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 / April 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Doing everything right but the numbers are going up

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
LizardQueen - 13 Mar 2006 19:40 GMT
I don't know what I'm doing wrong.  Ever since I found my problem with
the meter I've been trying to do everything right - exercising every
day, 40 minutes, a lot of it hard, eating lowered carb, etc., weights
3x a week. I've lost 15 lbs - but my numbers are going up rather than
down.

Things that last week or the week before would have only put me to 110
post lunch sent me to 127 1 hour post lunch today (I promptly marched
the stairs at work for 15 minutes to sop it up).
I've noticed the same trend with other things that didn't have that
effect in the first 2 weeks.

When I first changed my diet I started seeing fastings in the high 80's
and low 90's for the first week or two, now they're at the mid to high
90s. Still better than the 104 I started with but what gives?

Is it the Omega 3s? I've been eating high-omega eggs in the AM(figured
they'd be better for me) and salmon a few times a week.

Is the low carb making me more insulin resistant so when I do eat a
modest amt of carbs (wasa cracker or whatever) it gives me a spike?

Is it because I'm not getting a decent nights sleep and it's catching
up to me?

I wish to god my doc would put me on Glucophage so I can save my
pancreas while trying to work this out.

What the hell do I have to do to keep the glucose flat?

LQ, very frustrated
Susan - 13 Mar 2006 19:46 GMT
> I don't know what I'm doing wrong.  Ever since I found my problem with
> the meter I've been trying to do everything right - exercising every
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Is it the Omega 3s? I've been eating high-omega eggs in the AM(figured
> they'd be better for me) and salmon a few times a week.

I don't believe Omega 3s would be the cause of higher numbers. It could
be an infection of some kind, hormonal fluctuation due to your cycle, or
stress, or something else.

> Is the low carb making me more insulin resistant so when I do eat a
> modest amt of carbs (wasa cracker or whatever) it gives me a spike?

If you're eating 40-30-30 you're not eating low carb, you're eating
moderate carb.

> Is it because I'm not getting a decent nights sleep and it's catching
> up to me?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> LQ, very frustrated

I don't know what you have to do, I can share with you that when I tried
40-30-30 at a time I was equally sensitive and hypoglycemic, it seemed
to get worse, not better.  It improved dramatically when I went lower
carb and added more fat.  YMMV.

Susan
LizardQueen - 13 Mar 2006 19:53 GMT
I've actually dropped considerably from a straight 40-30-30, though I
don't always measure exactly. I just keep cutting carbs out.

Even last night I had no carbs other than salad and green beans with
some very lean steak for dinner and I was at 118 at 1 hour.

I may go completely South Beach for awhile and see how that goes.

LQ
Susan - 13 Mar 2006 20:00 GMT
> I've actually dropped considerably from a straight 40-30-30, though I
> don't always measure exactly. I just keep cutting carbs out.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> LQ

Try eating more fat, add nuts, avocado, some olive oil to a meal like
that and you may see an improvement.  Why South Beach?? It's not low carb.

Susan
LizardQueen - 13 Mar 2006 20:04 GMT
> Why South Beach?

I'm not willing to cut out the vegetables, which (as I read Phase 1 of
SB) is pretty much the only carbs in that plan (Phase 1).
It's Phase 2 when they add a few back, I won't go try that until this
gets hammered out.

Plus it's lower in saturated fat, which I read could increase insulin
resistance.

I'm ok with the good fats, have been eating almonds, olives, avocados.

LQ
Michelle - 13 Mar 2006 20:27 GMT
LQ,

I can't add anything to what Susan has already offered.  However, I do
want to say congrats on the 15 pound weight loss!  It's coming off
fast.  Good job!  

Michelle
Roger Zoul - 13 Mar 2006 20:33 GMT
::: Why South Beach?
::
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
:: I'm ok with the good fats, have been eating almonds, olives,
:: avocados.

So, have you tried something like Atkins or not?  On Atkins you don't need
to give up veggies at all and you can not say you're doing Atkins and just
hop to phase 2 (leaving off the two-week induction phase if that notion
bothers you).  For example, you can set your carbs at 30 or 40 / day and see
how that works for you.

If you're working out with cardio and weights, and not over eating carbs, it
is very doubtful that moderate amounts of sat fat will be a problem. In
fact, no one says you must eat a lot of sat fats to do Atkins.  I personally
improved my IR greatly with an Atkin-like eating plan combined with exercise
(cardio/weights).

If you haven't tried LC like this, and are playing around with 40-30-30 and
SB, and are having difficulting getting control, it might be time to quit
dancing around with so many carbs.  Eating to your meter is great, but you
do have to test a lot.  It's not as great as having rock-solid BGs without
testing a lot, though.
LizardQueen - 13 Mar 2006 20:49 GMT
Roger and Susan, I think you are right about not dancing with the carbs
anymore.

I don't think I'm much over 30 or 40 g anyway - most I have per meal is
10 - 12, I'm maybe at 60 per day if that.

Atkins induction kind of grossed me out reading about it, maybe his 2nd
phase is the place to start.  

Thanks
LQ
Susan - 13 Mar 2006 20:58 GMT
> Roger and Susan, I think you are right about not dancing with the carbs
> anymore.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Atkins induction kind of grossed me out reading about it, maybe his 2nd
> phase is the place to start.  

Atkins induction *is* disgusting!  It's very helpful for morbidly obese
folks and/or others with appetite control problems, it typically shuts
that down and gives them control they've never had.

If you're not having that problem or uncontrolled cravings, there's no
reason to go there.

If you buy a single book, try Protein Power by the Eades. It's accurate
on all the science and explains it all very well in lay language.  I eat
around the middle level of Protein Power, which is about 55-60 net carbs
per day.

And remember, LQ, give it time and stop the stressing out.  This is a
process, not an immediate endpoint.

