Jennifer's
Summary"?
--
Chris Malcolm
Julie Bove
Again you are missing the point. But I think you always will. I gave
pretty much the same advice as she did again and again. So did plenty of
others. In our own words. But did anyone ever say it was *our* advice?
No! Somehow it is always Jennifer's advice and she isn't even here any
more.
Damian
Are you jealous?
You sound/read like you are.
Damian
outsider
Why are you asking me? I'm the "new guy". You should be asking someone
who might know why, I'm only following the traditions established by
others.
Why aren't you asking the master of snide remarks in this forum, Susan.
Don't you read her postings?
> Sider, my first statement was only illustrative, not meant personally.
In this case I agree with Julie. Why are you, and others in this group,
making Jennifer into a saint? I think that qualifies as "personally".
And so do the questions you asked me this time around.
Ted
In this case I agree with YMMV
Jenifers advice is FINE, but how fragile is YOUR bg. Some people can get away with testing every day or so. If you are under good control, you only need to test enough to make sure you haven't drifted. If you are bouncing around, TEST TEST TEST. (although I think that 1 hr AND 2 hr postprandial a bit much)
One important thing to remember about testing. If you are not adjusting your meds with each test WHY BOTHER.
Study after study shows that frequent testing does not improve control in most people. That is because they keep a log, and three months later show it to their doctor, who changes their meds in some fixed pattern.
The only people who get benefit from frequent testing are those of us who dial up our dose based upon our current test.
As to the targets - I find ALL of them high. The AACE target for hospitalized patients is only 115. Joslin is notoriously high on everything, and ADA just tends to be VERY SLOW in adopting new guidelins.
outsider
> Late into this argument
> In this case I agree with YMMV
>
> Jenifers advice is FINE, but how fragile is YOUR bg. Some people can get
> away with testing every day or so. If you are under good control, you
> only need to test enough to make sure you haven't drifted. If you are
> bouncing around, TEST TEST TEST. (although I think that 1 hr AND 2 hr
> postprandial a bit much)
> One important thing to remember about testing. If you are not adjusting
> your meds with each test WHY BOTHER.
The reasons are different for Type 1 and Type 2. Since I am T2 I limit
my discussion that that.
Because there are 3 factors I am aware of that affect my bg. Those are
diet, exercise, and medication.
> Study after study shows that frequent testing does not improve control
> in most people.That is because they keep a log, and three months later
> show it to their doctor, who changes their meds in some fixed pattern.
When I lived in the Chicago suburbs, I saw an endo every 3 months. His
therapy wasn't limited to the meds, we regularly discussed diet and
exercise as well. Meds weren't the first treatment, diet was (and
remains so today) closely followed by the amount of exercise I get,
within the limits imposed by other considerations such as pain in
various parts of my body.
> The only people who get benefit from frequent testing are those of us
> who dial up our dose based upon our current test.
Knowledge is power. If a person chooses not to use the information,
that's a whole separate issue.
> As to the targets - I find ALL of them high. The AACE target for
> hospitalized patients is only 115. Joslin is notoriously high on
> everything, and ADA just tends to be VERY SLOW in adopting new guidelins.
Without testing you have no way of meeting any guideline.
W. Baker
: Late into this argument
: In this case I agree with YMMV
: Jenifers advice is FINE, but how fragile is YOUR bg. Some people can get away with testing every day or so. If you are under good control, you only need to test enough to make sure you haven't drifted. If you are bouncing around, TEST TEST TEST. (although I think that 1 hr AND 2 hr postprandial a bit much)
: One important thing to remember about testing. If you are not adjusting
your meds with each test WHY BOTHER.
For many of us, Ted, we adjust either exercise or food if we find nubers
running too high. In addition, some testing, once you have establishes
basic patters for yourself may help keep you on track. I find that
testing after dinner, sometime between 1 and 2 hours helps me to restrain
myself at the dinner table, just as weighing myself daily keeps me from
slowly accumulating more poundsthat can creep, unseen without the dail
check.
