blood sugar?
I got real sick over the weekend, they think due to out of control insulin
and sugar levels.
The dr drew bloods today, so we wont know for a few days about it.
but how does a 12 hour fasting blood sugar of 138 sound and a post meal
blood sugar of 238?
They sound high to me. Some folks have told me that the accucheck is in
fact very inaccurate, and that it tends to read high, forcing patients to end
up
using insulin, which can put you into a coma if you don’t really need it!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
January 14th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
every test has a margin of error - lab test can be out by 20% either
way. With the home tests, the important thing is the reptition and the
rleative nature of it. but it is not out that much.
what has changed is the way the diabetes is classified - over a certain
level of sugar in the blood etc and it has been down regulated so people
are being medicated with lower levels that in the past. It is still a
persoanl choice what, if any medication you take and how much no matter
what your condition. people with type one don’t have that much leeway
but you can still choose what type of insulin and how much based on your
own results etc. If you know what you are doing!
–
Ilanit
————————————————————————
Little Tree Pty Limited, Melbourne, Australia (Little Tree). ®
registered trademark, © copyright 2003. All rights reserved. This email
message and attachments may contain information that is confidential to
Little Tree. If you are not the intended recipient you cannot use,
distribute, forward or copy the message or attachments. In such a case,
please notify the sender by return email and erase all copies of the
message and attachments. The sender of this email message does not allow
the recipient to forward this email message or attachments in whole or
January 15th, 2006 at 7:23 am
Actually healthy non-diabetics are *not* high after eating because the
healthy pancreas stores insulin and releases it as soon as carbs hit the
saliva. The amylase enzyme in saliva starts to digest the carbs, they
can start to be absorbed through the wall of the mouth and the pancreas
is notified to release insulin that was *stored* for this purpose. So
the blood glucose never has a chance to get high.
One of the first things that goes wrong in T2 diabetes, is that the
pancreas still can make insulin but can no longer store it. This is why
the type-2 diabetic looks at blood sugar 2 hours after a meal - that’s
how long it takes to *make* the insulin from scratch after eating when
there is none stored for immediate use.
It’s healthy as a diabetic, to mimic this healthy response which some
diabetics do by using injected insulin at the start of a meal.
Namaste,
January 15th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Humalog can have immediate onset - within 5 min for some people. If you
since I am quite
eat very low GI food then it can be prident to inject it right after a
meal. This is great as you can then adjust based on what you ate not
what you think you are going to eat. But everyone is different - workd
differently for everyone.
I now don’t recommend Humolog or Novolog to anyone because of my feeling
about them but the effects and onset are great…ah well….
even with regular insulin I inject it close to a meal unless the BGL is
very very high as opposed to very high as usual!
thin and the with the low GI food it seems to somehow meet in the middle
- sometimes
ilanit
J Balbirnie wrote:
–
Ilanit
————————————————————————
Little Tree Pty Limited, Melbourne, Australia (Little Tree). ®
registered trademark, © copyright 2003. All rights reserved. This email
message and attachments may contain information that is confidential to
Little Tree. If you are not the intended recipient you cannot use,
distribute, forward or copy the message or attachments. In such a case,
please notify the sender by return email and erase all copies of the
message and attachments. The sender of this email message does not allow
the recipient to forward this email message or attachments in whole or
January 16th, 2006 at 2:51 am
Hi Jeff,
I was not clear enough that is so. The point I was *thinking* about
was that insulin can be used to cover a specific meal, wasn’t thinking
detail on when to take it for that meal.
When to take it relative to when you start eating depends what type of
insulin you are taking - and might depend on the food eaten to some
extent too. With regular insulin you might need to take it an hour
before, and with fast acting Humalog guideline is 15 mins. I use Novolog
and find that 15 mins early is too soon for the protein/fat meals I
select, and taking it right before eating or 5 mins before seems to be
what works best for me. If I am planning a bigger carb load than usual -
then indeed taking it earlier is better and with Novolog it is a little
slower than Humalog and 20 mins early works.
Protocol will vary according to the insulin being used (and in my
opinion also according to the food type and quantity to be eaten - with
a larger meal I usually inject twice, spaced out 30 mins.
Namaste,
January 16th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
I don’t understand how you could have been real sick with a 138
fasting or even with a 238 postmeal reading. 138 fasting is normal for a lot of
people I know, even though that high is not acceptable to the medical community.
Are you saying you think it was much higher and your meter was in error?
I use Accucheck Active and have checked it several times against the lab
when bloodwork was done and found it to be extremely accurate. However, once in
a while I get a reading that is as much as 50 points off. Which is why I
test twice if I think the first reading is off because of how I feel, or by what
I’ve eaten, and feel like it shouldn’t be as high as it reads with the first
test.
Kady
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
January 18th, 2006 at 10:30 am
They are high.
I feel ill if my post meal is over 125, and my fasting is over 105.
So your doctor will help you plan something so you can control both of
those better.
Some uncontrolled diabetics have higher numbers like that but that does
not make them okay to live with. It’s good to plan to get them lower
consistently.
Namaste,
January 19th, 2006 at 11:47 am
> They are high.
