Doing everything right but the numbers are going up
LizardQueen
the meter I've been trying to do everything right - exercising every
day, 40 minutes, a lot of it hard, eating lowered carb, etc., weights
3x a week. I've lost 15 lbs - but my numbers are going up rather than
down.
Things that last week or the week before would have only put me to 110
post lunch sent me to 127 1 hour post lunch today (I promptly marched
the stairs at work for 15 minutes to sop it up).
I've noticed the same trend with other things that didn't have that
effect in the first 2 weeks.
When I first changed my diet I started seeing fastings in the high 80's
and low 90's for the first week or two, now they're at the mid to high
90s. Still better than the 104 I started with but what gives?
Is it the Omega 3s? I've been eating high-omega eggs in the AM(figured
they'd be better for me) and salmon a few times a week.
Is the low carb making me more insulin resistant so when I do eat a
modest amt of carbs (wasa cracker or whatever) it gives me a spike?
Is it because I'm not getting a decent nights sleep and it's catching
up to me?
I wish to god my doc would put me on Glucophage so I can save my
pancreas while trying to work this out.
What the hell do I have to do to keep the glucose flat?
LQ, very frustrated
LizardQueen
don't always measure exactly. I just keep cutting carbs out.
Even last night I had no carbs other than salad and green beans with
some very lean steak for dinner and I was at 118 at 1 hour.
I may go completely South Beach for awhile and see how that goes.
LQ
LizardQueen
I'm not willing to cut out the vegetables, which (as I read Phase 1 of
SB) is pretty much the only carbs in that plan (Phase 1).
It's Phase 2 when they add a few back, I won't go try that until this
gets hammered out.
Plus it's lower in saturated fat, which I read could increase insulin
resistance.
I'm ok with the good fats, have been eating almonds, olives, avocados.
LQ
Owlyn
wonderful. You are overreacting and worrying about nothing. Readings
within 20% of one another are within the range of error of any meter.
IOW, for example, 90 is roughly the same as anything between 81 and 99.
The difference is almost meaningless.
Also, 127 at 1 hour post lunch is a fabulous number. the "acceptable"
number 1 hour post prandial is 150-180, so you are doing fine. Besides
110 * (margin of error) = 121, so once again, at 127 the difference is
only 6 points outside the expected range of differences. 6 points does
not require any action to be taken.
Anyway, your body is a body, not a computer. You can't expect the exact
same results even under identical conditions.
BTW, have you ever checked you BG after the 15 minute stair climb? It
could verty well be higher.
Michelle
I can't add anything to what Susan has already offered. However, I do
want to say congrats on the 15 pound weight loss! It's coming off
fast. Good job!
Michelle
Roger Zoul
::: Why South Beach?
So, have you tried something like Atkins or not? On Atkins you don't need
to give up veggies at all and you can not say you're doing Atkins and just
hop to phase 2 (leaving off the two-week induction phase if that notion
bothers you). For example, you can set your carbs at 30 or 40 / day and see
how that works for you.
If you're working out with cardio and weights, and not over eating carbs, it
is very doubtful that moderate amounts of sat fat will be a problem. In
fact, no one says you must eat a lot of sat fats to do Atkins. I personally
improved my IR greatly with an Atkin-like eating plan combined with exercise
(cardio/weights).
If you haven't tried LC like this, and are playing around with 40-30-30 and
SB, and are having difficulting getting control, it might be time to quit
dancing around with so many carbs. Eating to your meter is great, but you
do have to test a lot. It's not as great as having rock-solid BGs without
testing a lot, though.
Loretta Eisenberg
probable cause of your numbers going up. What numbers you are recitiung
here seem perfectly fine to me. 127 at one hour post prandial is in the
realm of under 140.
You are making yourself crazy and stressing yourself out. Hence numbers
can go up. I think you need to relax a bit and try taking your numbers
when you wake up, two hours after breakfast, before lunch and two hours
after and the same is true for dinner. I count two hours from the time
I put my fork down, not with the first bite.
I prefer to see the lower numbers
I hear panic in your voice and that is affecting your bgs. Maybe you
need to see someone about your nervous condition for something to calm
you down. jmo
Loretta
--
In tribute to the United States of America and the State
of Israel, two bastions of strength in a world filled with strife and
terrorism.
Loretta Eisenberg
which would be what a non diabetic might have
LizardQueen
"just" RH and probably IGT.
I want to keep my pps low as possible for 2 reasons - 1) to not end up
T2 and 2) because I can unfortunately feel it bad when the pancreas
finally wakes up and kicks in and knocks it down 30 pts in 15 minutes.
LQ
LizardQueen
anymore.
I don't think I'm much over 30 or 40 g anyway - most I have per meal is
10 - 12, I'm maybe at 60 per day if that.