Susan
LizardQueen - 13 Mar 2006 21:03 GMT
> If you buy a single book, try Protein Power by the Eades

Thanks for the recommendation. I think that's the only one I don't have
so far :lol:.

LQ
Nicky - 13 Mar 2006 22:02 GMT
>> If you buy a single book, try Protein Power by the Eades
>
> Thanks for the recommendation. I think that's the only one I don't have
> so far :lol:.

I'd second that as a good book - and add my voice to the Atkins-like meal
plan successes.  I eat a lot of veggies, with good fats, and a few berries,
apricots, prunes or the like. I'm not hung up about fat on my meat, having
looked up the sat/poly/mono ratios of a few things : ) About the only
non-veggie carb I eat is chocolate and yoghurt, sometimes together : )  I do
50-60g carbs.

Nicky.

Signature

A1c 10.5/5.4/<6  T2 DX 05/2004
1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine
95/74/72Kg

Roger Zoul - 13 Mar 2006 21:18 GMT
:: Roger and Susan, I think you are right about not dancing with the
:: carbs anymore.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
:: Thanks
:: LQ

I do agree with others that you need to not stress out and give the process
time to work.  But it still depends on how many carbs you're eating.  And,
since you're not even a T2 yet.....I would imagine that control would be
fairly easy to get.  What kind of weight training routine are you using?
How much cardio?
LizardQueen - 13 Mar 2006 21:34 GMT
> What kind of weight training routine are you using?
> How much cardio?

Every AM any 1 of the following, depending on mood or weather:
- 40 minutes step aerobics (have to take the arms out sometimes because
of fatigue).
- 40 minutes on the exercise bike at 4 min mile pace cycling resistance
between 4 and 6 out of 10.
- 40 minute walk (2 miles) on my hilly road. It's great for interval
training as it has hill/flat spot/hill/flat spot/hill. I don't slow
down on the hills.

3x a week, usually Monday/Wed/Friday 30 reps each of 5 different arm
lifts with 3 or 5 lbs weights (I build muscle easily and don't want to
look like Popeye), 30 on each side of 2 different leg lefts, and 30
situps.
Easy to do while watching TV.

I try to throw in additional walks where I can - once around the office
park after lunch, parking far away at the mall or for class so I have
to walk, parking at upper end of office lot, etc.
Unfortunately I live in the northeast and the weather is rotten.

I'm fat but I'm not in terrible shape. I could do most of these things
when I started off a month ago.  It only took me a week before I had to
up the resistance on the exercise bike because it wasn't taxing me
enough.

I've always been really strong (it's my theory on why I didn't get full
T2 despite my terrible habits).  

LQ
Roger Zoul - 13 Mar 2006 22:18 GMT
::: What kind of weight training routine are you using?
::: How much cardio?
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
:: training as it has hill/flat spot/hill/flat spot/hill. I don't slow
:: down on the hills.

Good!

:: 3x a week, usually Monday/Wed/Friday 30 reps each of 5 different arm
:: lifts with 3 or 5 lbs weights (I build muscle easily and don't want
:: to look like Popeye), 30 on each side of 2 different leg lefts, and
:: 30 situps.
:: Easy to do while watching TV.

Well, this is very suboptimal, except for perhaps the leg work.  30 reps of
each of 5 arm movements with 3 to 5 lbs weights?  Sorry, but this is a waste
of time.  Also, the leg work may be a waste too if you're using really light
weight.  Situps aren't the best movement for the abs, either.  You might do
really well to learn how to do a good weight routine, LQ. Believe me, you'll
never look like Popeye. You need to focus on
compound movements that use the larger muscles of your body.  Actually, you
can get by with no arm-specific work, as doing chest and back work will take
care of the arms.
There is a lot of muscle mass in the legs, so doing good leg movements will
help a lot. Weight lifting can do a lot to improve insulin senstivity.

Rather than me trying to cover all of this here, why do you go read this:

http://www.stumptuous.com

and look for a full-body 3x per week routine.  Note that the site is
women-specific, so that should tell you something.

:: I try to throw in additional walks where I can - once around the
:: office park after lunch, parking far away at the mall or for class
:: so I have to walk, parking at upper end of office lot, etc.
:: Unfortunately I live in the northeast and the weather is rotten.

I think you're doing fine in this part.

:: I'm fat but I'm not in terrible shape. I could do most of these
:: things when I started off a month ago.  It only took me a week
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
:: I've always been really strong (it's my theory on why I didn't get
:: full T2 despite my terrible habits).

Well, use this to your advantage and learn to do a proper weight routine.
You'll see excellent results if you do.
LizardQueen - 13 Mar 2006 22:24 GMT
> Sorry, but this is a waste of time.

Uh, didn't realize that. I figured as long as I did it until it felt
like my arms or legs would fall off it would have some effect :lol:.

I'll check out the link, thanks.

LQ
Susan - 13 Mar 2006 22:32 GMT
>>Sorry, but this is a waste of time.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> LQ

Your arms are just bored, not tired, LOL!

Roger gave you the absolute best reference for weight training.

Susan
Just - 13 Mar 2006 22:35 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Roger gave you the absolute best reference for weight training.

Is there any similiar male centric site for weight training?
Am a total beginner at doing weights.
Roger Zoul - 13 Mar 2006 23:32 GMT
:: Susan wrote:
::: x-no-archive: yes
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
:: Is there any similiar male centric site for weight training?
:: Am a total beginner at doing weights.

That site is just fine for male or female.  It makes little different in
terms of picking a good routine.  Weight training is excellent for getting
control and warding off diabetes.
Susan - 14 Mar 2006 00:08 GMT
> Is there any similiar male centric site for weight training?
> Am a total beginner at doing weights.

There's no reason a man couldn't use Krista's info, it's the best.