> I feel ill if my post meal is over 125, and my fasting is over 105.
>
Irene…. I’m really confused by this, no disrespect intended. I mean, the
reason most Type 2’s go undiagnosed sometimes for many years at the time is
because there are no symptoms of diabetes until bs gets in the higher range.
125 should have no symptoms at all, and 105 is well within normal range.
These numbers wouldn’t be considered as uncontrolled diabetes, at least not by
the
various doctors I’ve seen over the years.
Kady
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
January 21st, 2006 at 6:42 am
Glycemic Index.
though I don’t subscribe to a lot of GI ideas - each book/list of GI of
foods is different.
I just meant that I eat a wholefood diet with slower digested carbs -
legumes, whole grains, veggies etc rather than refined which digests
more quickly.
J Balbirnie wrote:
true. Though even an very experienced endocrinologist has confirmed that
new insulin analgues do have an onset that is very rapid. That is
another unatural though convemient aspect. The peak may be later and the
time it stops are alos quicker. They last about 2 hours and then a
little is still active for a few hours but not much as you will
experience if there is no long acting in your system
but it varies person to person and also alters based on activity - and
if you say inject in the leg after running etc….
–
Ilanit
————————————————————————
Little Tree Pty Limited, Melbourne, Australia (Little Tree). ®
registered trademark, © copyright 2003. All rights reserved. This email
message and attachments may contain information that is confidential to
Little Tree. If you are not the intended recipient you cannot use,
distribute, forward or copy the message or attachments. In such a case,
please notify the sender by return email and erase all copies of the
message and attachments. The sender of this email message does not allow
the recipient to forward this email message or attachments in whole or
January 21st, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Dave wrote:
> they is bull.
maybe you could find a synonym?
Ilanit
————————————————————————
Little Tree Pty Limited, Melbourne, Australia (Little Tree). ®
registered trademark, © copyright 2003. All rights reserved. This email
message and attachments may contain information that is confidential to
Little Tree. If you are not the intended recipient you cannot use,
distribute, forward or copy the message or attachments. In such a case,
please notify the sender by return email and erase all copies of the
message and attachments. The sender of this email message does not allow
the recipient to forward this email message or attachments in whole or
January 23rd, 2006 at 10:09 am
Hi Kady, none taken. This is a confusing and frustrating disease at the
best of times, especially with all the mixed information doing the
rounds as to what is really normal.
ADA version of "normal" is nowhere near what a nondiabetic has. It’s
some euphemistic guess and not related to normal nondiabetic values
which is what I think they *should* be quoting.
I do not believe the normal nondiabetic values are so hard to achieve
that we need to be duped into thinking something less healthy is okay.
But I do think ADA has chosen what they *deem* okay - and labelled it
"normal" - rather than labelling it their version of okay.
So I am told and indeed my own was undiagnosed a long time. However it
was not because I had no symptoms - it was because I did not know the
symptoms I had were to do with diabetes. I suspect that is often the
case. We feel less than well, but it is too non-specific to talk to a
doctor about.
Now that I can occasionally get my blood glucose down to normal - I am
more aware of the great differences in how I feel at higher and normal
(=under 100) levels.
I suspect that the recent incidents I have had where my blood sugar
has plummeted from values near 200 to values under 60 in 20 minutes flat
- have taught me what symptoms are diabetes symptoms and what symptoms
are "other" symptoms. I am *learning* to know my blood sugar is "wrong"
by how I feel.
I think it is something one can train oneself to do. I also know
when my blood sugar is planning to sky-rocket. I feel sweaty and a
specific kind of anxiety when it does that - and I have been right 100%
of the time when I have checked that feeling against my glucometer.
> 125 should have no symptoms at all, and 105 is well within normal range.
105 is not in normal fasting range. (Normal is healthy nondiabetic, not
ADA definitions.)
Normal is usually near 85, and can fluctuate from 65 to 100.
I know before taking my fasting glucose if it is going to be over 94.
And I know before taking my glucose during the day if it is going to be
over 105.
> These numbers wouldn’t be considered as uncontrolled diabetes, at least not by
the
> various doctors I’ve seen over the years.
And that is exactly my problem with doctors.
Nondiabetics have 85 as a normal BG, and at worst it is under 100 unless
they just ate a huge load of carbs - when it can spike as high as 140.
THAT is normal.
And I do not want a doctor who pretends some other level is normal :-))
ADA only diagnoses at a fasting over 126 - WAY too high!!! But at that
level they have to claim 800,000 new diabetics per year. If they made
the number realistic - Americans would look even less healthy to the
world. Can’t have that can we? So it stays at 126.
In my book the doctor needs to tell me what is *nondiabetic* normal, and
the pros and cons of achieving a similar control level as a diabetic.
Others may see this differently - but I am looking for health - not
disease control within an arbitrary statistic invented to look
politically expedient and to keep medicare/medicaid costs down. One
ninth of Americans are on medicaid - imagine the cost escalation if
diabetes were diagnosed lower than 126 fasting?