Atkins induction kind of grossed me out reading about it, maybe his 2nd
phase is the place to start.
Thanks
LQ
LizardQueen
Thanks for the recommendation. I think that's the only one I don't have
so far :lol:.
LQ
Roger Zoul
:: Roger and Susan, I think you are right about not dancing with the
I do agree with others that you need to not stress out and give the process
time to work. But it still depends on how many carbs you're eating. And,
since you're not even a T2 yet.....I would imagine that control would be
fairly easy to get. What kind of weight training routine are you using?
How much cardio?
David
here's a quarter; now go buy a clue. In fact I'll give you a dollar and
you can buy FOUR clues. 127 is nothing to worry about you anal idiot.
You are ALWAYS going to be frustrated if you think 127 rates a panic.
Dave
LizardQueen
> How much cardio?
Every AM any 1 of the following, depending on mood or weather:
- 40 minutes step aerobics (have to take the arms out sometimes because
of fatigue).
- 40 minutes on the exercise bike at 4 min mile pace cycling resistance
between 4 and 6 out of 10.
- 40 minute walk (2 miles) on my hilly road. It's great for interval
training as it has hill/flat spot/hill/flat spot/hill. I don't slow
down on the hills.
3x a week, usually Monday/Wed/Friday 30 reps each of 5 different arm
lifts with 3 or 5 lbs weights (I build muscle easily and don't want to
look like Popeye), 30 on each side of 2 different leg lefts, and 30
situps.
Easy to do while watching TV.
I try to throw in additional walks where I can - once around the office
park after lunch, parking far away at the mall or for class so I have
to walk, parking at upper end of office lot, etc.
Unfortunately I live in the northeast and the weather is rotten.
I'm fat but I'm not in terrible shape. I could do most of these things
when I started off a month ago. It only took me a week before I had to
up the resistance on the exercise bike because it wasn't taxing me
enough.
I've always been really strong (it's my theory on why I didn't get full
T2 despite my terrible habits).
LQ
LizardQueen
What about the info out here that says anything over 100 kills betas?
I've seen that stated repeatedly. If there is no beta damage with me
hitting the 120s after I eat then I won't worry about it.
LQ
Just
> Thanks for the caps. If I piss you off so bad don't read me.
>
> What about the info out here that says anything over 100 kills betas?
> I've seen that stated repeatedly.
Where exactly did you read that?
Beta cell damage happens above 140
http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14045621.php
http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14045678.php
http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14046702.php
I think you are getting paranoid.
I don't think most people can feel a 25-30 point
drop in BG unless the drop is from 70 to 40.
Just relax & stop testing for a couple of weeks
till your stress goes away.
Just
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Just wrote:
>
>> I think you are getting paranoid.
>
> stress level.
Stress also raises your BG. So I am not sure how constantly
measuring & worrying about PP values less than 130 is
going to help.
Of course, its far better than being in denial or ignoring,
but what LQ is doing is not probably the right thing either.
I am not asking her to ignore permanently - just cool
off for a couple of weeks.
>> I don't think most people can feel a 25-30 point
>> drop in BG unless the drop is from 70 to 40.
>
> She's clearly not most people. No one here is in a position to
> dismiss someone else's experience. I felt the same way when I was
> severely IR and RH.
David
I'll read what I want and I'll respond when I want, which isn't very
often, if you notice the number of threads vs my few posts.
You are your own worst enemy so nothing I say will have an impact on
you. You need to get yourself educated PROPERLY about DM instead of
spending your time here. go to the book store or library. I'm telling
you this for YOUR own good, but I don't expect you to listen.
There--I've had my say.
dave
Nicky
"Just" <ju...@leblanc.com> wrote in message
news:47m3poF...@individual.net...
> I don't think most people can feel a 25-30 point
> drop in BG unless the drop is from 70 to 40.
Liz has demonstrated that she can.
Nicky.
--
A1c 10.5/5.4/<6 T2 DX 05/2004
1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine
95/74/72Kg
Nicky
"LizardQueen" <Green...@att.net> wrote in message
news:1142280184....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> If you buy a single book, try Protein Power by the Eades
>
> Thanks for the recommendation. I think that's the only one I don't have
> so far :lol:.
I'd second that as a good book - and add my voice to the Atkins-like meal
plan successes. I eat a lot of veggies, with good fats, and a few berries,
apricots, prunes or the like. I'm not hung up about fat on my meat, having
looked up the sat/poly/mono ratios of a few things : ) About the only
non-veggie carb I eat is chocolate and yoghurt, sometimes together : ) I do
50-60g carbs.