Susan
Chris Malcolm - 13 Mar 2006 23:19 GMT
>> Sorry, but this is a waste of time.

> Uh, didn't realize that. I figured as long as I did it until it felt
> like my arms or legs would fall off it would have some effect :lol:.

It will, but at those reps, if they are as many as you can manage,
then you're increasing stamina rather than strength. You will also of
course be using up some blood glucose in doing the exercise, but not
nearly as much as using much bigger muscles such as the legs. 50
unweighted deep squats is probably equivalent to climbing 100 feet, or
a nine storey staircase.

If you're already strong enough to do the things you want to do, the
only reason for getting stronger would be that if you were stronger
you could use up more blood glucose in less exercise time, and your
basal metabolic requirements would be higher even if not exercising.

I'm doing 20-50 reps of various arm twists with a 6lb lump hammer
every other day in order to help overstrained tendons to
recover. Seems to be working.

Signature

Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB,  Informatics,  JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Susan - 13 Mar 2006 22:29 GMT
> Well, this is very suboptimal, except for perhaps the leg work.  30 reps of
> each of 5 arm movements with 3 to 5 lbs weights?  Sorry, but this is a waste
> of time.  

I agree!  Would you suggest LQ visit stumptuous.com for a primer?

Also, the leg work may be a waste too if you're using really light
> weight.  Situps aren't the best movement for the abs, either.  You might do
> really well to learn how to do a good weight routine, LQ. Believe me, you'll
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> and look for a full-body 3x per week routine.  Note that the site is
> women-specific, so that should tell you something.

This is great advice, and an incredible website for a primer on weight
training.

Susan
Susan - 13 Mar 2006 20:51 GMT
>>Why South Beach?
>
> I'm not willing to cut out the vegetables, which (as I read Phase 1 of
> SB) is pretty much the only carbs in that plan (Phase 1).
> It's Phase 2 when they add a few back, I won't go try that until this
> gets hammered out.

Why on earth would you have to cut out vegetables on any diet?  You
typically have to eat more of them to replace the starch you've cut out,
and add healthy fats for their immune and cardioprotective qualities.

Susan
Owlyn - 13 Mar 2006 20:25 GMT
You can't keep it flat, only relatively even. Your numbers are
wonderful. You are overreacting and worrying about nothing. Readings
within 20% of one another are within the range of error of any meter.
IOW, for example, 90 is roughly the same as anything between 81 and 99.
The difference is almost meaningless.

Also, 127 at 1 hour post lunch is a fabulous number. the "acceptable"
number 1 hour post prandial is 150-180, so you are doing fine. Besides
110 *  (margin of error) = 121, so once again, at 127 the difference is
only 6 points outside the expected range of differences. 6 points does
not require any action to be taken.

Anyway, your body is a body, not a computer. You can't expect the exact
same results even under identical conditions.

BTW, have you ever checked you BG after the 15 minute stair climb? It
could verty well be higher.
Loretta Eisenberg - 13 Mar 2006 20:36 GMT
Owl, here we believe that the acceptable number at one hour is under 140
which would be what a non diabetic might have

Loretta

--
In tribute to the United States of America and the State
of Israel, two bastions of strength in a world filled with strife and
terrorism.
Owlyn - 13 Mar 2006 22:08 GMT
Lo <g>,

I certainly appreciate the worthiness of the goal (<140), but it is not
realistic to expect a diabetic to be able to attain it regularly. For
those that do, that is wonderful, fantastic, and I applaud your ability
to be able to do that. For everyone else, though, setting a goal that
is perhaps somewhat unrealistic can be a source of frustration,
diappointment, worry, and stress- which of course is counterproductive.

Obviously, one should strive for it, but one should also not panic (as
LizQueen seems to be doing) if your numbers aren't "perfect" by your
own standards.
Susan - 13 Mar 2006 22:16 GMT
> Lo <g>,
>
> I certainly appreciate the worthiness of the goal (<140), but it is not
> realistic to expect a diabetic to be able to attain it regularly.

Very pessimistic and faulty thinking, IMO.

It's not only very realistic, it's important to do so.

I only very rarely exceed 120.  For years, I stayed below that with diet
alone.  Recently I've been taking metformin, with even lower numbers.

 For
> those that do, that is wonderful, fantastic, and I applaud your ability
> to be able to do that.

It's not magic; it's just a matter of cutting starches and other sugars
way down or out.

For everyone else, though, setting a goal that
> is perhaps somewhat unrealistic can be a source of frustration,
> diappointment, worry, and stress- which of course is counterproductive.
>
> Obviously, one should strive for it, but one should also not panic (as
> LizQueen seems to be doing) if your numbers aren't "perfect" by your
> own standards.

LQ isn't a diabetic, she's trying to avoid becoming one; in that
context, her numbers and the RH symptoms she's having are a sign to take
preventive steps, which I applaud her for.

Susan
Just - 13 Mar 2006 22:23 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> I only very rarely exceed 120.

What time do you test after meals?

> LQ isn't a diabetic, she's trying to avoid becoming one; in that
> context, her numbers and the RH symptoms she's having are a sign to
> take preventive steps, which I applaud her for.

Yes, but the preventive steps she needs to take are ones which
keep her BG below 140. And she seems to be achieving that
easily - so thats stuff to be happy about, not worried.
Susan - 13 Mar 2006 22:31 GMT
> What time do you test after meals?

Within one hour, sometimes 40 minutes, just to see if I'm peaking higher.

> Yes, but the preventive steps she needs to take are ones which
> keep her BG below 140. And she seems to be achieving that
> easily - so thats stuff to be happy about, not worried.

She's worried about not progressing to full blown DM and about not being
able to function at work due to her symptoms.  I don't know if I'm
qualified to determine for another human being what she should worry
about or how worried she should become.