: Study after study shows that frequent testing does not improve control
in most people. That is because they keep a log, and three months later
show it to their doctor, who changes their meds in some fixed pattern.
Also-adjuct their eatin and exercising, not just meds.
: The only people who get benefit from frequent testing are those of us
who dial up our dose based upon our current test.
Wendy
Bob
Kurt's sh*t stirring has little to do with Jennifer's advice and
everything with his hatred for Chris Malcolm.
It doesn't matter what Chris says, Kurt is on him.
Bob
Bob
Yap Yap Yap Yap
Bob
> On Jul 26, 6:32 pm, Chris Malcolm<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> The previous discussion about this has got rather polluted by
>> cross-posting trolls so I'm restarting it here.
>
> The only trolling and pollution I see is what you wrote in this post,
> say I said, but I never said. You are doing that kind of thing now on
> such a regular basis and in so many posts that when others do it they
> should be accused of "Pulling a Malcolmism." In other words, it is now
> your m.o. to own. Congratulations.
>
Cut the crap. You are the # 1 Shit stirrer here now. No one comes even
close. Go see a shrink.
> Kurt
Bob
And you can't stand it. Because "they" would never canonize you,
although you are the most wonderful participant this group has ever seen.
Bob
So start a decanonization campaign to set things right.
>
Bob
Because quite a few here are only here because they are not all here.
Bob
Tiger Lily
>> Please, why are we making snide remarks to each other on a SUPPORT group!
>
> Why are you asking me? I'm the "new guy". You should be asking someone
> who might know why, I'm only following the traditions established by
> others.
Let's start a new tradition! :D
>
> Why aren't you asking the master of snide remarks in this forum, Susan.
> Don't you read her postings?
Don't you read my replies?
>
>> Sider, my first statement was only illustrative, not meant personally.
>
> In this case I agree with Julie. Why are you, and others in this group,
> making Jennifer into a saint? I think that qualifies as "personally".
No one has made Jennifer into a saint. Jennifer worked the material she
was giving, in response to newbie questions, until she had a product she
felt was easy to understand, and as correct as the information available
at the time. She was the lady right there with the answer when it came
up. The ASD Web site was formed. Jennifer was asked if it was ok to
quote her on the web site. Now a name was put to her article. I think
it would be logical that her name be in the title of the article. No
one is freaking out over "Kate's Free Veggies"!
>
> And so do the questions you asked me this time around.
Weren't meant to be. I hope I've clarified things for you.
kate
Paul L
responding to this particular statement.
> One important thing to remember about testing. If you are not
adjusting your meds with each test WHY BOTHER.
For the newly diagnosed T2s, frequent testing at the beginning provides
valuable information our entire lives ... info that will be useful long
beyond the time we test 8, 10, 12 times a day.
Paul
Janet
> Late into this argument
> In this case I agree with YMMV
>
> Jenifers advice is FINE, but how fragile is YOUR bg. Some people can
> get away with testing every day or so. If you are under good
> control, you only need to test enough to make sure you haven't
> drifted. If you are bouncing around, TEST TEST TEST. (although I
> think that 1 hr AND 2 hr postprandial a bit much)
>
> One important thing to remember about testing. If you are not
> adjusting your meds with each test WHY BOTHER.
Because testing new foods, or the same foods at different times of the day
or in different quantities or combinations enables us to control our BG
through diet. Exercise is, of course, important in achieving control, but
for me the answer is always "more would be better," so I don't think of
testing as a way to guage how much I need. Maybe for someone who is a real
gym rat or who habitually exercises for hours per day...
I certainly don't test at the "test, test, test" levels every day at this
point. Some days I don't test at all, or just in the AM. (My FBG tends to
bounce around a bit, but I haven't been able to connect it to any specific
foods or behaviors the day before.)