David
I feel low at exactly 59 on an US meter (or around 70 on a Flash). The
drop rate for me is so low, it takes an actual hypo number for me to
feel low. When I was on MDI, I would feel nervous and shaky even if
over 150 if I was crashing down like a rock from way over 200. Regular
and Lente insulins use to combine to create so scary moments for
me...for 18 years...nearly every day. Thank god for pumps. (and MM)
dave
Owlyn
I certainly appreciate the worthiness of the goal (<140), but it is not
realistic to expect a diabetic to be able to attain it regularly. For
those that do, that is wonderful, fantastic, and I applaud your ability
to be able to do that. For everyone else, though, setting a goal that
is perhaps somewhat unrealistic can be a source of frustration,
diappointment, worry, and stress- which of course is counterproductive.
Obviously, one should strive for it, but one should also not panic (as
LizQueen seems to be doing) if your numbers aren't "perfect" by your
own standards.
LizardQueen
>experiencing severe swings due to hyperinsulinemia after eating, which
>makes her feel ill and worries her more.
The worst has been the overnight false hypos - I've been averaging 4
hrs sleep a night, after being a solid 8 hour a night girl before
trying to clean up my act.
I would probably be a lot less crazed if I was sleeping ok, but I'm
not. Got 3 hours sleep last night as the shakes woke me up at 1, 3, and
then again at 4:30 for good.
Thank you for sticking up for me, and for your patience. You've been
there and have felt like this so you understand like nobody else.
The mentions I've seen of beta cell death at levels under 126 have been
sprinkled around here in various threads, mostly in links posted by
Jenny.
LQ
Just
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Just wrote:
>
>>
>> Stress also raises your BG. So I am not sure how constantly
>> measuring & worrying about PP values less than 130 is
>> going to help.
>
> support.
> She's not diabetic, so those aren't great numbers, and she's
> experiencing severe swings due to hyperinsulinemia after eating, which
> makes her feel ill and worries her more.
>
>>
>> but what LQ is doing is not probably the right thing either.
>
> what she's doing is brilliant.
I am talking about the stress she is taking, not about the other
stuff.
> I wish I'd known to do it years before
> I developed DM with severe neuropathies, never having a fbg above 109.
You could have had high PP's & never know about them.
However LQ is measuring PP's & they are below the range where
any damage occurs. But she is still worrying about it - it would
do good to cool off for a couple of weeks - by cool off, I mean
stop testing, but continue diet, exercise etc.
Julie Bove
"LizardQueen" <Green...@att.net> wrote in message
news:1142275236....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> I don't know what I'm doing wrong. Ever since I found my problem with
> the meter I've been trying to do everything right - exercising every
> day, 40 minutes, a lot of it hard, eating lowered carb, etc., weights
> 3x a week. I've lost 15 lbs - but my numbers are going up rather than
> down.
>
> Things that last week or the week before would have only put me to 110
> post lunch sent me to 127 1 hour post lunch today (I promptly marched
> the stairs at work for 15 minutes to sop it up).
> I've noticed the same trend with other things that didn't have that
> effect in the first 2 weeks.
>
> When I first changed my diet I started seeing fastings in the high 80's
> and low 90's for the first week or two, now they're at the mid to high
> 90s. Still better than the 104 I started with but what gives?
>
> Is it the Omega 3s? I've been eating high-omega eggs in the AM(figured
> they'd be better for me) and salmon a few times a week.
>
> Is the low carb making me more insulin resistant so when I do eat a
> modest amt of carbs (wasa cracker or whatever) it gives me a spike?
>
> Is it because I'm not getting a decent nights sleep and it's catching
> up to me?
>
> I wish to god my doc would put me on Glucophage so I can save my
> pancreas while trying to work this out.
>
> What the hell do I have to do to keep the glucose flat?
Such is the nature of diabetes. Sometimes you can't keep BG stable no
matter what you do and you won't always find the cause.
--
See my webpage:
http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm
Owlyn
long, it feels like down to me." Feeling hypo is relevant. Yoru body
unfortunately adjusts to what your "normal bg level is, and reacts when
it gets out of your "normal" range.
Roger Zoul
::: What kind of weight training routine are you using?
::: How much cardio?
::
:: Every AM any 1 of the following, depending on mood or weather:
:: - 40 minutes step aerobics (have to take the arms out sometimes
:: because of fatigue).
:: - 40 minutes on the exercise bike at 4 min mile pace cycling
:: resistance between 4 and 6 out of 10.
:: - 40 minute walk (2 miles) on my hilly road. It's great for interval
:: training as it has hill/flat spot/hill/flat spot/hill. I don't slow
:: down on the hills.
Good!
::
:: 3x a week, usually Monday/Wed/Friday 30 reps each of 5 different arm
:: lifts with 3 or 5 lbs weights (I build muscle easily and don't want
:: to look like Popeye), 30 on each side of 2 different leg lefts, and
:: 30 situps.
:: Easy to do while watching TV.