Susan
Owlyn - 13 Mar 2006 22:34 GMT
Your numbers are consistent. Good for you. But your experience does not
apply to everyone.

And it's not "just a matter of cutting starches and other sugars
way down or out" Sometimes that's not possible.

Pessimistic? Not at all. Realistic. Don't hold out promises of
techniques that work for you to someone else. LQ is a mess because she
can't meet goals that she has set for herself, and all you can say is
that your doing great.
Kurt - 13 Mar 2006 23:27 GMT
> Your numbers are consistent. Good for you. But your experience does not
> apply to everyone.

Ironic since Susan attacked me recently for posting about my
experiences. :)

> And it's not "just a matter of cutting starches and other sugars
> way down or out" Sometimes that's not possible.

Everyone is different and what's most frustrating here is the fact that
everyone believes in a different approach to diabetes management,
including what numbers are realistic or accessible.  It is a walking on
thin ice when one starts to throw out what numbers someone with
diabetes "should" be hitting - whether it's carb count, a1c, or bg
numbers.
There are so many individual factors that need to be considered.

> Pessimistic? Not at all. Realistic. Don't hold out promises of
> techniques that work for you to someone else. LQ is a mess because she
> can't meet goals that she has set for herself, and all you can say is
> that your doing great.

Nail on head. ITA.

Best,
Kurt
Roger Zoul - 14 Mar 2006 00:16 GMT
:: Owlyn wrote:
::: Your numbers are consistent. Good for you. But your experience does
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
:: a1c, or bg numbers.
:: There are so many individual factors that need to be considered.

You keep harping on this.  The fact is, there are some general approaches to
try and goals to shoot for.  Those numbers are worthy for anyone to shoot
for, especially a nondiabetic.

::: Pessimistic? Not at all. Realistic. Don't hold out promises of
::: techniques that work for you to someone else.

What worked for one may work for another.  There is nothing wrong with
trying to see.

LQ is a mess because
::: she can't meet goals that she has set for herself, and all you can
::: say is that your doing great.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
:: Best,
:: Kurt
Susan - 14 Mar 2006 00:07 GMT
> Your numbers are consistent. Good for you. But your experience does not
> apply to everyone.

Well, the fact that cutting foods that spike sugar does, but results
surely vary.

> And it's not "just a matter of cutting starches and other sugars
> way down or out" Sometimes that's not possible.

Okay, but what would make cutting starch and sugar down impossible?

> Pessimistic? Not at all. Realistic. Don't hold out promises of
> techniques that work for you to someone else. LQ is a mess because she
> can't meet goals that she has set for herself, and all you can say is
> that your doing great.

There have been so many hundreds of people posting here for years who've
had the same experience I have, and the scientific literature is full of
them, too, so I'm not merely making a broad statement based upon my own
life.

LQ is hypoglycemic, not diabetic, her goal is not to become DM.  I
applaud her can do attitude.

Susan
David - 14 Mar 2006 00:13 GMT
> LQ is hypoglycemic, not diabetic, her goal is not to become DM.  I
> applaud her can do attitude.
>
> Susan
My goal is not to be diabetic, but I'm not having ANY luck with that one!

Dave
Ozgirl - 14 Mar 2006 00:58 GMT
>> LQ is hypoglycemic, not diabetic, her goal is not to become DM.  I
>> applaud her can do attitude.
>>
>> Susan
> My goal is not to be diabetic, but I'm not having ANY luck with that
> one!

If you are a type 1 then you had no choice. If you were a
type 2, wouldn't you have liked to have known how to prevent
it? Women get a bit of a hint, gestational diabetes etc,
there is a forewarning for some females. RH is another
classic "reminder". It means there is already some degree of
impairment.
David - 14 Mar 2006 04:12 GMT
> If you are a type 1 then you had no choice. If you were a
> type 2, wouldn't you have liked to have known how to prevent
> it?

Prevent it?? Are you referring also to obesity?

Dave
Ozgirl - 14 Mar 2006 07:21 GMT
>> If you are a type 1 then you had no choice. If you were a
>> type 2, wouldn't you have liked to have known how to prevent
>> it?
>
> Prevent it?? Are you referring also to obesity?

Type 2 is preventable. It would also cover obesity, or pot
belly syndrome, sedentary lifestlye, genetics, the over
eating of ffa's in conjunction with highly processed carb
foods.
Owlyn - 15 Mar 2006 05:50 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Well, the fact that cutting foods that spike sugar does, but results
> surely vary.

---> And those foods are different for everyone.

> > And it's not "just a matter of cutting starches and other sugars
> > way down or out" Sometimes that's not possible.
>
> Okay, but what would make cutting starch and sugar down impossible?

---> I am a vegetarian. I have to eat SOMEthing. Other people have food
allergies.

> > Pessimistic? Not at all. Realistic. Don't hold out promises of
> > techniques that work for you to someone else. LQ is a mess because she
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> them, too, so I'm not merely making a broad statement based upon my own
> life.

---> "...have been so many hundreds..." Oh, you actually counted them.

---> "...posting here for years..."  You must be really good at keeping
track. And you are making a broad statement about your own life. EVERYONE is
different. Some may be similar

> LQ is hypoglycemic, not diabetic, her goal is not to become DM.  I
> applaud her can do attitude.

---> I do, too.

> Susan
Susan - 15 Mar 2006 14:39 GMT
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> ---> And those foods are different for everyone.

No disagreement there; that's what a meter is for.

>>>And it's not "just a matter of cutting starches and other sugars
>>>way down or out" Sometimes that's not possible.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> ---> I am a vegetarian. I have to eat SOMEthing. Other people have food
> allergies.

That's doesn't make cutting starches impossible, just a choice.