W. Baker
Damian
<outs...@sometime.individual.net> wrote:
>On 7/27/2011 11:42 PM, Tiger Lily wrote:
>> On 7/27/2011 4:44 PM, outsider wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2011 5:16 PM, Peppermint Patootie wrote:
>>>> In article<j0ooed$b2m$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>>> "Julie Bove"<juli...@frontier.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> In that sense I do think there is something usefully different and
>>>>>> novel about Jennifer's Advice.
>>>>>
>>>>> You *still* don't get it. Do you? It's not *her* advice! Just because
>>>>> she
>>>>> said it once and saved it to her hard drive to copy again and again and
>>>>> again doesn't make it *her* advice.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, those plays you say are "by" that Shakespeare guy aren't really HIS.
>>>> Other people before him wrote stuff on the same themes, and every word
>>>> he used was used by someone before him!
>>>>
>>>> So stop saying they're "by Shakespeare." They're not!
>>>
>>> Logic obviously isn't your strong suit.
>>
>> Parody not your strong suit?
>>
>> Please, why are we making snide remarks to each other on a SUPPORT group!
>
>Why are you asking me? I'm the "new guy". You should be asking someone
>who might know why, I'm only following the traditions established by
>others.
>
Quick, everyone pretend to jump off a cliff.
Julie Bove
Julie Bove
"Bob" <anothas...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:j0ru80$1rt$2...@dont-email.me...
Who the hell are you?
outsider
He's another big mouthed nobody in my killfile.
Ozgirl
"W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:j0sfd9$6qh$1...@reader1.panix.com...
She invented the IRC script though :)
Damian
Damian
ooh scary kill file that you attack from behind like a coward.
Tiger Lily
giggle
people still use that line :D
i've often wanted it to work on e-mail, would be much easier
maybe it'll fit into a sig file?
lol
kate
Tiger Lily
Julie Bove
"Tiger Lily" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:99en29...@mid.individual.net...
Must be someone who was in my KF and is no longer.
Ozlover
"Bob" and "Damian" are two twats who can't decide which one of them is
playing Mack this week.
--
Frank Slootweg,
"I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce."
kurtwh...@yahoo.com
> Kurt's sh*t stirring has little to do with Jennifer's advice and
> everything with his hatred for Chris Malcolm.
> It doesn't matter what Chris says, Kurt is on him.
> Bob
Actually I only respond to Chris when he misrepresents the subject at
hand...I can't help it if that happens on so many of his posts.
But seriously, are you really saying something about another poster's
commenting too much or too derogatory after your years of doing that
to just about everything Alan S. posted here? Not that I didn't find
most of those comments either amusing or spot on, but come on
man...you might want to buy some Windex for those glass walls on your
house. lol
Kurt
Ozlover
> On Jul 28, 7:58�am, Bob <anothascreen...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Kurt's sh*t stirring has little to do with Jennifer's advice and
> > everything with his hatred for Chris Malcolm.
> > It doesn't matter what Chris says, Kurt is on him.
> > Bob
>
> Actually I only respond to Chris when he misrepresents the subject at
> hand...I can't help it if that happens on so many of his posts.
+1
> But seriously, are you really saying something about another poster's
> commenting too much or too derogatory after your years of doing that
> to just about everything Alan S. posted here? Not that I didn't find
> most of those comments either amusing or spot on, but come on
> man...you might want to buy some Windex for those glass walls on your
> house. lol
+1
Of late, "Bob" has been quite hypo, and I'm not talking about his BG!
And he changes 'friends' and 'enemies' as quickly as other people change
their underwear.
--
Frank Slootweg,
"I was in the grocery store. I saw a sign that said 'pet supplies.'
So I did. Then I went outside and saw a sign that said 'compact cars.'"
Julie Bove
"Ozlover" <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:99fue...@mid.individual.net...
I see.
outsider
Actually, some time back Jim Dumas predicted Bob's imminent return over
in m.h.d. I wondered (and still wonder) how he knew in advance like
that. But it isn't important enough to spend more than a minute on
the topic and that time is up.