Well, this is very suboptimal, except for perhaps the leg work. 30 reps of
each of 5 arm movements with 3 to 5 lbs weights? Sorry, but this is a waste
of time. Also, the leg work may be a waste too if you're using really light
weight. Situps aren't the best movement for the abs, either. You might do
really well to learn how to do a good weight routine, LQ. Believe me, you'll
never look like Popeye. You need to focus on
compound movements that use the larger muscles of your body. Actually, you
can get by with no arm-specific work, as doing chest and back work will take
care of the arms.
There is a lot of muscle mass in the legs, so doing good leg movements will
help a lot. Weight lifting can do a lot to improve insulin senstivity.
Rather than me trying to cover all of this here, why do you go read this:
and look for a full-body 3x per week routine. Note that the site is
women-specific, so that should tell you something.
::
:: I try to throw in additional walks where I can - once around the
:: office park after lunch, parking far away at the mall or for class
:: so I have to walk, parking at upper end of office lot, etc.
:: Unfortunately I live in the northeast and the weather is rotten.
I think you're doing fine in this part.
::
:: I'm fat but I'm not in terrible shape. I could do most of these
:: things when I started off a month ago. It only took me a week
:: before I had to up the resistance on the exercise bike because it
:: wasn't taxing me enough.
::
:: I've always been really strong (it's my theory on why I didn't get
:: full T2 despite my terrible habits).
Well, use this to your advantage and learn to do a proper weight routine.
You'll see excellent results if you do.
Just
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Owlyn wrote:
>> Lo <g>,
>>
>> I certainly appreciate the worthiness of the goal (<140), but it is
>> not realistic to expect a diabetic to be able to attain it regularly.
>
>
> It's not only very realistic, it's important to do so.
>
> I only very rarely exceed 120.
What time do you test after meals?
> LQ isn't a diabetic, she's trying to avoid becoming one; in that
> context, her numbers and the RH symptoms she's having are a sign to
> take preventive steps, which I applaud her for.
Yes, but the preventive steps she needs to take are ones which
keep her BG below 140. And she seems to be achieving that
easily - so thats stuff to be happy about, not worried.
LizardQueen
Uh, didn't realize that. I figured as long as I did it until it felt
like my arms or legs would fall off it would have some effect :lol:.
I'll check out the link, thanks.
LQ
Just
> This *really* sounds like perimenopause to me. Just sayinzall. ;-)
What age does perimenopause happen usually? I am
not asking about the broadest range, but the most common
one. Is excess urination one of the symptoms of perimenopause
(in a non-diabetic) - asking because a friend is having some of
the symptoms LQ described? Is there a foolproof way to diagnose
perimenopause?
LizardQueen
> diagnosing til it's too effing late.
Can you post that in caps so David can hear it? :lol:
LQ, anal idiot
Just
> So your position is that between bg of 105, which is the absolute top
> of the intact pancreatic function range, and 140, nothing bad is
> happening til BOING! we hit that 140? Damage is from a progression,
Do you have any cite for the info that damage occurs below 140?
> it's not a lottery number where something big results.
LizardQueen
when you are 1 year past your last period, so you only know you are
there until after the fact. I'd say anywhere from 35 on and if the
period is going wonky is probably perimenopause.
I had an FSH test done and it came back as 49.7 (normal is like under
12 or something). However, in peri hormones are all over the map and
the FSH goes up and down so that doesn't mean much.
My periods have been irregular and was MIA for the last 2 months, but
it just recently came back. I'm wondering if the IR has been stopping
it and that peri has less to do with the irregularity than my insulin
resistance does.
I didn't have frequent urination but I did start having to pee more at
night, but that could have been blood sugar related.
The way I tripped over my too-high initial fbg (104) was by buying a
meter to see if the hot flashes were bg or female-hormone related.
They were bg, since I've cleaned up my act the hot flashes have gone
away. (I've exchanged them for a whole new set of issues but you can
probably tell that :lol:) .
LQ
Owlyn
apply to everyone.
And it's not "just a matter of cutting starches and other sugars
way down or out" Sometimes that's not possible.
Pessimistic? Not at all. Realistic. Don't hold out promises of
techniques that work for you to someone else. LQ is a mess because she
can't meet goals that she has set for herself, and all you can say is
that your doing great.
Just
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Roger gave you the absolute best reference for weight training.
Is there any similiar male centric site for weight training?
Am a total beginner at doing weights.
Owlyn
That's good. You just need to watch it, as sometimes short periods (<
20 mins) of exercise can increase BG. But everyone is different. 15
minutes might be fine for you. You may want to keep an eye on the BG
level if you do a lot of the <20 in exercising. Now, don't get paranoid
about it- just check a few times. If you get consistent results, then
the 15 mins works for you.
