Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / November 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Beginner's test plan?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
bob - 29 Oct 2005 04:53 GMT
I "copied" these tips off another thread here:

A general goal for diabetics is to never go above 140 mg/dL for any reason.

Another goal is to keep your "2 hour after meal blood sugar" to no more than
30 points higher than your "before meal blood sugar".

And from a linked site:
test upon wakeup
2 hours after each meal
[does a meal mean anything consumed?  I often eat a snack of fruit or such]

Anyway, armed with my new OneTouch UltraSmart, I'm disappointed about the
total lack of this information. Yes, doctor should have provided it, but
until seeing him again, I want to get started.
So, does this plan look reasonable, and are those limits about right?
RK - 29 Oct 2005 05:45 GMT
how abt a list of free foods ... a sample beginners diet
condenced list of what lab goals can be set for 6 mons
after dx..

also state this is 99% for T2's --- since much for a T1 will
be very different.

RK, t1

|I "copied" these tips off another thread here:
|
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
| until seeing him again, I want to get started.
| So, does this plan look reasonable, and are those limits about right?
guy williams - 29 Oct 2005 06:12 GMT
>I "copied" these tips off another thread here:
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>until seeing him again, I want to get started.
>So, does this plan look reasonable, and are those limits about right?

I started this game a little over 30 years ago
and I am still learning.  There are few simp;e
recipe answers.

When these groups operate well they  provide
a continuous flow of information and
support for diabetics.

It may be an open usenet situation
but sane,decent people respect it's
goals..

You will learn and ask the
questions for what you need..

I can only speak for myself but I am
very limited but I try.

Diabetics are not all the same.  You
have to find your condition   and
develop a program that fits you.
It will change in time.

The first step is to find the proper
doctor.

Do not listen to a single person or
advertising blurbs.

I hope someone here will post some good links
for you to view.
                                Guy

er
doctor.
Alan S - 29 Oct 2005 08:06 GMT
>I "copied" these tips off another thread here:
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>until seeing him again, I want to get started.
>So, does this plan look reasonable, and are those limits about right?

Hi Bob

It's a start. But wait - there's more!

To get the full detail, read this "Newly Diagnosed" page at
the web-site associated with this usenet group:
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/NewlyDiagnosed.htm

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
Signature

Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

pinecone - 29 Oct 2005 08:18 GMT
Hi, bob--what Alan said!

It changes and it's individual, since we don't all have the same blood
pressure, hormone mix, etc.  I've found I've had to make changes as
cold weather has set in, for example.

I'm also surprised the medical community doesn't educate patients more
on diabetes.  The scare-tactic
ads-posing-as-public-service-announcements from big-pharma are not
helpful--they just want us to remember the company name and to "ask our
doctor" about their pet drug.

I never thought much about diabetes until I was diagnosed with
"pre-diabetes" (aka diabetes that just hasn't had as much time to do
damage).  Now I'm riveted by the topic and keep trying to learn as much
as possible.

At least you have a meter that will give you a lot of good information
you can print off and discuss with your doctor at your next visit.

pc
tog - 29 Oct 2005 10:43 GMT
You mirror my thoughts exactly.. The laidback attitude of the medical
community astounds and dismays me. When my GP diagnosed me this August. He
said take these pills, read this pamphlet and test once a day at various
times.
I felt relieved by his blasé response, it was only Diabetes and nothing
serious. Slightly confused with the pamphlet clutched in my hand for looking
after your heart (what was wrong with my heart?)and baffled why I ought test
my temperature each day.. (Don't laugh, I've acquired a few blond bits the
last couple of years, although you might think them grey.)

When I looked Diabetes up on-line..I can't describe the shock or expletives
I expressed.
Couple of days later I revisited my GP armed with questions.. He asked why I
had come back so soon.  (I suppose 2 visits in 15 years is a bit much) After
my explanation.. he told me all my fears were years away and not to worry.
I knew then, I would have to look out for myself.. Finding this Group has
forewarned, armed and spurred me to the correct necessary changes I needed
to make a healthy future.

Now I worry for thousands of others like me who by no fault of their own,
are happy thinking they have only a slight medical condition and are putting
their lives at dangerous risk every day. These same people will be blamed in
the future for having bad control and giving experts more rights to say
Diabetics are lazy at taking care of themselves.
Sue
> Hi, bob--what Alan said!
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> pc
bob - 29 Oct 2005 14:50 GMT
"You mirror my thoughts exactly.. The laidback attitude of the medical
community astounds and dismays me"

My doc gets 5 stars for noting the problem. He watches my yearly blood
workups and called me after the last one. "Come see me."  I did, and he
explained in detail about my gradual BG increases over the past couple of
years, then the serious increases over the last two tests. He recommended
losing weight and exercise, which I did. [35 pounds and a home gym] Also a
nutritionist, who was totally clueless. She was a waste of time. I learned
far more on this site than anyplace else.

Returning to the doc, I discovered that his expertise spotted the problem,
but he really had no idea how to proceed. Lose weight and exercise--that's
it. The Readers' Digest version. He lost a couple stars, but still, I am
grateful that he spotted it.

I also have Lupus, skin problems, feet problems, and over the years, no
doctor made the connection. Thanks to this group, I am learning.

> You mirror my thoughts exactly.. The laidback attitude of the medical
> community astounds and dismays me. When my GP diagnosed me this August. He
> said take these pills, read this pamphlet and test once a day at various
> times.
Jennifer - 29 Oct 2005 17:36 GMT
Hi bob...

Here's the advice I give all newbies... give it a shot for a week and
see what your body is up to.

Sounds like you're planning a move to take control of your diabetes... good
for you.

There is so much to absorb... you don't have to rush into anything.  Begin
by using your best weapon in this war, your meter.   You won't keel over
today, you have time to experiment, test, learn, test and figure out just
how your body and this disease are getting along.  The most important
thing you can do to learn about yourself and diabetes is test test  test.

More than most anything, what you eat will affect your diabetes and
your blood glucose numbers.

And more than anything you eat, carbs will affect your diabetes and
your blood glucose numbers.

So, the most important information you can begin to compile about
yourself, is how your body handles carbs.

This sounds like you would need a low carb food plan right?

You don't... what you need to uncover is YOUR   Personalized Carb Number.

Which actually works better for most everyone.  Because low to one
person is wildly high to another, but waaaaay too low for someone
else.

Is low carb less than 30g a day?   Is it anything less than the
Pyramid reccomendations?

Finding your Personalized Carb Number is easy.

Here's how you can figure out your own Personalized Carb Number.

The single biggest question a diabetic has to answer is:

What do I eat?

Unfortunately, the answer is pretty confusing.

What confounds us all is the fact that different diabetics can get great
results on wildly different food plans.  Some of us here achieve
great blood glucose control eating a high complex carbohydrate diet.
Others find that anything over 75 - 100g of carbs a day is too
much.  Still others are somewhere in between.

At the beginning all of us felt frustrated.  We wanted to be handed
THE way to eat, to ensure our continued health.  But we all
learned that there is no one way.  Each of us had to find our own path,
using the experience of those that went before, but still having
to discover for ourselves how OUR bodies and this disease were coexisting.

Ask questions, but remember each of us discovered on our own what works best
for us.  You can use our experiences as jumping off points, but eventually
you'll work up a successful plan that is yours alone.

What you are looking to discover is how different foods affect you.  As I'm
sure you've read, carbohydrates (sugars, wheat, rice... the things our
Grandmas called "starches") raise blood sugars the most rapidly.  Protein
and fat do raise them, but not as high and much more slowly... so if you're
a T2, generally the insulin your body still makes may take care of the rise.

You might want to try some  experiments.

First:  Eat whatever you've been
currently eating... but write it all down.
Test yourself at the following times:

Upon waking (fasting)
1 hour after each meal
2 hours after each meal
At bedtime

That means 8 x each day.  What you will discover by this is how long
after a meal your highest reading comes... and how fast you return to
"normal".  Also, you may see that a meal that included bread, fruit or
other carbs gives you a higher reading.

