A1C chart for retinopathy chances….
Hi Jeff.
I have uploaded a chart that shows the risk of retinopathy based on A1C in the
FILES section of this list. I don’t have one for neuropathy, but this gives you
an idea of the point. It is very important to keep your BG’s under 120, and
under 100 is optimum. My educator talks about keeping under 160, but I think
this is way too high for consideration, IMHO, and if you cannot keep it under
that, you should go on insulin.
Chris,
PS. I also uploaded a good chart that shows food values for not only fat, carbs
and Glycemic Index, but the Glycemic Load also. I hope this helps people who
are fishing for information….;O)
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:33:40 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
From: "Windwarrior"
Subject: the A1C Game
Hello Chris,
following our A1C as our guideline. A1C could represent a person
with swings from 50-220 and still show a good A1C for the Dr.>
I concede your point…
I’ve confounded the ~white coats~ for years for the very reason you suggest.
(daily numbers never match the average). However, the averages are close
enough to "perfect" protocol ranges to confuse them to no end .
Something is being done ~correctly enough~…
Now you raise another excellent question. Ok, if our numbers go above XYZ,
take the number you suggest of 140… all/most of us have been beaten
senseless with the "YOU MUST KEEP THE NUMBERS LOWER THAN THAT…" speech or
face dire, life threatening long term consequences!!! Never for a number
that foolishly low on the potential high scale available but, we’ve all
heard the speech. Yawn…
Ok, at what point precisely do the numbers cause tangible problems? At what
point can they prove and show causal damage. Hypothetical example 200 means.
. eye damage instantly… this type of thing…
How long do the numbers have to be at a given range EXACTLY before it can be
predicted with certainly we WILL have damage requiring intervention…
Ours is a ~game~ requiring a fine line of attention of the numbers somewhere
between obsession and total obliviousness
Anybody….
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
A Grassroot Movement is like a lawn; there is a bigger picture we all like to
see…. but underneath there are many small roots. Each root has an influence
on the entire picture. We too can have an effect, we just need to figure out
the efficient way to do it.
If interested, check out my list..
Chris
August 2nd, 2005 at 8:40 pm
Hi Mary.
I downloaded the files from another list, Diabetes-Int, which I have
not been on for a while. I had to resubscribe to get them.
To tell the truth, I know not the copywrite status, but as far as I
am concerned, pass the information on. Odds are the authors feel
the same way, unless someone actually makes money off of them. They
are available to help those who need them.
August 3rd, 2005 at 5:54 am
Hi all
5 A1C is a great level to shoot for, and we should all do so, but My
take is a little different on how the damage is done. It isn’t
instantaneous. The glucose has a higher density, and perhaps even
has crystals, that plugs up the very fine blood vessels. As the
blood flows through, some get caught in it,,,,some don’t. The
longer and higher the BG’s the more it accumulates. Its like dirty
oil in your car. The longer between oil changes, the worse your
whole car gets plugged up.
If High BG’s caused instantaneous damage, those of us who have had
extremely high levels would be dead now. My 400+ for well over 6
months before diagnoses would have left me blind, and some people
have had even higher BG’s for much longer, without undue
damage,,,apparently.
Perhaps its just overt denial, but I sense my larger than average
stature (6′5"), makes it so I have larger blood vessels, and I hope
this means less overall damage in the long run……pray for me..;O)
Chris.
August 3rd, 2005 at 8:57 pm
The easiest access is to go to the home page…and click on the
Files link on the right hand column.
Then just pick the one you want…;O)
Chris
August 8th, 2005 at 5:50 am
> He says the diabetic is NOT pH challenged.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
August 9th, 2005 at 11:31 am
Either diabetics and non-diabetics can be pH challenged. How could the
fella possibly generalize like that without testing? Does your doctor
know something about the it that the Nobel Laureate did not?
Here’s exactly where he’s wrong:
Diabetics have a higher than normal cancer rate. The doctor who
demonstrated that low cellular oxygen, which is caused by low pH, and
cancer, was awarded two Nobel prizes and nominated for a third for this
work.
One way to tell if the individual is pH challenged (cellular and
extracellular fluids) is with a saliva test as soon as the person
arises in the morning. Saliva pH should be very close to neutral, or
slightly alkaline. Litmus paper (range 5.5-7.5) is all you need for a
quick check.
People with low saliva pH, under 6.8 or so, are courting cancer; oxygen
is neutralized rather than carried by the tissues in an acidic
environment.
This work is easily checked with work done by Otto Warburg, M.D.