Also, I don't recall seeing your weight anywhere, but losing weight and
keeping your triglycerides down (often a biproduct of weight loss) is
one of the best ways to prevent or delay T2.
The best diet is the ELEM diet. Eat Less Exercise More.
Chris Malcolm
>> Sorry, but this is a waste of time.
> Uh, didn't realize that. I figured as long as I did it until it felt
> like my arms or legs would fall off it would have some effect :lol:.
It will, but at those reps, if they are as many as you can manage,
then you're increasing stamina rather than strength. You will also of
course be using up some blood glucose in doing the exercise, but not
nearly as much as using much bigger muscles such as the legs. 50
unweighted deep squats is probably equivalent to climbing 100 feet, or
a nine storey staircase.
If you're already strong enough to do the things you want to do, the
only reason for getting stronger would be that if you were stronger
you could use up more blood glucose in less exercise time, and your
basal metabolic requirements would be higher even if not exercising.
I'm doing 20-50 reps of various arm twists with a 6lb lump hammer
every other day in order to help overstrained tendons to
recover. Seems to be working.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Kurt
Owlyn wrote:
> Your numbers are consistent. Good for you. But your experience does not
> apply to everyone.
Ironic since Susan attacked me recently for posting about my
experiences. :)
> And it's not "just a matter of cutting starches and other sugars
> way down or out" Sometimes that's not possible.
Everyone is different and what's most frustrating here is the fact that
everyone believes in a different approach to diabetes management,
including what numbers are realistic or accessible. It is a walking on
thin ice when one starts to throw out what numbers someone with
diabetes "should" be hitting - whether it's carb count, a1c, or bg
numbers.
There are so many individual factors that need to be considered.
> Pessimistic? Not at all. Realistic. Don't hold out promises of
> techniques that work for you to someone else. LQ is a mess because she
> can't meet goals that she has set for herself, and all you can say is
> that your doing great.
Nail on head. ITA.
Best,
Kurt
Roger Zoul
That site is just fine for male or female. It makes little different in
terms of picking a good routine. Weight training is excellent for getting
control and warding off diabetes.
David
> x-no-archive: yes
> Very pessimistic and faulty thinking, IMO.
>
> It's not only very realistic, it's important to do so.
>
> I only very rarely exceed 120. For years, I stayed below that with diet
> alone. Recently I've been taking metformin, with even lower numbers.
>
>
>
> It's not magic; it's just a matter of cutting starches and other sugars
> way down or out.
>
> For everyone else, though, setting a goal that
>
>> is perhaps somewhat unrealistic can be a source of frustration,
>> diappointment, worry, and stress- which of course is counterproductive.
>>
>> Obviously, one should strive for it, but one should also not panic (as
>> LizQueen seems to be doing) if your numbers aren't "perfect" by your
>> own standards.
>>
>
> LQ isn't a diabetic, she's trying to avoid becoming one; in that
> context, her numbers and the RH symptoms she's having are a sign to take
> preventive steps, which I applaud her for.
>
> Susan
Whoopee frickin' doo for you, Susan. I'm glad you are the perfect DM.
Most of the rest of the DM world struggles to maintain some semblance of
a normal bg. How about knocking off your holier than thou attitude?
DM's have got to stop beating themselves up for every high they get. I
don't like getting high any more than the next person, but perfection
and this disease are usually mutually exclusive terms.
Dave
David
The fact of the matter is DM's do NOT keep their bg's normal much of the
time. They go up and down; up and down. Get over it and stop thinking
you are going to have the same bg's night and day as a non DM. Only
Susan, as a perfect entity, can accomplish such a feat. the rest of us
do the best we can.
Dave
David
> x-no-archive: yes
> I have him kill filed, like almost everyone else but you. :-)
>
> Susan
I don't have you KF'd because I enjoy refuting your nonsense to newbies.
Dave
David
> x-no-archive: yes
> I have him kill filed, like almost everyone else but you. :-)
>
> Susan
The day anyone listens to YOUR advice on who to KF, is the day they need
to get their head examined for brain-rot.
dave
David
> x-no-archive: yes
> Can you show me a cite that indicates that no damage occurs til 140
> lights up a meter?
>
> You made the assertion, not I.
>
> Susan
Can YOU show me a cite that shows diabetics will always stay below 140??
Only you are miss perfect.
Dave
David
> LQ is hypoglycemic, not diabetic, her goal is not to become DM. I
> applaud her can do attitude.
>
> Susan
My goal is not to be diabetic, but I'm not having ANY luck with that one!
Dave
Roger Zoul
:: Lo <g>,
::
:: I certainly appreciate the worthiness of the goal (<140), but it is
:: not realistic to expect a diabetic to be able to attain it
:: regularly.
Why? Every diabetic, perhaps not. Most, perhaps yes. Those who can can do
it regularly.