Then for the next few days, try to curb your carbs.  Eliminate breads,
cereals, rices, beans, any wheat products, potato, corn, fruit... get all
your carbs from veggies.  Test at the same schedule above.

If you try this for a few days, you may find some pretty damn good
readings.  It's worth a few days to discover.

Eventually you can slowly add back carbs until you see them affecting your
meter.

The thing about this disease... though we share much in common and we
need to
follow certain guidelines... in the end, each of our bodies dictate our
treatment and our success.

The closer we get to non-diabetic numbers, the greater chance we have of
avoiding horrible complications.  The key here is AIM... I know that
everyone is at a different point in their disease... and it is progressive.
But, if we aim for the best numbers and do our best, we give ourselves the
best shot at heath we've got.
That's all we can do.

Here's my opinion on what numbers to aim for, they are non-diabetic numbers.

FBG                          under 100
One hour after meals       under 140
Two hours after meals     under 120

or for those in the mmol parts of the world:

Fasting                              Under 6
One hour after meals         Under 8
Two hours after meals       Under 6.5

Recent studies have indicated that the most important numbers are your
"after meal" numbers. They may be the most indicative of future
complications, especially heart problems.

Listen to your doctor, but you are the leader of your diabetic
care team.  While his /her advice is learned, it is not absolute.   You
will end up knowing much more about your body and how it's handling
diabetes than your doctor will.   Your meter is your best weapon.

Just remember, we're not in a race or a competition with anyone but
ourselves... Play around with your food plan... TEST TEST TEST.  Learn what
foods cause spikes, what foods cause cravings... Use your body as a science
experiment.

You'll read about a lot of different ways people use to control their
diabetes... Many are diametrically opposed. After awhile you'll learn that
there is no one size fits all around here.  Take some time to experiment
and you'll soon discover the plan that works for you.

Best of luck!

Jennifer

> I "copied" these tips off another thread here:
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> until seeing him again, I want to get started.
> So, does this plan look reasonable, and are those limits about right?
Thomas Muffaletto - 29 Oct 2005 17:56 GMT
Keeping your blood glucose levels as close to normal as possible can be a
lifesaver. Tight control can prevent or slow the progress of many
complications of diabetes, giving you extra years of healthy, active life.

But tight control is not for everyone and it involves hard work.

By the Numbers

Good control means getting as close to a normal (nondiabetic) blood glucose
level as you safely can. Ideally, this means levels between 90 and 130 mg/dl
before meals, and less than 180 two hours after starting a meal, with a
glycated hemoglobin level less than 7 percent. The target number for
glycated hemoglobin will vary depending on the type of test your doctor's
laboratory uses.

In real life, you should set your goals with your doctor. Keeping a normal
level all the time is not practical. And it's not needed to get results.
Every bit you lower your blood glucose level helps to prevent complications.

What Tight Control Does

No one knows why high glucose levels cause complications in people with
diabetes. But keeping glucose levels as low as possible prevents or slows
some complications.

The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) proved it. Researchers
followed 1,441 people with diabetes for several years. Half of the people
continued standard diabetes treatment. The other half followed an
intensive-control program. Those on intensive control kept their blood
glucose levels lower than those on standard treatment, although the average
level was still above normal. The results? In the tight-control group,
compared with the standard-treatment group,

 a.. Diabetic eye disease started in only one-quarter as many people.

 b.. Kidney disease started in only half as many people.

 c.. Nerve disease started in only one-third as many people.

 d.. Far fewer people who already had early forms of these three
complications got worse.

Living With Tight Control

To get tight control, you must pay more attention to your diet and exercise.
You must measure your blood glucose levels more often. And, if you take
insulin, you must change how much you use and your injection schedule.

In intensive therapy, you provide yourself with a low level of insulin at
all times and take extra insulin when you eat. This pattern mimics the
release of insulin from the normal pancreas.

There are two ways to get more natural levels of insulin: multiple daily
injection therapy and an insulin pump. Both are good methods. Your choice
should depend on which best fits your lifestyle.

In multiple daily injection therapy, you take three or more insulin shots
per day. Usually, you take a shot of short-acting or Regular insulin before
each meal and a shot of intermediate- or long-acting insulin at bedtime.

With an insulin pump, you wear a tiny pump that releases insulin into your
body through a plastic tube. Usually, it gives you a constant small dose of
Regular insulin. You also have the pump release extra insulin when you need
it, such as before a meal.

With either method, you must test your blood glucose levels several times a
day. You need to test before each shot or extra dose of insulin to know how
many units to take and how long before eating to take it. Also, you may want
to test 2-3 hours after eating to make sure you took enough insulin. You
must adjust your insulin dose for how much you plan to eat and how active
you expect to be.

You do not need to figure these things out on your own. Whatever method you
choose, your health care team (your doctor, dietitian, diabetes educator,
and other health care professionals) should spend a lot of time teaching you
about it. Your team will help you make guidelines for how much insulin to
take and when. You will also come up with guidelines for eating and
exercising. These guidelines may change several times as you test them out.

You shouldn't try tight control on your own. A good health care team is a
must. Choose a doctor who understands diabetes well or is willing to learn
for your sake. Your doctor should have ties with other health professionals
you need, such as dietitians and a mental health worker. If you live in a
small town, look at your options carefully. You may be better off driving to
a city to see a specialist.

How to Keep Going and Going

Starting a program of tight control is exciting. But it can also be
overwhelming. How do you keep from running out of energy?

One way is to start slowly. For example, you might start by checking your
blood glucose more times each day. Get used to that first. Then start
multiple daily injections. Once you're used to those, add your new exercise
program and make the changes in your diet.

If you are newly diagnosed with diabetes, look honestly at yourself. Are you
still angry and depressed that you have diabetes? If so, you already have a
big challenge facing you. You may want to wait to try tight control until
after you've come to terms with the changes in your life.

Keep your goals realistic. No matter how hard you try, your blood glucose
readings will not be perfect every time. If they are often too high or too
low, you should talk to your doctor about whether your plan needs to be
adjusted. But if "wrong" levels happen only sometimes, that's life. With
practice, you will become more skilled at choosing the right insulin doses
for various situations.

If you need to, take a breather from the new routine. Having some time off
may make it easier to stick to your plan when you start again.

Pluses and Minuses

One big reason to try tight control is to prevent complications later. But
tight control has effects you can enjoy right now. You will probably feel
better and have more energy. Also, because you adjust your insulin dose to
your life, and not the other way around, you have more freedom. You can vary
your activities more. And you're not locked into having your meals at the
same time each day.

Tight control is especially good for pregnant women. It can reduce the risk
of birth defects in the baby.

But the DCCT found two major problems with tight control.

First, people had three times as many low blood glucose reactions
(hypoglycemia). You will need to be alert to the symptoms of hypoglycemia so
that you can treat yourself quickly. Also, you should always check your
blood glucose levels before you drive.

If you often have low blood glucose reactions when you try tight control,
talk to your doctor. You may need to ease up on your goals or go back on
standard therapy for a while.

Second, people on tight control gained more weight than people on standard
insulin treatment. The average in the DCCT was 10 pounds. If you are
concerned about putting on pounds, work with your dietitian and doctor to
devise a meal and exercise plan to prevent it.

You should also consider the cost. You will need to see your health care
team more often. Pumps cost about $5000, and pump supplies run $60 to $80 a
month. Multiple injection therapy is much cheaper. But you will still use
more supplies, like test strips and syringes, than before.

Tight Control and Type 2 Diabetes

The DCCT studied only people with type 1 diabetes. But doctors believe that
tight control can also prevent complications in people with type 2 diabetes.

Most people with type 2 diabetes do not take insulin. You may be wondering
how you can achieve tight control without it.