Wes Groleau
> Would you have the same objections if it had got called "Jennifer's
> Summary"?
Insufficiently obfuscated. "Jennifer's Recapitulation"
is a step in the right direction.
--
Wes Groleau
There are two types of people in the world …
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1157
Wes Groleau
> Study after study shows that frequent testing does not improve control in most people.
The strange thing is that even though it is obvious to some of us
that the problem is not acting on the results, others somehow
manage to turn it into advice: "Don't test, because it doesn't help."
Julie Bove
"outsider" <outs...@sometime.individual.net> wrote in message
news:99gqje...@mid.individual.net...
Oh wait! Is this the crazy Bob who says he eats no carbs?
Julie Bove
"Wes Groleau" <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote in message
news:j0vp7g$s0d$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 07-28-2011 09:35, Ted wrote:
>> Study after study shows that frequent testing does not improve control in
>> most people.
>
> The strange thing is that even though it is obvious to some of us
> that the problem is not acting on the results, others somehow
> manage to turn it into advice: "Don't test, because it doesn't help."
I must say for the most part it doesn't help me. If only I could just low
carb and things would be fine. But it doesn't work that way for me. And I
have tried not eating when my BG is high only to have it rise higher.
outsider
> On 07-28-2011 09:35, Ted wrote:
>> Study after study shows that frequent testing does not improve control
>> in most people.
>
> The strange thing is that even though it is obvious to some of us
> that the problem is not acting on the results, others somehow
> manage to turn it into advice: "Don't test, because it doesn't help."
Once in a while Wes gets something right. Tis is one of those times.
OTOH all that I've seen from Ted so far has ranged from outright
wrong to very marginally possible.
outsider
I don't know or care whether this crazy Bob eats carbs.
Julie Bove
Mmmm... Ted is an old timer here. He can get a bit cantankerous and can
have a mouth on him but at least with regards to diabetes and meds and such
he is usually right.
Julie Bove
Just wondering if it is him because he was in my KF.
Bjørn Steensrud
> On 07-28-2011 09:35, Ted wrote:
>> Study after study shows that frequent testing does not improve control
>> in most people.
>
> The strange thing is that even though it is obvious to some of us that
> the problem is not acting on the results, others somehow manage to turn
> it into advice: "Don't test, because it doesn't help."
Even doctors do it. I asked for a strips prescription:
"What do you need that for? There's nothing short-term you can do anyway."
But he did have good advice about d&e, and next visit I'll ask again and
point out that my reasonably good HbA1c may be due to testing on my own.
The cost here is about US $1.- per strip, so a prescription would help.
If only US netshops were willing to ship to Europe :-)
outsider
Perhaps you're right, all that I *notice* is when he goes way off and is
disastrously wrong, although this most recent one has to do with
diabetes and meds.
W. Baker
: On 7/29/2011 10:17 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
: >
: > Oh wait! Is this the crazy Bob who says he eats no carbs?
: I don't know or care whether this crazy Bob eats carbs.
I don't think so. He was just fixaated on that issue. this is another
Bob, who pops in occaionally .
Wendy
W. Baker
: "Wes Groleau" <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote in message
Julie, your system seems to a most difficult one to get into a decent
range as you seem to have several things going on, like you gastroparesis.
I have no idea what could or should be done for you. I sometimes think
your endo is stumped too. I hope someone finds a way to get you on track
to closer to normal numbers and a WOE that you can live with, between your
allergies, diabetes and everything else. You are a hard one for anyone to
generalize from.
Wendy
Ozlover
While I don't have your complex medical issues, in general 'carb
counting' gives me better long time results (BG and HbA1c) than 'eat to
your meter'. It's not either/or but both, but the emphasis is on carb
counting instead of on eat to your meter.