For those that do, that is wonderful, fantastic, and I
:: applaud your ability to be able to do that. For everyone else,
:: though, setting a goal that is perhaps somewhat unrealistic can be a
:: source of frustration, diappointment, worry, and stress- which of
:: course is counterproductive.
And what is your point here? LQ isn't even diabetic...are you saying that
she shouldn't even try to get good numbers? She doesn't yet know what she
can achieve.
::
:: Obviously, one should strive for it, but one should also not panic
:: (as LizQueen seems to be doing) if your numbers aren't "perfect" by
:: your own standards.
Of course not. It is rare that a panic ever solves any problem.
Roger Zoul
:: Owlyn wrote:
::: Your numbers are consistent. Good for you. But your experience does
::: not apply to everyone.
::
:: Ironic since Susan attacked me recently for posting about my
:: experiences. :)
::
::: And it's not "just a matter of cutting starches and other sugars
::: way down or out" Sometimes that's not possible.
::
:: Everyone is different and what's most frustrating here is the fact
:: that everyone believes in a different approach to diabetes
:: management, including what numbers are realistic or accessible. It
:: is a walking on thin ice when one starts to throw out what numbers
:: someone with diabetes "should" be hitting - whether it's carb count,
:: a1c, or bg numbers.
:: There are so many individual factors that need to be considered.
You keep harping on this. The fact is, there are some general approaches to
try and goals to shoot for. Those numbers are worthy for anyone to shoot
for, especially a nondiabetic.
::
::: Pessimistic? Not at all. Realistic. Don't hold out promises of
::: techniques that work for you to someone else.
What worked for one may work for another. There is nothing wrong with
trying to see.
Roger Zoul
Achieving perfection shouldn't be the goal, but working towards it should.
:: Dave
Roger Zoul
LQ is a nonDM.
Alan S
wrote:
>Lo <g>,
>
>I certainly appreciate the worthiness of the goal (<140), but it is not
>realistic to expect a diabetic to be able to attain it regularly. For
>those that do, that is wonderful, fantastic, and I applaud your ability
>to be able to do that. For everyone else, though, setting a goal that
>is perhaps somewhat unrealistic can be a source of frustration,
>diappointment, worry, and stress- which of course is counterproductive.
>
>Obviously, one should strive for it, but one should also not panic (as
>LizQueen seems to be doing) if your numbers aren't "perfect" by your
>own standards.
Owlyn - remind me, but IIRC you are type 1. We tend to have
some different goals as type 2, or the other non-insulin
dependant variants of a flawed glucose/insulin system.
I not only attain <140(7.8) regularly, I carefully review
what I did to cause the number if I exceed it at any time.
It would assist readers to weigh advice if posters noted
their type in their sig.
Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 2x500mg
--
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
Roger Zoul
:: x-no-archive: yes
::
:: Just wrote:
::: I am talking about the stress she is taking, not about the other
::: stuff.
::
:: I don't know about you, but when I haven't slept worth a damn for
:: weeks or months on end, I get a tad wired up, too.
::
::: You could have had high PP's & never know about them.
::
:: NO SHIT! :-) That's exactly what happened.
::
::: However LQ is measuring PP's & they are below the range where
::: any damage occurs.
::
:: So your position is that between bg of 105, which is the absolute
:: top of the intact pancreatic function range, and 140, nothing bad is
:: happening til BOING! we hit that 140? Damage is from a progression,
::
::: But she is still worrying about it - it would
::: do good to cool off for a couple of weeks - by cool off, I mean
::: stop testing, but continue diet, exercise etc.
::
:: She's an adult, and I guess she'll do what fits her needs. I suspect
:: that feeling lousy and getting no sleep is stressing her out, not her
:: attention to her IGH and RH.
Agreed. Plus, she can fine tune her program and make significant progress.
Alan S
(Loretta Eisenberg) wrote:
>I hear panic in your voice and that is affecting your bgs.
Agreed. Relax a little, LQ.
Alan S
<Green...@att.net> wrote:
>Thanks for the caps. If I piss you off so bad don't read me.
>
>What about the info out here that says anything over 100 kills betas?
>I've seen that stated repeatedly. If there is no beta damage with me
>hitting the 120s after I eat then I won't worry about it.
>
>LQ
Dave is type 1 LQ. Different scenario. He has no betas to
kill.
Julie Bove
"Susan" <neve...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:47m5pvF...@individual.net...
<snip>
> It's not magic; it's just a matter of cutting starches and other sugars
> way down or out.
For some people. Then there are others who need medication. I can live on
nothing but meat and green beans and my numbers will still be too high. For
me, it isn't enough.