One way is to lose weight. Shedding excess pounds may bring your glucose
levels down to normal. The key to losing weight and keeping it off is
changing your behavior so that you eat less and exercise more. Your doctor
should work with you to find an eating and exercise plan you can stick to.

Even if you don't need to lose weight, exercise is helpful in controlling
your blood glucose levels. It makes your cells take glucose out of the
blood.

You will need to check your blood glucose regularly. You should decide with
your doctor how often. Once a day or even once a week may be enough for some
people with type 2 diabetes.

If exercise and good eating habits are not enough to keep your glucose under
control, you doctor may prescribe pills. And if these don't work, you may
need to take insulin.

People with type 2 diabetes should talk to their doctors before starting
tight control.

Tight Control Is Not for Everyone
Tight control is not safe for everyone with diabetes.

Children should not be put on a program of tight control. Having enough
glucose in the blood is vital to brain development. Some doctors say that
tight control should wait until a child reaches 13; others say after the age
of 7 is okay.

Elderly people probably should not go on tight control. Hypoglycemia can
cause strokes and heart attacks in older people. Also, the major goal of
tight control is to prevent complications many years later. Tight control is
most worthwhile for healthy people who can expect to live at least 10 more
years.

Some people who already have complications should not be on tight control.
For example, people with end-stage kidney disease or severe vision loss
probably should not try it. Their complications are probably too far along
to be helped. Some people who have coronary artery disease or vascular
disease should not try tight control. People who have hypoglycemia
unawareness probably should not go on tight control.

Signature

Tom
Exercise Today = Life Tomorrow
ADA's Diabetes Learning Center
http://www.diabetes.org/all-about-diabetes/chan_eng/channel.htm
Information you can trust from the diabetes experts...
Your American Diabetes Association
http://www.diabetes.org/home.jsp
the American Diabetes Association's Message Boards
http://community.diabetes.org/n/pfx/forum.aspx?webtag=amdiabetesz&nav=index
Pictures of My motorcycle and I think 2 of my doggies.
http://www.adventurseofvtx1300c.com.50megs.com/photo.html

Chris J. - 29 Oct 2005 20:21 GMT
Tom, my comments below are directed at the author of the article, and
are not slams at you personally.

>Keeping your blood glucose levels as close to normal as possible can be a
>lifesaver. Tight control can prevent or slow the progress of many
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>level as you safely can. Ideally, this means levels between 90 and 130 mg/dl
>before meals,

Anyone have any idea why they chose that range?? I'm referring
specifically to the low end: why 90? What would be wrong with BG's in
the upper 70's or low 80's between meals?

>and less than 180 two hours after starting a meal, with a
>glycated hemoglobin level less than 7 percent. The target number for
>glycated hemoglobin will vary depending on the type of test your doctor's
>laboratory uses.

So they call 175 *TWO* hours after a meal is "good control"? Ack....

>In real life, you should set your goals with your doctor. Keeping a normal
>level all the time is not practical.

Hogwash. It's a YMMV thing. It's not hard for some T2 diabetics,
impossible for others.

>The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) proved it. Researchers
>followed 1,441 people with diabetes

Yes, T1's. Not T2's. Extrapolating the results to fit all DM's is IMHO
very poor methodology.

>for several years. Half of the people
>continued standard diabetes treatment. The other half followed an
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>  d.. Far fewer people who already had early forms of these three
>complications got worse.

And I note that the only thing said about the BG levels of the "tight
control" group is that they are "lower" than the standard group, and
were still above normal ranges. So, I think it is reasonable to
speculate that lowering BG's to true normal ranges, and keeping them
stable, is a worthwhile goal (if practical) for T2's as it should,
theoretically, further reduce the risk of complications.  

>If you are newly diagnosed with diabetes, look honestly at yourself. Are you
>still angry and depressed that you have diabetes? If so, you already have a
>big challenge facing you. You may want to wait to try tight control until
>after you've come to terms with the changes in your life.

Personally, I think this is very bad advice in some cases. I certainly
fit the "angry and depressed" label the day I got home from the
hospital. However, waiting would have been the wrong choice for me.
Radical changes to get on the road to good control were the only way I
could fight, and when something challenges me I both want and need to
fight.

>Second, people on tight control gained more weight than people on standard
>insulin treatment. The average in the DCCT was 10 pounds.

And the DCCT studied only T1's! I thought weight gain from insulin was
a T2 problem???

>The DCCT studied only people with type 1 diabetes. But doctors believe that
>tight control can also prevent complications in people with type 2 diabetes.

>Most people with type 2 diabetes do not take insulin. You may be wondering
>how you can achieve tight control without it.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>changing your behavior so that you eat less and exercise more. Your doctor
>should work with you to find an eating and exercise plan you can stick to.

Generally good, but over-simplified IMHO. "Eating less" never worked
for me. Replacing high calorie foods with low calorie ones (especially
vegetables) did.
Vicki Beausoleil - 29 Oct 2005 21:22 GMT
gigantic snip

> Generally good, but over-simplified IMHO. "Eating less" never worked
> for me. Replacing high calorie foods with low calorie ones (especially
> vegetables) did.

Uh, Chris, you do realize that fishboy cut and pasted this directly from
the ADA website, don't you? The fact that it's readable should have been
your first clue.

Jenny's website offers an explanation as to why the ADA chose the
targets they did.

http://www.geocities.com/lottadata4u/  Type 2 Diabetes info
http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/  Low Carb info

Vicki
Chris J. - 29 Oct 2005 23:40 GMT
>gigantic snip
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Uh, Chris, you do realize that fishboy cut and pasted this directly from
>the ADA website, don't you?

I know...

>Jenny's website offers an explanation as to why the ADA chose the
>targets they did.

I love Jenny's sites (and highly reccomend them to anyone who has not
read them), but in going through them again I can't see why the low
(90) end of the range would have any substantiation? The ADA seems to
be saying that a T2 diabetic should try and stay ABOVE 90, which makes
no sense to me as that's well above hypo range.

I could certainly see that as a guideline if hypos were an issue, such
as for someone on insulin or beta stimulators, but to state it as a
range for all diabetics seems a bit odd to me.

Thanks, Vicki...
Priscilla Ballou - 29 Oct 2005 23:57 GMT
> >gigantic snip
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> as for someone on insulin or beta stimulators, but to state it as a
> range for all diabetics seems a bit odd to me.

I think they probably assume we can't get below there.

Priscilla
Signature

"Inside every older person is a younger person -- wondering what
the hell happened."  -- Cora Harvey Armstrong

Chris J. - 30 Oct 2005 00:42 GMT
>> I could certainly see that as a guideline if hypos were an issue, such
>> as for someone on insulin or beta stimulators, but to state it as a
>> range for all diabetics seems a bit odd to me.
>
>I think they probably assume we can't get below there.

Then they are, um, less than fully informed.  We certainly can get
below there, as anyone who has ever had a hypo would surely attest.
Ozgirl - 30 Oct 2005 08:01 GMT
>>> I could certainly see that as a guideline if hypos were an issue,
>>> such as for someone on insulin or beta stimulators, but
to state it
>>> as a range for all diabetics seems a bit odd to me.
>>
>>I think they probably assume we can't get below there.
>
> Then they are, um, less than fully informed.  We certainly can get
> below there, as anyone who has ever had a hypo would surely attest.

That's why I call the ADA site a dumbed down site. It is too
broad for most but suits a certain section of the diabetic
community because a lot of explanation doesn't have to be
given. Most people will be reading anything and everything
they can get their hands on though, so the ADA information
is quickly noted for what it is.