I used to be a vegetarian.  It's possible not to rely on starchy carbs,
but you have to be very diligent about food choices.  Starches are the
worst choice you could make.

>>>Pessimistic? Not at all. Realistic. Don't hold out promises of
>>>techniques that work for you to someone else. LQ is a mess because she
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> ---> "...have been so many hundreds..." Oh, you actually counted them.

Silly remark.

>  ---> "...posting here for years..."  You must be really good at keeping
> track. And you are making a broad statement about your own life. EVERYONE is
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> ---> I do, too.

Another point of agreement.  Look, I only objected to your assertion
that under 140 wasn't realistic for most diabetics.  It's difficult for
some, perhaps impossible for others, but it's very attainable for most
type 2s, some with, some without medication.

Susan
Owlyn - 15 Mar 2006 15:23 GMT
Stopped quoting- it is getting confusing...

Regarding 140 being realistic or not...

You are setting up someone for disappointment with goals that _you_ can
easily attain. My point was to enforce the idea that it is just a goal-
something to shoot for. You make it sound like one is a failure if they
cant acheive it.
Susan - 15 Mar 2006 15:36 GMT
> Stopped quoting- it is getting confusing...
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> something to shoot for. You make it sound like one is a failure if they
> cant acheive it.

First of all, I didn't create the goal, the research showing increases
in complications over that number does.

Second, if you read here long enough, you'll find that it's very
achievable, at least by most type 2s.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about how important it is to
achieve it rather than just hope for it.

Susan
Just - 15 Mar 2006 18:09 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> First of all, I didn't create the goal, the research showing increases
> in complications over that number does.

But research also allegedly shows that a whole lot of bad damage
happens between 105 & 139. So why not aim for keeping
it below 105.

> Second, if you read here long enough, you'll find that it's very
> achievable, at least by most type 2s.
>
> We'll just have to agree to disagree about how important it is to
> achieve it rather than just hope for it.
Susan - 15 Mar 2006 18:16 GMT
> But research also allegedly shows that a whole lot of bad damage
> happens between 105 & 139.

Yes, that's true.  I was wondering when you'd acknowledge it after all
the posts demonstrating it.

 >So why not aim for keeping
> it below 105.

I do, and except for the first hour post meal, I am typically below 105
at other times.  But those are my currently achievable goals, not
necessarily everyone else's.

Do you agree with the OP that keeping bg under 140 is an unrealistic
goal?  That's the only point of debate in this thread.

Susan
Just - 15 Mar 2006 18:22 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> 105 at other times.  But those are my currently achievable goals, not
> necessarily everyone else's.

Considering you achieve this without meds or insulin, I bet if you
could get onto meds and/or insulin, you would be able to be
further able to prevent "a whole of damage" occuring to your body
by being even lower in the first hour PP. And most other people in
the newsgroup also. Maybe we need to change the goalposts &
advice the newbies with this target.

> Do you agree with the OP that keeping bg under 140 is an unrealistic
> goal?  That's the only point of debate in this thread.
>
> Susan
Susan - 15 Mar 2006 18:48 GMT
> Considering you achieve this without meds or insulin, I bet if you
> could get onto meds and/or insulin, you would be able to be
> further able to prevent "a whole of damage" occuring to your body
> by being even lower in the first hour PP. And most other people in
> the newsgroup also. Maybe we need to change the goalposts &
> advice the newbies with this target.

You're assuming facts that are not true.  I used to achieve this control
without meds because I got really sick and fatigued on metformin, the
only drug I'd consider taking.  I've been taking 1500mg per day for
about 6 months, now.

I don't know about you, but I don't advise newbies what to do, other
than to read all they can, and to use their meters to see what meals
allow them the best hope of healthy longevity, free of DM complications.
Not everyone wants to limit their menu the way I do, not everyone
believes that DM is as controllable as some of us do.

Your body, your science experiment.

>>Do you agree with the OP that keeping bg under 140 is an unrealistic
>>goal?  That's the only point of debate in this thread.
>>
>>Susan

You didn't answer the question posed above.

Susan
Just - 15 Mar 2006 19:03 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> metformin, the only drug I'd consider taking.  I've been taking
> 1500mg per day for about 6 months, now.

Adding sulfonyureas, acarbose, starlix, byetta etc may help you
avoid that first hour damaging spike.

> I don't know about you, but I don't advise newbies what to do,

I assume this discussion started coz someone said that 140 has
to be the goal to achieve.

>>> Do you agree with the OP that keeping bg under 140 is an unrealistic
>>> goal?  That's the only point of debate in this thread.
>>>
>>> Susan
>
> You didn't answer the question posed above.

Sorry, missed the missed question earlier.

I don't believe there can be one goal for everyone.
Goals may be different for 35 year old & a 60 year old.
Goals may also depend on what other ailments the
person may be suffering from.
Goals may depend on the type of food the person
absolutely hates & loves.
Goals may depend on the type on food allergies etc.
Goals may depend on reactions to medications.
and lots of other stuff.
Susan - 15 Mar 2006 19:07 GMT
> Adding sulfonyureas, acarbose, starlix, byetta etc may help you
> avoid that first hour damaging spike.

How are you qualified to be prescribing treatment for me?

I have excellent control and don't see any reason to burn out my beta
cells further, or elevate my CVD and cancer risks with unecessary drug
therapies.

>>I don't know about you, but I don't advise newbies what to do,
>
> I assume this discussion started coz someone said that 140 has
> to be the goal to achieve.

Assuming incorrectly yet again.  The discussion began because someone
said it's not a realistic goal.

>>>>Do you agree with the OP that keeping bg under 140 is an unrealistic
>>>>goal?  That's the only point of debate in this thread.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Sorry, missed the missed question earlier.

It's the whole entire point of this discussion.  It's how it began.