I had many instances where exactly the same meal at exactly the same
time gave quite wildly differing BG results, ranging from rather/very
good to rather/very bad. That was very frustrating, because I kept
thinking why measure if the result is that unpredicatble and I can't do
anything about the result, i.e. if it's good, that's wasted time, effort
and money, and if it's bad, I can't 'uneat' it.
So I do mostly carb counting and only if something is an unknown,
never tested, food, which I'm likely to want to eat again, I test the
effect of that food several times. If the results are stable, then fine.
If the results are unstable, but the carb count is acceptable, tough,
I'll eat it if I like it.
Because of this, I also do not not-eat when my BG is unexprectedly
high. I might eat a little less carbs, or a little later, but no
no-eating (of carbs).
The idea behind all of this is that I think it's better to keep my
'motor' (pancreas) idling/running all/most of the time, instead of full
speed (meal) and then full on the breaks (pause/'fast'), etc.. My HbA1c
and FBG indicate that this method seems to work for me.
I hope this is of some use to you (or someone else). I would
appreciate it if you would give credit where credit is due and hence
call it "Frank's Advice"! :-)
--
Frank Slootweg,
"Australia, beautiful one day - perfect the next."
Julie Bove
Sadly, he is stumped.
outsider
> Sadly, he is stumped.
Some issues (not just medical, but in every realm) are so complex that the
answers aren't readily available.
A classic example you'd think to be solvable is the "three body
problem."
Damian
You can cut that cost to .50 cents per strip if you use the walmart
brand.
Damian
Bjørn Steensrud
>>The cost here is about US $1.- per strip, so a prescription would help.
>>If only US netshops were willing to ship to Europe :-)
>
>
> You can cut that cost to .50 cents per strip if you use the walmart
> brand.
>
> Damian
Sorry - no Walmarts in this country ...
Bob
You don't need Walmart to cut the cost of your test strip in half: just
*split* them.
Here's an (albeit very dated) link on a study "to determine whether
splitting test strips for capillary blood glucose self-monitoring will
permit reliable measurement of blood glucose levels"
http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/economics/biblio_13-47.htm
Bob
Damian
wrote:
Doesn't work with all test strips.
Damian
Damian
>> On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 21:10:39 -0500, Damian wrote:
>>
>>>> The cost here is about US $1.- per strip, so a prescription would help.
>>>> If only US netshops were willing to ship to Europe :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> You can cut that cost to .50 cents per strip if you use the walmart
>>> brand.
>>>
>>> Damian
>>
>> Sorry - no Walmarts in this country ...
>
Have you tried ordering them from Walmart.com? They can be ordered
without a prescription.
And since they are not a drug, they can be shipped anywhere.
Damian
W. Baker
: On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 06:17:12 -0700, Bob <anothas...@aol.com>
: wrote:
Wes Groleau
> While I don't have your complex medical issues, in general 'carb
> counting' gives me better long time results (BG and HbA1c) than 'eat to
> your meter'. It's not either/or but both, but the emphasis is on carb
> counting instead of on eat to your meter.
To me, "eat to your meter" means that the meter tells me
what number to count to.
Damian
<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>On 07-30-2011 16:03, Ozlover wrote:
>> While I don't have your complex medical issues, in general 'carb
>> counting' gives me better long time results (BG and HbA1c) than 'eat to
>> your meter'. It's not either/or but both, but the emphasis is on carb
>> counting instead of on eat to your meter.
>
>To me, "eat to your meter" means that the meter tells me
>what number to count to.
Exactly, works the same for type 1s as well.
Damian
Janet
> On 07-30-2011 16:03, Ozlover wrote:
>> While I don't have your complex medical issues, in general 'carb
>> counting' gives me better long time results (BG and HbA1c) than 'eat
>> to your meter'. It's not either/or but both, but the emphasis is on
>> carb counting instead of on eat to your meter.
>
> To me, "eat to your meter" means that the meter tells me
> what number to count to.
Yes, me too. It does me no good to say that I *ought* to be able to eat 30
gms of carb in the form of legume flour at dinner, if the resulting BG is
183, as happened last night.