Also the DCCT and UKPDS trials are quite old and bg targets
have been tightened since then. I am rather reluctant to
point to those trials in recent times. For their time they
were a God send as many were woefully uncontrolled. But
times and research change. Today's diabetics have a way
better chance of being complication free than even 10 years
ago.
pinecone - 31 Oct 2005 10:19 GMT
I think the ADA site has improved dramatically over the past year, and
it's a good place for frightened newbies looking for basics.  They also
have some good articles that point to scientific research for those who
care to look.  Some of their recipes are very tasty and don't mess with
my BG, too.  I really think they've come a long way just since I was
diagnosed in April 2004.  They recalibrated the site and continue to do
so.

pc
Donna Evleth - 31 Oct 2005 15:42 GMT
> From: "pinecone" <poodlebreeze@netscape.net>
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> pc

I just went to the ADA site, and I tried to create a "diabetic health
record," as they suggested.  I told them I had been diagnosed as a diabetic
type 2 (it was  my previous GP who gave this diagnosis), and then they asked
me for my fasting blood glucose at the time of diagnosis and I gave them the
exact number, 123.  They rejected it.  They did not allow me to go on after
having given them that number.  I had to change it to "don't know", which
was a lie, before they would let me continue.  Then I had the same trouble
with my last A1c, which they asked for.  When I entered the true figure,
5.5%, they rejected it.

I finally gave up on the whole thing, having been a bit baffled.

Donna Evleth
Slap - 31 Oct 2005 16:07 GMT
> I just went to the ADA site, and I tried to create a "diabetic health
> record," as they suggested.  I told them I had been diagnosed as a diabetic
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Donna Evleth

I hope you sent them an email telling them of their program faults.  That
way they might fix them.

--
Dave
Alan S - 01 Nov 2005 00:22 GMT
>> I just went to the ADA site, and I tried to create a "diabetic health
>> record," as they suggested.  I told them I had been diagnosed as a
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>I hope you sent them an email telling them of their program faults.  That
>way they might fix them.

I haven't tried it, but I suspect they have defaults set at
minima which presume you couldn't be a diabetic with FBG
<126 at dx or A1c <6.5.

As usual, no allowance for exceptions, generalise it all.

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
Signature

Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

Jenny - 01 Nov 2005 00:44 GMT
>>>I just went to the ADA site, and I tried to create a "diabetic health
>>>record," as they suggested.  I told them I had been diagnosed as a
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>
> Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.

As usual, no recognition that the ADA's own published criteria for
diagnosis specify that repeated random readings over 200 mg/dl are
diagnostic of diabetes regardless of A1c or fasting blood glucose.

--Jenny

http://www.geocities.com/lottadata4u/  Type 2 Diabetes info
http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/  Low Carb info
Priscilla Ballou - 30 Oct 2005 16:50 GMT
> >> I could certainly see that as a guideline if hypos were an issue, such
> >> as for someone on insulin or beta stimulators, but to state it as a
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Then they are, um, less than fully informed.  We certainly can get
> below there, as anyone who has ever had a hypo would surely attest.

Of course.

Priscilla
Signature

"Inside every older person is a younger person -- wondering what
the hell happened."  -- Cora Harvey Armstrong

Chris J. - 30 Oct 2005 19:33 GMT
>> >> I could certainly see that as a guideline if hypos were an issue, such
>> >> as for someone on insulin or beta stimulators, but to state it as a
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Of course.

Not that I've ever been inclined to accuse the ADA of being overly
informed... :-)
mrslang - 30 Oct 2005 19:53 GMT
> Not that I've ever been inclined to accuse the ADA of being overly
> informed... :-)

ain't it amazing that you've only been diabetic for a few months yet
you already know more than the ADA. one thing's for sure, that kind of
thinking will get you a gold member card in the ASD hater's club.....if
that's what you want and it sure seems that you do.

Sally
Chris J. - 30 Oct 2005 20:20 GMT
>> Not that I've ever been inclined to accuse the ADA of being overly
>> informed... :-)
>
>ain't it amazing that you've only been diabetic for a few months yet
>you already know more than the ADA.

I know enough to value the opinion of the American College of
Endocrinologists over that of the ADA when the two conflict. If you
disagree, could you please enlighten me as to why?

>one thing's for sure, that kind of
>thinking will get you a gold member card in the ASD hater's club.....if
>that's what you want and it sure seems that you do.

I had been out of hospital all of a few hours (and I'd never heard of
this group at that point) when I went to the ADA site, and it struck
me as being way over simplified, and rather lacking is such things as
cites and basic research. If it hits an ignorant newbie that way, I
think there just might be a reason for some of the negative
opinions...

For example, they recommend a BG range of between 90 and 130 before
meals. They don't bother to say why, or what studies that is based
upon.

So, do you agree with the ADA that a diabetic with a BG of 85 before a
meal is too low, and should try and avoid going that low? If so, why?

And incidentally, I chose the above issue to make a point: Don't
bother looking in the ADA site for the "why", you won't find it, and
that's my biggest issue with the ADA.
mrslang - 30 Oct 2005 21:39 GMT
> >> Not that I've ever been inclined to accuse the ADA of being overly
> >> informed... :-)
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> think there just might be a reason for some of the negative
> opinions...

the ADA website offers general guidelines and aims for a broad target.
they also emphasize that one needs to work with their doctor and health
team to find out what they specificly need because we're all different.
you should never use any website as your personal doctor whether it's
the ADA, Joslin, or ACE...although a newbie would have a hard time
knowing about ACE let alone finding their site.

> For example, they recommend a BG range of between 90 and 130 before
> meals. They don't bother to say why, or what studies that is based
> upon.

they call it a "target" range. a suggestive range.  what does your
doctor or endo say about what YOUR range should be? 90-130 a very good
target for most people.

> So, do you agree with the ADA that a diabetic with a BG of 85 before a
> meal is too low

where do they ever say an 85 is TOO LOW.  and for some it might be, for
others it is not.  do you expect them to know what chris J. needs are?
what do you want them to say 60-130? 60 for some is okay for others
it's shaky hell.  maybe to make you happy they could ask all diabetics
to submit their hypo threshold and then list the names of the people
who prefer to be at 70, 71, 72, 73, etc.  wonder if they'd have enough
bandwidth.

> And incidentally, I chose the above issue to make a point: Don't
> bother looking in the ADA site for the "why", you won't find it, and
> that's my biggest issue with the ADA.

what do you want them to say, chris? other than work with your doctor
to find your needs which they already say. why is there air?  maybe
you're pissed that they don't answer that too.

most people don't want to know the why when looking at general
guidleines.  those that do can always ask their doctor who knows them
better than suggested guidlines would.  when I get my labs done and the
doctor tells me my cholesterol level and says it's good and within the
lab normal range I'm happy with that.  I don't feel the need to discuss
with him how they determined the number. but if I did...he'd tell me or
give me the material that would tell me.

be realistic here.  most people with diabetes....if they even know they
have it...are out of shape and without discipline. you want more, there
are easy ways to find out.  my point is save your snotty little
comments about the ADA because they are doing a lot of good for a lot
of people.  but if you want them to become Chris J's doctor it ain't
gonna happen.  

Sally
Chris J. - 30 Oct 2005 23:48 GMT
>the ADA website offers general guidelines and aims for a broad target.

IMHO, way too simplified, but that's just my opinion. I'd have liked
to have seen a few more details and explanations, and a bit less of
the one-size-fits-all dietary guidelines.  

>they also emphasize that one needs to work with their doctor and health
>team to find out what they specificly need because we're all different.

Except that they don't with regards to diet. They make it appear that
the food pyramid is the only good choice for diabetics, and don't even
mention that one can substitute mono unsaturated fats for carbs.

They don't even mention the effect carbs can have on the BG's of T2
diabetics, except obliquely "Your doctor might need to adjust your
medication".

I'd be much happier if they mentioned testing the effect of given
foods on BG levels.  

In their favor, though, is the fact that unlike my hospital dietician,
they do stress whole grains and healthy carbs rather then drawing no
distinction between that and white flour and sugar.  

>you should never use any website as your personal doctor whether it's
>the ADA, Joslin, or ACE...although a newbie would have a hard time
>knowing about ACE let alone finding their site.

Yep, it took me weeks to find out about it. As for finding their
website, as far as I know they don't have one. However, the American
Association of Clinical Endocrinologists  (AACE) does.  

