Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / November 2005
Beginner's test plan?
|
|
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
|
|