> I don't believe there can be one goal for everyone.
> Goals may be different for 35 year old & a 60 year old.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Goals may depend on reactions to medications.
> and lots of other stuff.

I disagree.  Substitute "results" for "goal" and we'd be closer to
agreement.

Susan
Just - 15 Mar 2006 19:12 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
>> Adding sulfonyureas, acarbose, starlix, byetta etc may help you
>> avoid that first hour damaging spike.
>
> How are you qualified to be prescribing treatment for me?

I am absolutely not qualified.
Just like many of us aren't qualified to say we know better than
ADA, doctors, nurses etc & but we still do.

> I have excellent control

Being in the "whole of damage occuring" zone may not
be excellent control.

> and don't see any reason to burn out my beta
> cells further, or elevate my CVD and cancer risks with unecessary drug
> therapies.

In other words you have analysed the pros & cons & made
a calculated decision. For someone else that decision maybe to
hold his bg under 180 & call it excellent control.

>>> I don't know about you, but I don't advise newbies what to do,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> I disagree.  Substitute "results" for "goal" and we'd be closer to
> agreement.

If the goals & results aren't related, then why not just aim for
80-90 bg all the time?
Susan - 15 Mar 2006 19:15 GMT
> I am absolutely not qualified.

Which didn't stop you from offering prescriptive recommendations,
something the rest of us avoid doing.

>>I have excellent control
>
> Being in the "whole of damage occuring" zone may not
> be excellent control.

Huh?

>>and don't see any reason to burn out my beta
>>cells further, or elevate my CVD and cancer risks with unecessary drug
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> a calculated decision. For someone else that decision maybe to
> hold his bg under 180 & call it excellent control.

They may do so, and that's their choice.  Good science says otherwise,
but it's not up to me to decide what someone else's goals should be.

>>>I don't believe there can be one goal for everyone.
>>>Goals may be different for 35 year old & a 60 year old.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> If the goals & results aren't related, then why not just aim for
> 80-90 bg all the time?

Too silly to continue.

Susan
Just - 15 Mar 2006 19:18 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Huh?

If 105-139 can cause a whole lot of damage, then
how can you claim to have excellent control?
David - 15 Mar 2006 19:21 GMT
> If 105-139 can cause a whole lot of damage, then
> how can you claim to have excellent control?
>
:)  Good point.  She's probably ready to give up now, because logic
isn't her long suit.

dave
Susan - 15 Mar 2006 19:25 GMT
> If 105-139 can cause a whole lot of damage, then
> how can you claim to have excellent control?

Because I am a diabetic, my numbers are excellent.  For a non-diabetic,
they aren't.  If I'd been diagnosed as IR or IGT during the decade my
fasting was first 109, I probably could've prevented my DM.

My point, which you have completely missed, is that between intact
normal pancreatic range (85-105) and diabetic range, there is metabolic
syndrome and IGT, which both are associated with increased risks of
death from CVD, with peripheral neuropathies and more.

Over and out.  Go look some stuff up on your own.

Susan
David - 15 Mar 2006 19:30 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Susan

Completely illogical, as usual!  You state your control is "excellent"
in one breath, and the next you state it isn't REALLY "excellent"
because  a non DM would have better numbers.  So then, you are doomed to
fall apart from DM, are you not?  Why even bother to maintain your
"excellent" numbers then?  sounds like a bother.

Gimmie a break, you double talking bozo.

Dave
Just - 15 Mar 2006 19:40 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
>> If 105-139 can cause a whole lot of damage, then
>> how can you claim to have excellent control?
>
> Because I am a diabetic, my numbers are excellent.

Who decides the what numbers are excellent & what
isn't?

> For a
> non-diabetic, they aren't.  If I'd been diagnosed as IR or IGT during
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Over and out.  Go look some stuff up on your own.
David - 15 Mar 2006 19:47 GMT
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Who decides the what numbers are excellent & what
> isn't?

Please don't confront her with logic: she'll explode!

dave
Chris Malcolm - 16 Mar 2006 13:15 GMT
>>>>If 105-139 can cause a whole lot of damage, then
>>>>how can you claim to have excellent control?

>>>Because I am a diabetic, my numbers are excellent.

>> Who decides the what numbers are excellent & what
>> isn't?

> Please don't confront her with logic: she'll explode!

I'm sure I'm not alone in finding Susan very logical and you flailing
around with silly reductiones ad absurdum in a childish attempt to
appear logical.

Signature

Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB,  Informatics,  JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Ozgirl - 15 Mar 2006 20:54 GMT
> > x-no-archive: yes
> >
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Who decides the what numbers are excellent & what
> isn't?

My lab for one. On my A1c tests the "norms" are up to 6.0 -
normal non diabetic, 6.1-6.9, good diabetic control and so
on.
Just - 15 Mar 2006 21:01 GMT
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> My lab for one.

ADA says 180
http://www.diabetes.org/type-2-diabetes/tight-control.jsp
So maybe someone could follow the ADA norms & say
that they also have excellent control.

> On my A1c tests the "norms" are up to 6.0 -
> normal non diabetic, 6.1-6.9, good diabetic control and so
> on.
Alan S - 15 Mar 2006 23:38 GMT
Hi All

On a couple of other threads there is discussion of A1c and
BG goals, what are they, and who sets them. This reference
was noted:

http://www.diabetes.org/type-2-diabetes/tight-control.jsp
"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."