Ozlover
If you had read my whole response - instead of Wes' *partial* quote -
you would have realized that your response is just a repeat of what I
said, but implies that it's not.
Ozlover
> On 07-30-2011 16:03, Ozlover wrote:
> > While I don't have your complex medical issues, in general 'carb
> > counting' gives me better long time results (BG and HbA1c) than 'eat to
> > your meter'. It's not either/or but both, but the emphasis is on carb
> > counting instead of on eat to your meter.
>
> To me, "eat to your meter" means that the meter tells me
> what number to count to.
To count *what*? If carbs, then that seems to imply that all carbs are
equal and independent of time of day. For most diabetics, that's not the
case, so perhaps you should elaborate on what your one-line response
*really* means.
GysdeJongh
> On 07-30-2011 16:03, Ozlover wrote:
>> While I don't have your complex medical issues, in general 'carb
>> counting' gives me better long time results (BG and HbA1c) than 'eat
>> to your meter'. It's not either/or but both, but the emphasis is on
>> carb counting instead of on eat to your meter.
>
> To me, "eat to your meter" means that the meter tells me
> what number to count to.
I would only consider that if the world was 1 dimesional
Julie Bove
You can't split test strips! Not the ones made in this country anyway.
kurtwh...@yahoo.com
the then usual suspects and is making its rounds again. Okay, time
once again, to add to that inadequate and incomplete talking point...
1. "Eat to your meter, but not at the risk of foregoing proper
nutrition."
People with diabetes have the same nutritional needs as everyone else.
Your meter can't tell you what to eat, or if it's healthy, only what
your bg number is after what you just ate. If 99% of one's diet was
cheese, the numbers might be good but that's not proper nutrition and
could lead to many other problems.
2. "Lose weight to your meter."
There is no getting around it, if one has excess weight it will play a
major factor in how the body reacts to food, insulin, and medication.
Losing excess weight will aid in the important issue of controlling
blood glucose levels.
3. "Exercise to your meter."
Often forgotten in the advice given in this newsgroup, each one of us
and our bg numbers will benefit from some kind of exercise. You don't
have to train for the Triathlon, but working with your healthcare team
to determine how much and what kinds of exercise is right for you will
play an important part in how you control your diabetes. Keep in mind
that exercise will affect your bg numbers and you will have to monitor
yourself closely to avoid a hypoglycemic episode.
Kurt
W. Baker
This is a point well noted here, in fact newbies are often recommended to
be especially careful of their breakfast carbs as many many type 2s have
their hardest time dealign with carbs at that time. As a result, set low
carb value and test, test, test to detirmine the carb level that works for
your breakfast and what foods work for you. I don't see the big
difference in your method and jennifers, except that for many different
carbs react differently on thier bgs, so it is good to test both
individual foods and food combinations(protein and carbs may allow for
slightly more carbs at one time. the only way to find out is to test
after eating.
Wendy
outsider
+1
outsider
+3.14159
outsider
The more desperate the usual suspects become the more they abandon common
sense.
Diabetes is only one aspect of an otherwise complete human being, with
all the needs that that creates. The same diversity that attends
non-diabetic humans exists for us. I'd been suspicious for a while
that "deluxe nuts" (a variety package without peanuts) drives up my
bg. Today I tested it. Half a serving (the normal serving is 1/4 cup)
drives my bg up 10 points in half an hour. That's way out of the
"standard" increase for the carbs indicated on the package. And then
the bg just sits there for the next 2 hours unless some intermediate
intervention drives it back down.
There are no 1 line solutions that work for everyone.
Tiger Lily
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 7/31/2011 3:38 PM, Janet wrote:
>
>> Yes, me too. It does me no good to say that I *ought* to be able to
>> eat 30
>> gms of carb in the form of legume flour at dinner, if the resulting BG is
>> 183, as happened last night.