<snip>
--
See my webpage:
http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm
Just
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Just wrote:
>>
>>> So your position is that between bg of 105, which is the absolute
>>> top of the intact pancreatic function range, and 140, nothing bad is
>>> happening til BOING! we hit that 140? Damage is from a progression,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> lights up a meter?
Then why not aim for 90?
For all you know your 120 numbers maybe causing serious damage
to you.
Next time you give advice to newbies to maintain bg under
120, remember it may be very wrong advice allowing damage.
Just
>>>> Do you have any cite for the info that damage occurs below 140?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> it's not a lottery number where something big results.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can you show me a cite that indicates that no damage occurs til 140
>>> lights up a meter?
>>>
>>> You made the assertion, not I.
>>>
>>> Susan
>> Can YOU show me a cite that shows diabetics will always stay below
>> 140?? Only you are miss perfect.
>
> change their lifestyles enough to remain under 140.
Susan says damage occurs even below 140.
> They
> choose somewhere that is more comfortable for them
> regardless of the risks. But your answer to Susan is totally
> unrelated to what she was saying. The DCCT trials prove she
> is correct without even going looking for further cites.
No, it doesn't. Show me where exactly the DCCT trials
prove that damage occurs below 140.
> If
> a person wishes to remain complication free then they need
> to make a concerted effort to keep numbers low. No different
> to changing your diet if you have celiac disease or multiple
> food allergies, you do what you gotta do and get on with
> life.
Roger Zoul
:: "Susan" <neve...@nomail.com> wrote in message
:: news:47m5pvF...@individual.net...
::
:: <snip>
::
::: It's not magic; it's just a matter of cutting starches and other
::: sugars way down or out.
::
:: For some people. Then there are others who need medication. I can
:: live on nothing but meat and green beans and my numbers will still
:: be too high. For me, it isn't enough.
And you learned that through experience. LQ has her journal to make.
Roger Zoul
:: David wrote:
::: LizardQueen wrote:
:::
::::: A whole lotta bad stuff happens between >105 and 140 that no one
::::: is diagnosing til it's too effing late.
::::
::::
:::: Can you post that in caps so David can hear it? :lol:
::::
:::: LQ, anal idiot
::::
:::
::: The fact of the matter is DM's do NOT keep their bg's normal much of
::: the time. They go up and down; up and down.
:: Mine don't, I remain almost the same bg all day every day. I
:: have learned how to co ordinate my carb intake and timings
:: along ith exercise levels, now I don't even think about it
:: anymore. I just "do". Making a small initial effort to find
:: out how to treat yourself is much worth it.
::
:: Get over it and stop
::: thinking you are going to have the same bg's night and day as a non
::: DM. Only Susan, as a perfect entity, can accomplish such a feat.
::: the rest of us do the best we can.
:: You do the best you want to. There is a vast difference. If
:: near enough is good enough then a lot of people will take
:: that line. But for a type 2, the frequent higher spikes are
:: going to have an effect on their remaining beta cells and
:: fast track them to permanent insulin use. I am happy enough
:: to make simple changes that give me a better chance against
:: diabetic progression. Others won't be. We all define our own
:: risk taking levels. We choose to tempt fate or we don't. If
:: you read every post, year in year out, you will notice that
:: some people choose to go just so far towards diet
:: modification and no further. Their choice.
Thank you.
Just
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Just wrote:
>
>> prove that damage occurs below 140.
>
>
> Where is the source of your authority in stating that damage doesn't
> occur til 140? You made the claim, it's not up to us to prove
> anything, it's up to you.
http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14045678.php
This says that organ damage occurs over 140 mg/Dl.
Other than that, this is the DCCT fact sheet
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/control/
It doesn't say the organ damage occurs below 140
These were the intensive therapy goals of the DCCT
trials.
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/dcct_st/sld009.htm
Post meal < 180
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/dcct_st/sld012.htm
A1C - 7.1
>
> Or just be a mensch and admit an error and let's move on in peace.
Now will you either admit your error or atleast post a cite?
Just
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Just wrote:
>
>> Then why not aim for 90?
>> For all you know your 120 numbers maybe causing serious damage
>> to you.
>
> asked you for the source of your information.
You wrote
"A whole lotta bad stuff happens between 105 and 140 that no one is
diagnosing til it's too effing late. "
Can you provide your source of information?
>
>>
>> Next time you give advice to newbies to maintain bg under
>> 120, remember it may be very wrong advice allowing damage.
>
> I never told anyone to maintain under 120, I said that's what I aim
> for.
David
> Achieving perfection shouldn't be the goal, but working towards it should.
>
>
> :: Dave
>
>
Absolutely.
Dave
David
> LQ is a nonDM.
>
>
I know.
Dave
David
>
> David wrote:
>
>>LizardQueen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>A whole lotta bad stuff happens between >105 and 140 that
>
> no one is
>
>>>>diagnosing til it's too effing late.