For the newbies, the ADA is not the only respected authority
out there. Nor do they seem to have the same concept of
nondiabetic numbers that the others have. Here are a couple
of other examples:

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists
Medical Guidelines for the Management of Diabetes Mellitus:
The AACE System of Intensive Diabetes Self-Management—2002
Update:
http://www.aace.com/pub/pdf/guidelines/diabetes_2002.pdf
extract:
"For each patient, therapy should be individualized to
maximize the likelihood of attaining and maintaining the
appropriate goal and reducing the frequency of side effects
or adverse reactions. To date, several studies have found a
significant advantage associated with a decrease in
glycosylated hemoglobin levels to 7.0% (normal, 3.8 to 6%),
or lower if possible (1,3-6). Both preprandial and
postprandial blood glucose targets are useful. The ACE
Diabetes Mellitus Consensus Conference in August 2001
established the following goals: HbA1c level of 6.5% or
less; preprandial glucose of 110 mg/dL or less; and the post
prandial glucose of 140 mg/dL or less.(6a)"

They reiterated this quite clearly in their 2005
Implementation Conference for ACE Outpatient Diabetes
Mellitus Consensus Conference Recommendations: Position
Statement:

"A1C <6.5%
Fasting/Preprandial plasma glucose <110 mg/dL
2-hr Postprandial plasma glucose <140 mg/dL"
and reinforced the need for SMBG:
"Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is a critical
resource for the management of diabetes. When performed with
sufficient frequency, SMBG readings allow patients and their
healthcare professionals to make informed decisions about
lifestyle choices and adjustments in pharmacologic therapy.
SMBG can also provide ongoing feedback to patients about
their nutrition and physical activity. It is a very
important educational tool. A key obstacle, however, to
implementing effective interventions is a lack of supportive
healthcare systems."

That's a paragraph that many US insurance companies and the
NHS would do well to read. In my opinion, we could do with
the head of the AACE on the ADA board.

Or you could try the Joslin advice. It's still not as tight
as most here aim for, but they are just as reputable an
authority as the ADA:
http://joslin.org/Beginners_guide_523.asp
Goals for Blood Glucose Control

People who have diabetes should be testing their blood
glucose regularly at home. Regular blood glucose testing
helps you determine how well your diabetes management
program of meal planning, exercising and medication (if
necessary) is doing to keep your blood glucose as close to
normal as possible. The results of the nationwide Diabetes
Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) show that the closer
you keep your blood glucose to normal, the more likely you
are to prevent diabetes complications such as eye disease,
nerve damage, and other problems. For some people, other
medical conditions, age, or other issues may cause your
physician to establish somewhat higher blood glucose targets
for you.

The following chart outlines the usual blood glucose ranges
for a person who does and does not have diabetes. Use this
as a guide to work with your physician and your healthcare
team to determine what your target goals should be, and to
develop a program of regular blood glucose monitoring to
manage your condition.

(table modified to post here)
                   without diabetes  with diabetes
       
Before breakfast(fasting)       < 110     90 - 130
       
Before lunch, supper and snack  < 110     90 - 130
       
Two hours after meals           < 140      < 160
       
Bedtime                         < 120     110 - 150
       
A1C (also called glycosylated hemoglobin A1c, HbA1c or
glycohemoglobin A1c              < 6%       < 7%"

Unfortunately, nobody but us talks about 1hr PP targets. My
personal logic is that I treat their 2hr as my recommended
max peak for any post-prandial.

To summarise:

     pre-meal   2hrPP  A1c

ADA     90-130   <180   <7%
Joslin  90-130   <160   <7%
AACE     <110    <140  <6.5%

I doubt that anyone would consider the AACE, which is an
organisation of 5200 endocrinologists, as a bunch of
fanatical radicals. Nor would they be promulgating
guidelines impossible to be attained by the majority.

Make your own judgment on which of those guidelines you
think will lead to fewer complications.

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 2x500mg
Signature

Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

Kurt - 16 Mar 2006 00:39 GMT
> Hi All
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> meals, and less than 180 two hours after starting a meal,
> with a glycated hemoglobin level less than 7 percent."

Alan,

Just for the record...they encourage people with diabetes to aim for
closer to normal range - less than 6 percent.

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-myths.jsp

(Myth #10)

The better your glucose control, the less likely you are to develop
complications of diabetes.  An A1C in the sevens (7s), however, does
not represent good control.  The ADA goal is less than 7 percent.  The
closer your A1C is to the normal range (less than 6 percent), the lower

your chances of complications.  However, you increase your risk of
hypoglycemia, especially if you have type 1 diabetes.  Talk with your
health care provider about the best goal for you."
Priscilla H. Ballou - 16 Mar 2006 20:45 GMT
> > Hi All
> >
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> hypoglycemia, especially if you have type 1 diabetes.  Talk with your
> health care provider about the best goal for you."

I think it would be helpful if they'd stop talking out of both sides of
their mouth.

Priscilla
Alan S - 17 Mar 2006 10:15 GMT
>Alan,
>
>Just for the record...they encourage people with diabetes to aim for
>closer to normal range - less than 6 percent.

Then maybe it's time they went through their various
web-pages and brought them up to date, so that they all
agree with each other.

Which cite do you think a newby is likely to come across
first?

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 2x500mg
Signature

Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

Roger Zoul - 16 Mar 2006 17:39 GMT
:: Hi All
::
[quoted text clipped - 117 lines]
:: Make your own judgment on which of those guidelines you
:: think will lead to fewer complications.

I think many can even beat the AACE guidelines if they are willing to adopt
LC and exercise.
For example, today, my pre-meal (breakfast) was 85, my 1hr PP was 96, and my
2hr PP was 92. Last A1c was 4.7. No meds, too.

Obviously, not every one can get these numbers, but I think for new
diabetics, one should not assume that this isn't impossible. I've been a T2
for 24 years and had several spans of time with poor control due to poor
lifestyle.
Hi_Therre - 16 Mar 2006 22:42 GMT
>I think many can even beat the AACE guidelines if they are willing to adopt
>LC and exercise.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>for 24 years and had several spans of time with poor control due to poor
>lifestyle.