>>
>>
>
> carbs. YMMV.
>
> Susan
and, anecdotally, YM*W*V, i can eat lentils with neglibible bg impact at all
kate
Tiger Lily
oh, Pie in your eye!
giggle
kate
W. Baker
But how did you find out that the nuts raised our bg more than expected?
You ested, not depd on counting the carbs, so you know not to eat these in
that quantity again. That's what teh test, test, test, advice is all
about. Of course, one should watch nutrition values, exercise, etc, but
to know what YOU, personally, can eat and when you need to use your meter
several times to see how a given food or combination of foods afftects
YOU, not some average diabeic of non-diabetic.
Stop slamming what you, yourself, are doing.
Wendy
Damian
<outs...@sometime.individual.net> wrote:
>On 7/31/2011 4:41 PM, kurtwh...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> "Eat to your meter" is a flawed sound-byte created many years ago by
>> the then usual suspects and is making its rounds again. Okay, time
>> once again, to add to that inadequate and incomplete talking point...
>>
>> 1. "Eat to your meter, but not at the risk of foregoing proper
>> nutrition."
>>
>> People with diabetes have the same nutritional needs as everyone else.
>> Your meter can't tell you what to eat, or if it's healthy, only what
>> your bg number is after what you just ate. If 99% of one's diet was
>> cheese, the numbers might be good but that's not proper nutrition and
>> could lead to many other problems.
Eating to your meter does not automatically make one eat in an
unhealthy manner forsaking good nutrition. Those bad habits exist
without the use of a meter.
>>
>> 2. "Lose weight to your meter."
>>
>> There is no getting around it, if one has excess weight it will play a
>> major factor in how the body reacts to food, insulin, and medication.
>> Losing excess weight will aid in the important issue of controlling
>> blood glucose levels.
True, in part. Losing weight will help people regulate their BG
better by easing some insulin resistance. This does not take into
account those who are insulin resistant at or below normal weight for
their age and height.
>>
>> 3. "Exercise to your meter."
>>
>> Often forgotten in the advice given in this newsgroup, each one of us
>> and our bg numbers will benefit from some kind of exercise. You don't
>> have to train for the Triathlon, but working with your healthcare team
>> to determine how much and what kinds of exercise is right for you will
>> play an important part in how you control your diabetes. Keep in mind
>> that exercise will affect your bg numbers and you will have to monitor
>> yourself closely to avoid a hypoglycemic episode.
Since I have been here I have several people talking about the
importance of exercise. This point you bring up in the manner you
bring it up is a misrepresentation of what others are actually doing.
>
>The more desperate the usual suspects become the more they abandon common
>sense.
Very true. Kurt being just below you on that list of trolls.
>
>Diabetes is only one aspect of an otherwise complete human being, with
>all the needs that that creates. The same diversity that attends
>non-diabetic humans exists for us. I'd been suspicious for a while
>that "deluxe nuts" (a variety package without peanuts) drives up my
>bg. Today I tested it. Half a serving (the normal serving is 1/4 cup)
>drives my bg up 10 points in half an hour. That's way out of the
>"standard" increase for the carbs indicated on the package. And then
>the bg just sits there for the next 2 hours unless some intermediate
>intervention drives it back down.
>
>There are no 1 line solutions that work for everyone.
So you tested to see what a specific food and portion size will do to
your BG. How does that differ in any way with what the Eat to meter
test test approach states? It doesn't.
I figured out right away that the two of you are trolls. I ask this
question of everyone else, are these two trolls even diabetic?
Damian
Tiger Lily
> x-no-archive: yes
>
>
>> and, anecdotally, YM*W*V, i can eat lentils with neglibible bg impact at
>> all
>>
>
> for me.
>
> Susan
Oh, not questioning you, Susan, i fully believe you. It was Your
mileage WILL Vary that i was pointing out here.
Brain bubble, there is something that everyone seems to have no trouble
with. I'm not that lucky.
giggle
kate