For anyone interested, here is their site:
http://www.aace.com/
BTW, It's not an easy site to get information from.

>> For example, they recommend a BG range of between 90 and 130 before
>> meals. They don't bother to say why, or what studies that is based
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>doctor or endo say about what YOUR range should be? 90-130 a very good
>target for most people.

My doctor just gave me a high side limit, 120,  with a description of
hypoglycemic symptoms and a warning to watch out for them below 75.

On a side note, when I was released from the hospital I was on
insulin, so hyos were a real risk. They gave me a sheet about hypos,
describing symptoms, and said to have a snack if I felt the symptoms.
They didn't bother to tell me what kind of snack! Fortunately I both
took the trouble to find out, and it wasn't an issue, but I found the
lack of information on such a critical issue appalling! This is why I
do rant and rave about over-simplification: past a point, it can be
downright dangerous.

>> So, do you agree with the ADA that a diabetic with a BG of 85 before a
>> meal is too low
>
>where do they ever say an 85 is TOO LOW.

They are saying that the target range is 90-130.  85 is less than 90,
so it is below the target range. Therefor, I feel it's correct to say
that they are claiming that 85 would be too low.

> and for some it might be, for
>others it is not.  do you expect them to know what chris J. needs are?

Of course not, but they ought to give their reasons, so people can
make up their own minds if they are so inclined.  

>what do you want them to say 60-130? 60 for some is okay for others
>it's shaky hell.  maybe to make you happy they could ask all diabetics
>to submit their hypo threshold and then list the names of the people
>who prefer to be at 70, 71, 72, 73, etc.  wonder if they'd have enough
>bandwidth.

Would wording it as follows have been so bad?
"We suggest staying under 130 before meals, but, going too low can
cause hypoglycemia, so please read out hypoglycemia page here
http://www.diabetes.org/type-1-diabetes/hypoglycemia.jsp

>> And incidentally, I chose the above issue to make a point: Don't
>> bother looking in the ADA site for the "why", you won't find it, and
>> that's my biggest issue with the ADA.
>
>what do you want them to say, chris?

How about the reason WHY for some of their guidelines, such as that
one?  

One of the great things about hypertext is you can make links out of
parts of the text, so you can keep the overview brief but have the
data at hand for those who need it.

>other than work with your doctor
>to find your needs which they already say. why is there air?  maybe
>you're pissed that they don't answer that too.

>most people don't want to know the why when looking at general
>guidleines.

Why not? If you don't know the reasoning behind something, you cannot
evaluate it.

I'm a Realtor. If you wanted to put your house on the market, and
asked me for a price, wouldn't you want to know why I picked the
number I did?

On the other hand, I've run into plenty of people who don't ask why,
so your point has merit.

> those that do can always ask their doctor who knows them
>better than suggested guidlines would.

And trusting a doctor absolutely, without independent verification,
makes just as much sense as doing the same with your financial
advisor. I'm frankly shocked at the number of people I've run into who
wouldn't dream of investing in something without doing the research
themselves, yet show no such interest in medical matters.

There is also the problem, for many of us, that we don't have full
time access to a doctor. If I need an appointment it costs me money,
so I stick to the appointment schedule. There is also the fact that my
doctor has a lot of patients, and is a human being, so I need to be
the one who is both informed and in charge of my treatment.  

>when I get my labs done and the
>doctor tells me my cholesterol level and says it's good and within the
>lab normal range I'm happy with that.  I don't feel the need to discuss
>with him how they determined the number. but if I did...he'd tell me or
>give me the material that would tell me.

If you did ask, you might find that your Doc does not know the
specific process by which the lab determines the number. Mine didn't
when I asked about how the LDL was determined,  which is hardly
surprising as she isn't a lab tech or a biochemist.

>be realistic here.  most people with diabetes....if they even know they
>have it...are out of shape and without discipline. you want more, there
>are easy ways to find out.  my point is save your snotty little
>comments about the ADA because they are doing a lot of good for a lot
>of people.

Oh, the horror: I made a snarky comment on usenet!

The fact is that, like many things, the ADA could be better. A little
criticism isn't going to kill them.
Priscilla Ballou - 30 Oct 2005 22:44 GMT
> > Not that I've ever been inclined to accuse the ADA of being overly
> > informed... :-)
>
> ain't it amazing that you've only been diabetic for a few months yet
> you already know more than the ADA.

Scary, isn't it?  And yet some people place their health in jeopardy by
following their advice.

Priscilla
Signature

"Inside every older person is a younger person -- wondering what
the hell happened."  -- Cora Harvey Armstrong

Alan S - 01 Nov 2005 00:33 GMT
>> > Not that I've ever been inclined to accuse the ADA of being overly
>> > informed... :-)
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Priscilla

I don't pretend to know more than the sum of the enormous
combined knowledge of the ADA. However, in the specific,
tiny, limited field of Alan's personal diabetes, I know more
than anyone on earth.

Sadly, it didn't take very long for me to know more, and
better, than both the ADA and my doctor in that limited
field. I learnt 99% of that on mhd and asd and from my own
body.

I've since found that my knowledge may have some application
to those who have a similar form of diabetes to mine.  In
attempting to pass that knowledge back to the ADA, Diabetes
Australia and the NHS I've learnt that they are uninterested
in lay or patient learning.

So, like others, I find the above attempt at sarcasm a sad
reflection on the inertia and inflexibility of diabetes
authorities, not a denigration as intended by the author.

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
Signature

Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

Nicky - 31 Oct 2005 23:56 GMT
>> Not that I've ever been inclined to accuse the ADA of being overly
>> informed... :-)
>
> ain't it amazing that you've only been diabetic for a few months yet
> you already know more than the ADA.

No, he's making the perfectly accurate statement that he knows more than
they put on their website. It ain't difficult to do.

Nicky.

Signature

A1c 10.5/5.6/<6  T2 DX 05/2004
1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine
95/74/72Kg

mrslang - 01 Nov 2005 03:23 GMT
> >> Not that I've ever been inclined to accuse the ADA of being overly
> >> informed... :-)
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> No, he's making the perfectly accurate statement that he knows more than
> they put on their website. It ain't difficult to do.

hate to be argumentative...ah to hell with it why not, everybody else
here is. lol  not only does chris not know more than the ADA website
there is no one on this board who knows more than what's on their
website.  what do I base this on?  not just the few pages of the site
that most here have bothered to look at but the simple little box at
the top labeles "search'.  that means you can put anything in thats
diabetes related and bunches of articles will come up.  now for the
newbie they probably won't do that right away but as they learn to live
with their diabetes and need more information that little search box is
always there. so you see I was RIGHT all along.  yeah for me! lol

also when first diagnosed things are really overhwelming so it helps to
have things like their learning center thingie to help someone
understand some basics.

http://www.diabetes.org/all-about-diabetes/chan_eng/channel.htm

a friend of a friend just was diagnosed and I gave her this link.  it
helped a lot.

Sally
Chris J. - 01 Nov 2005 03:44 GMT
>> >> Not that I've ever been inclined to accuse the ADA of being overly
>> >> informed... :-)
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>hate to be argumentative...ah to hell with it why not, everybody else
>here is. lol  not only does chris not know more than the ADA website

For the record: I never said I did. I'd also like to point out that
there was a smiley after my comment.
Nicky - 01 Nov 2005 21:09 GMT
> hate to be argumentative...ah to hell with it why not, everybody else
> here is. lol  not only does chris not know more than the ADA website
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> the top labeles "search'.  that means you can put anything in thats
> diabetes related and bunches of articles will come up.

A lot of it outdated - a lot of it contradictory - some of it worth reading,
but if it is, it's quoted on places like Medscape.

> http://www.diabetes.org/all-about-diabetes/chan_eng/channel.htm
>
> a friend of a friend just was diagnosed and I gave her this link.  it
> helped a lot.