>>>
>>>
I pump so as not to "tempt fate" :) I'm sure you know I was referring
to T1's who's bgs move all over the map. Yup, by choice some folks are
dooming themselves to complications. Others, with great control, ALSO
will suffer complications. There's no guarantees.
Can we agree to agree, Oz?
Dave
David
>
> David wrote:
>
>>Susan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>x-no-archive: yes
>>>
>>>Just wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Susan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So your position is that between bg of 105, which is
>
> the absolute
>
>>>>>top of the intact pancreatic function range, and 140,
>
> nothing bad
>
>>>>>is happening til BOING! we hit that 140? Damage is
>
> from a
>
>>>>>progression,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you have any cite for the info that damage occurs
>
> below 140?
>
>>>>
>>>>>it's not a lottery number where something big results.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Can you show me a cite that indicates that no damage
>
> occurs til 140
>
>>>lights up a meter?
>>>
>>>You made the assertion, not I.
>>>
>>>Susan
>>
>>Can YOU show me a cite that shows diabetics will always
>
> stay below
>
>> 140?? Only you are miss perfect.
>
>
> There won't be any because a lot of diabetics don't want to
> change their lifestyles enough to remain under 140. They
> choose somewhere that is more comfortable for them
> regardless of the risks. But your answer to Susan is totally
> unrelated to what she was saying. The DCCT trials prove she
> is correct without even going looking for further cites. If
> a person wishes to remain complication free then they need
> to make a concerted effort to keep numbers low. No different
> to changing your diet if you have celiac disease or multiple
> food allergies, you do what you gotta do and get on with
> life.
>
You missed my point. I was referring to the real world of bg's that
DM's encounter. Go back if you'd like and then you might see the
context in which I was speaking. I was NOT arguing with 140. I was
arguing about the near impossibility of staying under 140 after meals.
Dave
David
>
> If you are a type 1 then you had no choice. If you were a
> type 2, wouldn't you have liked to have known how to prevent
> it?
>
Prevent it?? Are you referring also to obesity?
Dave
Roger Zoul
:: Susan wrote:
::: x-no-archive: yes
:::
::: Just wrote:
:::
:::: Then why not aim for 90?
:::: For all you know your 120 numbers maybe causing serious damage
:::: to you.
:::
::: Hey, you're the one who said damage doesn't begin til 140. I just
::: asked you for the source of your information.
::
:: You wrote
:: "A whole lotta bad stuff happens between 105 and 140 that no one is
:: diagnosing til it's too effing late. "
::
:: Can you provide your source of information?
On page 43 of the latest edition of his book, Dr. Bernstein says this:
"I have seen "nondiabetics" with sustained blood sugars averaging 120 mg/dl
develop diabetic complications."
That number of 140 is based partly on the cost effectiveness of providing
treatment. Think about that.
::
:::
::::
:::: Next time you give advice to newbies to maintain bg under
David
An average bg of 120 tells the reader nothing. An average is more
ambiguous than mode. and there's no mention of range. so 120 could be
quite good, or it could be indicative of someone with excursions into
the mid 300's. Liars figure and figure lies. Especially figures taken
out of context. This is what creates back and forth arguing on this
newsgroups. someone finds a "source" and quotes a bit of it. The quote
means next to nothing. It's statistically corrupt.
Dave
Roger Zoul
?
I'm confused....whom are you referring to when you talk about 'the near
impossibility of staying under 140 after meals'? T1s or T2s? Under what
conditions? A T2 eating a high carb meal?
Certainly, you don't mean that is is nearly impossible for any DM to stay
under 140 after meals on a regular basis, right?
Just
>>>> Hey, you're the one who said damage doesn't begin til 140. I just
>>>> asked you for the source of your information.
>>>
>>> You wrote
>>> "A whole lotta bad stuff happens between 105 and 140 that no one is
>>> diagnosing til it's too effing late. "
>>>
>>> Can you provide your source of information?
>
> On page 43 of the latest edition of his book, Dr. Bernstein says this:
>
> "I have seen "nondiabetics" with sustained blood sugars averaging 120
> mg/dl develop diabetic complications."
What kind of reading is he talking about FBG, 1hr PP, 2hr PP or what?
Averaging 120 doesn't mean 120 peak. You could average 120 with
a peak of 180 or even more.
Also I doubt a non-diabetic would average 120. that would be a hba1c
of around 6, I think.
Also this is anecdotal evidence.
Roger Zoul
Nonsense. An average certainly doesn't tell the entire picture, but it says
more than nothing. Someone who runs an average of 120 generally will likely
have higher BGs levels than someone who runs an average of 95. And the
point of the comment is that someone with an average of 120 could still
develop complications, which certainly suggests a wide variation about that
number.
::
:: Dave