To accept an abnormal level as "controlled" is in my book foolish. Even
if the doctors do not currently know what’s wrong with those abnormal
levels - (despite the research which DOES exist) - they will sooner or
later find out. And ADA will be *forced* to adjust the numbers down.
Eventually.
This is why the "acceptable" level to call controlled - per ADA - keeps
I’ll take the normal levels as MY idea of controlled :-))
dropping. The ADA is SLOW to respond and admit the damage despite the
research. The levels they have considered controlled have caused
countless suffering and amputation and neuropathy and blindness etc etc.
Not to mention the huge number of deaths from diabetes.
What’s great about that?
Want to be one of those?
I do not plan to be in those statistics thanks
Those are the only safe ones to choose.
Why bother to aim for other levels invented by ADA when nature
already figured the right levels for us?
It’s the same work to aim for normal as to aim for something arbitrary.
Maybe I am just greedy - but I want a REAL result for my hard work :-)))
One I KNOW is healthy. If part of that is educating myself on how I feel
at different glucose levels, that can only be to my advantage - so I can
take my glucose to check, and adjust it and be healthier. That’s how I
see it :-))
Namaste,
January 24th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
So far I am with you.
<<The trick as we all know, is understanding, figuring out the quantities,
Here I am a novice. I do not know how many grams of carbs need how many
units of insulin and at what time of day. (My system is unpredictable in
the mornings so I try to standardize what I do/eat to compensate.)
I would love to know this carb-insulin ratio.
I am working in the dark pretty much at this stage. I have been
experimenting on when to take my insulin and have that down pat for what
I eat to match the insulin peak to the glucose peak - but not how much
insulin for how many carbs - and usually I get the two peaks different
heights - if that makes sense.
> and the "ingredients" we were unaware of…
I don’t have these considerations as I make all my food from scratch -
or eat where I personally know the cook. (Mainly breakfast which I often
have at a local cafe - steak, egg, green pepper, tomato, onion, grilled
- nothing added.)
>> Hence, for example CHOCOLATE covered anything is a BAD "cure" for
low sugar. The chocolate gets in the way of the sugar being usable as
quickly…
I do not find this and it is not logical - sugar gets absorbed fast even
though the fat in chocolate may take longer - and the few times I dumped
really low, I came right in minutes on chocolate.
> But I’m ~preaching to the choir~ as they say….
Maybe less so than you thought :-))
I’m still learning.
Namaste,
January 25th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Hi Barbara,
You could find it in any textbook on metabolism but a far nicer place to
read it that I really recommend is the book "Dr Bernstein’s Diabetes
Solution".
It really explains the diabetic versus normal metabolic processes in
nice detail.
Everything he explains in the book coincides well with my training in
metabolic processes as background to my profession as a veterinary
homeopath. Except he’s explaining the human one. It’s not that different
(except people do not automatically do amyloid damage to the pancreas
like cats do when they get diabetes - so they do not all get insulin
dependent.)
Other diabetes books I have read, either fail to explain anything or are
so far behind the research available as to be of little value in my opinion.
I hope that helps?
Namaste,
January 26th, 2006 at 11:12 am
Dave wrote:
> no type 2 has nothing ot do with the storage of insulin it is that there
> body becomes restant to insulin.
In type 2 it usually is both.
Insulin resistance is usually the first aspect to develop, often due to
overweight - not always. It causes the pancreas to work harder and
harder, and eventually the pancreas is burned out to a lesser or greater
extent. Inability to store enough insulin follows.
Check it out in the textboioks if you like.
:-))
It’s why t2 folks can often get by without insulin - they CAN make
enough - but as none is stored - they have to start making it when they
eat and the BG rockets initially when they eat.
Namaste,
January 28th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Hi Dave,
thanks for your insights.
Could you explain to me why my body is attacking iteself?
Dave wrote:
Ilanit
————————————————————————
Little Tree Pty Limited, Melbourne, Australia (Little Tree). ®
registered trademark, © copyright 2003. All rights reserved. This email
message and attachments may contain information that is confidential to
Little Tree. If you are not the intended recipient you cannot use,
distribute, forward or copy the message or attachments. In such a case,
please notify the sender by return email and erase all copies of the
message and attachments. The sender of this email message does not allow
the recipient to forward this email message or attachments in whole or
January 29th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
often there is a high amount of circulating insulin but it cannot work
because cellular membrane permeability is obstructed. Often by trans
fats, heavy metals etc
Irene de Villiers wrote:
–
Ilanit
————————————————————————
Little Tree Pty Limited, Melbourne, Australia (Little Tree). ®
registered trademark, © copyright 2003. All rights reserved. This email
message and attachments may contain information that is confidential to
Little Tree. If you are not the intended recipient you cannot use,
distribute, forward or copy the message or attachments. In such a case,
please notify the sender by return email and erase all copies of the
message and attachments. The sender of this email message does not allow
the recipient to forward this email message or attachments in whole or
January 30th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
> doctor. diabetes is caused by the body atking it self and killing off
> the pancreas auto immune no parasite or insune resistance
If a person happened to have a parasite that happened to blow away
pancreatic function so he ended up on insulin, would he not in fact
have diabetes? If not, what would you call it?