The very first link is pushing the low-fat diet that is just about the
hardest one for a diabetic to follow! The same old "eat starchy foods" line
that is becoming a laughing-stock, even amongst the ADA's own researchers.
Unless your friend's friend is as thick as two short planks, you'd have done
her more of a favour by empowering her with Jennifer's link.

Nicky.

Signature

A1c 10.5/5.6/<6  T2 DX 05/2004
1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine
95/74/72Kg

mrslang - 01 Nov 2005 23:34 GMT
> > http://www.diabetes.org/all-about-diabetes/chan_eng/channel.htm
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> The very first link is pushing the low-fat diet that is just about the
> hardest one for a diabetic to follow!

you sound bitter nicky?  lol  do you push the hi-fat diet?

> The same old "eat starchy foods" line

"A key message for people with diabetes is "Carbs Count." Foods high in
carbs (carbohydrates) -- bread, tortillas, rice, crackers, cereal,
fruit, juice, milk, yogurt, potatoes, corn, peas, sweets -- raise your
blood sugar levels the most."

yeah they're really trying to trick everybody into eating those foods.
lol.  you're a joke.

> that is becoming a laughing-stock, even amongst the ADA's own researchers.

as I've posted here numerous times, the ADA recommends eating whole
grains depsite people like you who like to twist the truth.  however
they also believe that everyone has the same nutritional needs and some
here don't agree with that.  I'll take that professional statement over
strangers in a newsgroup anyday.

> Unless your friend's friend is as thick as two short planks

and in the words of Jethro Tull you seem thick as a brick. and I bet
you're stubborn as a mule. and as dumb as a wall. lol  I love those "as
a " analogies!!!!!!

, you'd have done
> her more of a favour by empowering her with Jennifer's link.

I actually forewarded that to her as well.  but am holding off on
telling her about this place because it's full of people like you who
seem to love to play doctor and put yourself ABOVE real professionals.
some here are very good people but for a newbie it's hard to separate
the wheat from the chafing personalities like yours.

what I also did for her was to refer her to my endo. she's in good
hands because he's "as good as it gets."  

Sally
Thomas Muffaletto - 02 Nov 2005 00:16 GMT
Jethro Tull you seem thick as a brick.
> Sally

and she's a tull fan :).
Alan S - 02 Nov 2005 01:06 GMT
>> The same old "eat starchy foods" line
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>yeah they're really trying to trick everybody into eating those foods.
>lol.  you're a joke.

You snipped a little early. The next sentences are:
http://www.diabetes.org/all-about-diabetes/chan_eng/i3/i3p2.htm
"For many people, having 3 or 4 servings of a carb choice at
each meal and 1 or 2 servings at snacks is about right."

In other areas they have defined a serve as 15 gms of carb.
So, for an average day with a minimum of three meals and a
couple of snacks, that equates to 165-210 gms.

And on that page, they don't add their usual disclaimer that
the doctor may have to adjust meds to handle that high load.
However, it is still added here:
http://www.diabetes.org/nutrition-and-recipes/nutrition/starches.jsp
"Your doctor may need to adjust your medications when you
eat more carbohydrates. You may need to increase your
activity level or try spacing carbohydrates throughout the
day."

So, eat high carbs, knowing that it may lead to increased
meds. Nowhere do they suggest that it may be possible to
minimise both to a safe minimum level.

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
Signature

Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

Thomas Muffaletto - 02 Nov 2005 02:29 GMT
> So, eat high carbs, knowing that it may lead to increased
> meds.

that is a lie and he knows it.  i have said many times i do not take any
meds.
while he takes meds for cholesterol and blood sugar.

Nowhere do they suggest that it may be possible to
> minimise both to a safe minimum level.

actually they do but not in those words.
no where does it say a type 2 has to take meds while on a low fat diet.
i would realy have to question how honest someone was while they said that.

Signature

Tom
Exercise Today = Life Tomorrow
ADA's Diabetes Learning Center
http://www.diabetes.org/all-about-diabetes/chan_eng/channel.htm
Information you can trust from the diabetes experts...
Your American Diabetes Association
http://www.diabetes.org/home.jsp
the American Diabetes Association's Message Boards
http://community.diabetes.org/n/pfx/forum.aspx?webtag=amdiabetesz&nav=index
Pictures of My motorcycle and I think 2 of my doggies.
http://www.adventurseofvtx1300c.com.50megs.com/photo.html

Ozgirl - 02 Nov 2005 03:08 GMT
>> So, eat high carbs, knowing that it may lead to increased
>> meds.
>
> that is a lie and he knows it.  i have said many times i do not take
> any meds.
> while he takes meds for cholesterol and blood sugar.

Lol and where is the photocopy of your current test results?
I am sure no one will mind a small .jpg attachment from you.
You haven't a clue about any of your labs at the moment yet
you continue to criticise others. You may not take meds but
at 265 pounds and higher carb, I seriously doubt any of your
numbers are in normal range. Taking meds is no failure and
getting off meds is no badge of honour. You always feel the
need to compete with people.

>  Nowhere do they suggest that it may be possible to
>> minimise both to a safe minimum level.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> i would realy have to question how honest someone was while they said
> that.

So where are the links disproving this? And the page where
they say what Alan is saying but "not in those words"?
RK - 02 Nov 2005 03:11 GMT
| > So, eat high carbs, knowing that it may lead to increased
| > meds.
|
| that is a lie and he knows it.  i have said many times i do not take any
| meds.
| while he takes meds for cholesterol and blood sugar.

and so what?

at least Alan has the BALLS to post his lab results something
you little weinner have never done.

at least Alan has the BALLS to remain Alan and not come back
with some vulgar name like "Copulator"

at least Alan has integrety, something you little mindless weasel
don't have, or ever will have.

at least Alan see's his OWN doctor and not leech off his wife like
some blood sucking vile insect that you are.

at least ... hmm me thinks i'm on a roll.. anyone else here wanna
take pock shots at the cheeseburger, copulator -- sushi weinner boy?

RK, who's proud to call Alan H and Alan S both friends.

| Nowhere do they suggest that it may be possible to
| > minimise both to a safe minimum level.
|
| actually they do but not in those words.
| no where does it say a type 2 has to take meds while on a low fat diet.
| i would realy have to question how honest someone was while they said that.

http://community.diabetes.org/n/pfx/forum.aspx?webtag=amdiabetesz&nav=index
| Pictures of My motorcycle and I think 2 of my doggies.
| http://www.adventurseofvtx1300c.com.50megs.com/photo.html
Alan S - 02 Nov 2005 03:22 GMT
>RK, who's proud to call Alan H and Alan S both friends.

Thankee, M'am

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
Signature

Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

RK - 02 Nov 2005 04:06 GMT
de nada mi amigo

| >RK, who's proud to call Alan H and Alan S both friends.
|
| Thankee, M'am
|
| Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
Ma¢k - 02 Nov 2005 05:57 GMT
>| > So, eat high carbs, knowing that it may lead to increased
>| > meds.
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
>RK, who's proud to call Alan H and Alan S both friends.

mufflebut also stated that he does not regularly test his BG at home
so his following his wife's diet is based mostly on guess work as to
it's actually controlling his BGs.

Signature

Mâck©®
Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.diabetic-talk.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
President, or that we are to stand by the President
right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public."
...Theodore Roosevelt

        (o o)  
--ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------

"I don't know half of you
half as well as I should like;
and I like less than half of you
half as well as you deserve."

Jesus never hated anyone.

Peter G. (Bigbird) - 02 Nov 2005 06:23 GMT
<<SNIP>>>>
>>at least ... hmm me thinks i'm on a roll.. anyone else here wanna
>>take pock shots at the cheeseburger, copulator -- sushi weinner boy?
>>
>>RK, who's proud to call Alan H and Alan S both friends.

Naw, taking shots at him would be like a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
He's the type that thinks a score of 100 on an IQ test is a perfect score.
He's so dense light rays bend around him. Thanks, I'll sit this one out....

PG
Thomas Muffaletto - 02 Nov 2005 07:26 GMT
lol they always get so pissed when I mention about everyone on the diet
they push ends up on cholesterol meds.
last week they tried to stop flaming me thinking that I would stop bringing
it up.
now go take your meds.  most newbie's that come here don't sit around the
computer
all day like most of you.   as a result even tho they are newly diagnosed I
am willing to be
they are healthier.  lol watch how they call me names now and flex their
weak muscles.
flame me you old sacks of wine.  before my days are done I will look down
upon
your posts and smile :).

Signature

Tom
Exercise Today = Life Tomorrow
ADA's Diabetes Learning Center
http://www.diabetes.org/all-about-diabetes/chan_eng/channel.htm
Information you can trust from the diabetes experts...
Your American Diabetes Association
http://www.diabetes.org/home.jsp
the American Diabetes Association's Message Boards
http://community.diabetes.org/n/pfx/forum.aspx?webtag=amdiabetesz&nav=index
Pictures of My motorcycle and I think 2 of my doggies.
http://www.adventurseofvtx1300c.com.50megs.com/photo.html

> | > So, eat high carbs, knowing that it may lead to increased
> | > meds.
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> | Pictures of My motorcycle and I think 2 of my doggies.
> | http://www.adventurseofvtx1300c.com.50megs.com/photo.html
Cheri - 02 Nov 2005 18:13 GMT
You're so predictable muff-boy. A couple of days ago when you posted
that the group seemed to be getting along better than they had in years,
I gave you a day or two before you started with the insults. Only took
you one day. It must suck to be you.
--
Cheri

Thomas Muffaletto wrote in message ...
>lol they always get so pissed when I mention about everyone on the diet
>they push ends up on cholesterol meds.
>last week they tried to stop flaming me thinking that I would stop bringing
Chris J. - 02 Nov 2005 08:02 GMT
>RK, who's proud to call Alan H and Alan S both friends.

My only problem with Alan S. is that he uses a first name followed by
an initial! You can never trust someone who does that!

Chris J.

(btw, for the humor-challenged: I'm joking!).
RK - 02 Nov 2005 16:23 GMT
| >RK, who's proud to call Alan H and Alan S both friends.
|
| My only problem with Alan S. is that he uses a first name followed by
| an initial! You can never trust someone who does that!
|
| Chris J.

LOL that darn Alan... :P

| (btw, for the humor-challenged: I'm joking!).
Chris J. - 02 Nov 2005 17:55 GMT
>| >RK, who's proud to call Alan H and Alan S both friends.
>|
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>LOL that darn Alan... :P

Yeah... That and his habit of driving upside down.. :-)

Seriously, he's one of the people here who has helped me a lot, and I
think very highly of indeed.  
Alan Hardy - 02 Nov 2005 10:03 GMT
> big snip
>
> RK, who's proud to call Alan H and Alan S both friends.

now you embarassed me, meduck, but a heartfelt thank you.

off-topic a bit, i am very glad Booboo returned from her little adventure.
my Allard used to do it -- adventuring, that is -- every 3 months or so. he
was usually gone for up to 48 hours, and always came home stinking and
filthy. oops, doggie shampoo! he was a Wire Fox Terrier [correct name is NOT
Wire-Haired, according to the Kennel Club]. he died at the age of 17, in
1995, and i still miss him now.

i bet Danni is delighted.

Alan H
Signature

Do, or do not. There is no try.

Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back

Ozgirl - 02 Nov 2005 11:56 GMT
>> big snip
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> off-topic a bit, i am very glad Booboo returned from her little
> adventure. my Allard used to do it -- adventuring, that
is -- every 3
> months or so. he was usually gone for up to 48 hours, and
always came
> home stinking and filthy. oops, doggie shampoo! he was a
Wire Fox
> Terrier [correct name is NOT Wire-Haired, according to the
Kennel
> Club]. he died at the age of 17, in 1995, and i still miss
him now.

17 is a good innings! Allard is an unusual name, do you
remember how you came to call him that?
Alan Hardy - 02 Nov 2005 14:32 GMT
> Alan Hardy wrote:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> 17 is a good innings! Allard is an unusual name, do you
> remember how you came to call him that?

first, i offer sympathy [empathy, if you like] about your kelpie. the dogs
become part of the family, i think.

average for a fox terrier is 14 years, so he did well. as for the name, he
already had that when i got him from the dog pound aged 18 months. in the UK
most [but not all] dog pounds run by the police put the dogs down fairly
quickly if no-one claims, but the RSPCA doesn't like to do that. there are
also a few privately run which absolutely prohibits putting down a dog
except for medical reasons. it was a private one i went to.

there a few dogs and cats with diabetes, but whether it is t1 or t2 i don't
know.

Alan H
Signature

Never go to bed mad. Stay up and fight!

Phyllis Diller

RK - 02 Nov 2005 16:24 GMT
| > Alan Hardy wrote:
| >>>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
|
| Alan H

Oddly with pets that have DM, i'm not sure either.. though I think
all take insulin.

Reisa
Alan Hardy - 02 Nov 2005 18:34 GMT
> Alan Hardy wrote
> | > Alan Hardy wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>
> Reisa

Yes, but it is not easy to diet a pet, coz they don't understand, and they
have different dietary needs. Maybe someone here who does have a diabetic
dog or cat can explain it.

Alan H
Signature

Never go to bed mad. Stay up and fight!

Phyllis Diller

Vicki Beausoleil - 02 Nov 2005 18:41 GMT
snip

> | there a few dogs and cats with diabetes, but whether it is t1 or t2 i
> don't
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Reisa

Actually, the majority of dogs will respond well to oral medications.
The leading cause of diabetes in cats, however, is pancreatitis. Because
beta cell function is lost or severely impaired, insulin is necessary.
Cats are also the only animal to have confirmed cases of spontaneous
remission of diabetic symptoms.

Besides, having had two cats with diabetes (one still around), I'd give
them a shot over a pill any day. Cramming a pill down their gullet is
asking for a fighting mad cat. Neither one of mine ever made/makes a
fuss over getting a shot. I've always used 31 gauge short needles for
their insulin, and 99% of the time they don't feel it at all.

Testing is easy, too. That vein that runs around the outside of their
ears is just perfect for getting a good drop of blood for a test. Jasper
sits perfectly still when I test his bg, but I have to hold on to his
ear because if he feels the drop of blood he'll shake his head to get
rid of it.
RK - 02 Nov 2005 19:09 GMT
| snip
| > |
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
| ear because if he feels the drop of blood he'll shake his head to get
| rid of it.

Thanks Vicki... was really interesting.

Once when I tried to worm one of our cats years ago.. the little puss
bit the hell outta my hand.. well I cleaned it good, or so I thought, 3
days later I was in the Clinic on Base getting an antibotic IV along
with some yobo cutting my hand with a scalpel and draining the
infection out.. talk about owie!... never again will I give a cat a pill
LOL... Now a shot, yep, I've vacinated all my animals, dogs, cats and
horses over the past 10yrs.. so that doesn't bother me at all.

So... I know your not a doctor.. but what's your take on this.. I normally
test the dogs and cats once a month... simply because we're in a condo
now and they don't get out like they used to... and yep the weight is
packing on them.. Switched um all to a light n trim food.. but Danni's
cat most times tests in the 40's... is that something to watch out for?

Thanks

Reisa
Alan Hardy - 02 Nov 2005 19:56 GMT
> Vicki Beausoleil wrote
> | snip
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> Thanks Vicki... was really interesting.

i agree, thanks Vicki, more useful to me than you realise, coz i am thinking
of getting a cat. it would not be fair or just to get another terrier, coz i
can't give them the necessary exercise.

Alan H
Signature

Never go to bed mad. Stay up and fight!

Phyllis Diller

> Reisa
Vicki Beausoleil - 02 Nov 2005 20:48 GMT
snip

> Once when I tried to worm one of our cats years ago.. the little puss
> bit the hell outta my hand.. well I cleaned it good, or so I thought, 3
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Reisa

The easiest and least painful way to monitor them is by weight. If any
of the pets start to lose weight and spend a lot of time at the water
bowl, then I'd test. That's just me, I don't want to be invasive unless
it's necessary. Feline and canine diabetes occurs with far less
frequency than in humans.

As for the cat's bg, I really can't answer with any authority. 40 mg/dl
is the recommended lowest level.  A cat with hypoglycemia won't be able
to stand up and walk normally. Like us, they'll wobble a lot. Their
nictitating membrane (extra eyelid) will sometimes be visible. Sometimes
they'll vomit or drool.

Because cats are pure carnivores their glucose needs will be less.
Canned cat food has far less carbs than dry. There's no mention of
reactive hypoglycemia in cats, so personally I wouldn't worry unless the
hypo symptoms are obvious. You treat a hypo in a cat the same as a
human. Milk is a good hypo cure. If the cat is unconscious then rub it's
gums with honey or Karo syrup. It's messy, but it works like a charm.
Talk to your vet if you're concerned about Danni's cat's readings.

For everything you ever wanted to know about diabetes and cats, here's
the site. I haven't been there for a long while.

http://felinediabetes.com

They have a FAQ and a message board.

HTH

Vicki
Vicki Beausoleil - 02 Nov 2005 20:55 GMT
> snip
> >
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>
> Vicki

I forgot the //www. in the above link.

Vicki
Alan Hardy - 02 Nov 2005 21:49 GMT
>> snip
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>
> Vicki

i found it still found the same site, so not to worry.

Alan H
Signature

Advice for women from Matilda

If you love someone, tell him. Hearts are often broken by words left
unspoken.

If that doesn't work, show him your tits!

RK - 02 Nov 2005 23:57 GMT
| snip
| >
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
|
| Vicki

Thanks so much... I'll check it out later tonight.. about to feed
my face then off to the gym... Ribeye night ,.. hmhmm yummy

Reisa
RK - 02 Nov 2005 16:23 GMT
| > big snip
| >
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
|
| Alan H

Yes Danni is beside herself... gave booboo a bath
and hasn't left her side
Alan S - 02 Nov 2005 03:20 GMT
>i have said many times i do not take any meds.

I must have missed it. Where did I mention you in that post?

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
Signature

Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

Cheri - 02 Nov 2005 04:28 GMT
You didn't, but he's hungry for attention. I knew when Sally posted, ol
shep (I mean ol sheep) couldn't be far behind.

--
Cheri

Alan S wrote in message ...

>>i have said many times i do not take any meds.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>--
>Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
Ozgirl - 02 Nov 2005 01:25 GMT
> what I also did for her was to refer her to my endo. she's in good
> hands because he's "as good as it gets."

A doctor is called good by his patients by that patient's
own perceptions of "good". Good might mean a million
different things to a million different people. Good to some
might mean the doctor advocates a high carb diet which is
what the patient really wants to keep on with (i.e. hates to
make significant lifestyle and diet changes and there are
plenty of them around). So that fits in perfectly for those
types of people.

Good might mean the doc helps you to eat in a way that
allows you to lose weight, control bg's within non diabetic
numbers whilst still providing you with all the nutrients
you need for good health. (ADA still can't say WHY they
insist eating plenty of carbs (even grains) is necessary -
they still fall back on the mantra: diabetics have the same
nutritional needs as everyone else blah blah. Celiacs and
other people with food intolerances and allergies all have
the same needs as well - but they have to adapt to a
different way of eating, just like diabetics - not rocket
science to know we have to look elsewhere for any specific
nutrients we may (or not) lose by cutting down on certain
carbs).

Good might mean a good bedside manner, a willingness to
prescribe any and every drug in an effort to try and control
bg's without too much diet modification. Good might be being
told the doc is "happy" with your bg's when in fact they
actually stink. No doctor or dietician has to wear your
complications, how any doc has the right to say they are
happy with sub optimal numbers is beyond me. But it makes
the patients happy with little effort on the doctor's part
so who gives a rats?

Further down the track when complications are setting in the
patients thinks oh, the doc knows best, I must be
progressing, never thinking there are other ways! So... I
guess it was pretty nice of you Sally to think a friend of
yours couldn't "handle" hearing a wide variety of
experiences about diabetic control, well done for doing your
friend's thinking for them. Don't underestimate your
friend's ability to think for themself when it comes to
weeding the chaff from the wheat. Remember, what works for
you may not even go close for your friend. But I guess you
can justify it all in some way if the friend's condition
deteriorates.
mrslang - 02 Nov 2005 01:34 GMT
> > what I also did for her was to refer her to my endo. she's
> in good
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
> can justify it all in some way if the friend's condition
> deteriorates.

well missy you sure have your panties in an uproar over my simple
comment that my doctor is as good as it gets.  well he is one of the
top diabetes docs in the country.  nuff said.

as far as not exposing her to this place.  come on.  it's not a place
for newbies.  as much as I adore some of the people here I know nothing
about them other than no one is a real doctor here.  if she were to
come here now she'd be hit with a wall of "hate your doc, hate the ADA,
hate carbs." you'll deny that goes on here but it does.  after she gets
a better bearing on her diabetes and has a good foundation from a good
endo I might send her over here.  I do that with the full knowledge
that her condition will not deteriorate as you so callously put it.
sheesh! double sheesh! and a big steaming bowl of sheesh!

Sally
Ozgirl - 02 Nov 2005 02:27 GMT
> well missy you sure have your panties in an uproar over my simple
> comment that my doctor is as good as it gets.  well he is one of the
> top diabetes docs in the country.  nuff said.

Is it? What makes him the best? A proven long term track
record of patients with non diabetic numbers, minimal
stroke/heart attacks and other serious complications? Is
there a cite you can back your statement up with? I believe
my endo is great, top of the line, by observing the way he
is on top of all the latest developments, how he runs mini
trials of his own for cholesterol and diabetic meds and
varying degrees of carb modification but I am not going to
be silly enough to make a remark that he is one of the top
in the country without definitive facts to back my
statements.

> as far as not exposing her to this place.  come on.  it's not a place
> for newbies.  as much as I adore some of the people here I know
> nothing about them other than no one is a real doctor
here.  if she
> were to come here now she'd be hit with a wall of "hate
your doc,
> hate the ADA, hate carbs." you'll deny that goes on here
but it does.

I don't hate any of the above things but I do have enough
brains to know I have to watch my carb types and amounts, I
don't hate my doc, I don't hate the ADA. The ADA is lacking
in a lot of important areas and shouldn't be the first place
a newbie gets sent.

> after she gets a better bearing on her diabetes and has a
good
> foundation from a good endo I might send her over here.  I
do that
> with the full knowledge that her condition will not
deteriorate as
> you so callously put it. sheesh! double sheesh! and a big
steaming
> bowl of sheesh!

Well I knew you would justify your act of thinking on behalf
of your friend. Why not just give her the directions with an
unbiased intention and let her decide for herself. The best
you can do for any friend is hand them a stack of options
and links and let them plough through them. Comments like "I
might send her over here" is doing her thinking for her. Let
her have the opportunity to see all sides of diabetic
treatment.
VBHol - 02 Nov 2005 03:02 GMT
>>>what I also did for her was to refer her to my endo. she's
>>
[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
>
> Sally

I notice that when you encounted people who I know manage carbs
effectively you seem to be labelling them as carb haters.  Anyone who
does not agree with everything the ADA puts out as ADA haters.

There are those who go over the top.  There are extremists in all walks
of life.

So your solution to extremist views is to go to the opposite extreme is it?

So before you have a pop at me too:

Hate my doc?  No.  Shes just not very good with DM.  Can't really expect
her to be since shes a general practitioner.  However I do see another
doc who does know what he's talking about and can talk about my approach
t