You've been a T2 for 24 years and have an a1c = 4.7 and no meds?  4.7
is nondiabetic.  How did you avoid the complications?  After 24 years,
I thought everybody has some complication, expecially a toe or two.
Roger Zoul - 17 Mar 2006 00:18 GMT
:: On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:39:25 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
:: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
:::
:: You've been a T2 for 24 years and have an a1c = 4.7 and no meds?

I didn't have that number that entire time.  Numbers got like that once I
started LCing in 10/2001.

 4.7
:: is nondiabetic.  How did you avoid the complications?  After 24
:: years, I thought everybody has some complication, expecially a toe
:: or two.

Really?  No one told me that!

I don't have good records, but there were periods during this time that I
was under poor control.  But there were also longer periods where I took
meds regularly. I even lost 100 lbs on LF doing tons of exercise.  I came
off meds then too.

For me, my diabetes always gets much better if I keep my belly fat down.
Robert Cook - 17 Mar 2006 07:10 GMT
What is LCing which you say you started in 10/2001?

>:: On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:39:25 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
>:: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
>For me, my diabetes always gets much better if I keep my belly fat down.
Roger Zoul - 17 Mar 2006 15:37 GMT
:: What is LCing which you say you started in 10/2001?

Low carbing, as in the Atkins diet.  Of course, one doesn't have to do
Atkins per se (ie, induction), but the concepts I apply are basically those
of the Atkins diet.  Non starchy fibrous veggies, meat, fish, cheese, eggs,
nuts, etc.

:: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
::
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
::: For me, my diabetes always gets much better if I keep my belly fat
::: down.
Ma¢k - 17 Mar 2006 19:32 GMT
>What is LCing which you say you started in 10/2001?

Low Carbing.

Signature

Mâck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper
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 ô)  
--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."
             ....Bilbo Baggins

Jesus never hated anyone.

DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate...
.

           

Hi_Therre - 17 Mar 2006 13:09 GMT
>:: On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:39:25 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
>:: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
>Really?  No one told me that!

I had a 4.7 some time ago, not anymore.  I find it is almost
impossible to maintain such a low number.  Diabetes is a progressive
disease.  The disease kills off your remaining beta cells over time.

>I don't have good records, but there were periods during this time that I
>was under poor control.  But there were also longer periods where I took
>meds regularly. I even lost 100 lbs on LF doing tons of exercise.  I came
>off meds then too.

Poor control and low a1c after 24 years is what caught my attention.
Could you clarify or expand on these periods?
Roger Zoul - 17 Mar 2006 15:34 GMT
:: On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:18:50 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
:: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
:: impossible to maintain such a low number.  Diabetes is a progressive
:: disease.  The disease kills off your remaining beta cells over time.

Yes, I've always heard that.  The thing is, what is it about diabetics that
kills of beta cells?

::: I don't have good records, but there were periods during this time
::: that I was under poor control.  But there were also longer periods
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
:: Poor control and low a1c after 24 years is what caught my attention.
:: Could you clarify or expand on these periods?

Well, without good records, I can only give you stretchy info. But those
times of poor control were mostly when I let my weight get out of control
and my diet lapse after having come off meds.  After I was first dx'ed, I
went on meds. then I quickly managed to start doing enough execise to get
weight loss, which lead to get better control.  I took the meds and with the
weighloss and did okay. Once the weight crept up to 300+ lbs, then I did a
low fat and lots of exercise thing.  Lost 100 lbs there. Came off meds. Got
hurt, had job issues, and the weight slowly crept up again.  And,
eventually, I had poor control again.  Got back on meds, had better control.
Finally got up to 367lbs (terrible diet), and again, poor control.  Somebody
mentioned LC. I was totally against it at first.  However, I took a shot
with it. Started reading.  Landed over in the LC newsgroup.  Lost weight,
came off meds, starting lifting, riding, etc.  Now, after all of this sorted
stuff, I'm dedicated to sticking to LC forever.  BTW, the only times I
really had poor control was as a result of coming off meds and then letting
the weight crept up while having really poor diet.  Mostly, I'd good about
taking meds when I'm on them.

So, these are my results and I can't really tell you much else except I keep
to a low carb diet and exercise regularly.  I guess this explains why I'm
such a strong low carb advocate.
Michelle - 18 Mar 2006 03:52 GMT
>Geez, I'm gone for 2 days and look what's happened.

LQ,

Obviously, you've posted questions that we all are trying to resolve in
various ways ourselves--in other words, good questions.  Although some
of the exchanges become a bit heated, it's apparent that the exchange
is being enjoyed, and some good info is coming out of it.

Michelle
Ozgirl - 17 Mar 2006 07:32 GMT
> I think many can even beat the AACE guidelines if they are willing to
> adopt LC and exercise.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> diabetics, one should not assume that this isn't impossible. I've
> been a T2 for 24 years and had several spans of time with
poor
> control due to poor lifestyle.

I must post some of a claim by a local (Oz) whack job
regarding diabetes treatment, no need to ever have insulin
etc. He has written a book and been fighting to have his
theories listened to for 10 years :) I will have to write to
the local rag about this article (even though the editor
warned people NOT to change their treatment without
consulting their doctors).
Roger Zoul - 17 Mar 2006 15:18 GMT
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
:: warned people NOT to change their treatment without
:: consulting their doctors).

I'm not sure what you're getting at, really.  I'm making no claims other
than my results.  Who knows, tomorrow I may need to go on insulin.
Ozgirl - 17 Mar 2006 21:58 GMT
> :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> ::
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> I'm not sure what you're getting at, really.  I'm making no claims other
> than my results.  Who knows, tomorrow I may need to go on insulin.

I can't see either without reading the previous posts in
this thread ;) But I was just telling a story about a local
guy who believes ALL diabetics can get off insulin and no
one is listening so he has written a book. From the article
it doesn't seem apparent that he regards type 1's any
differently so I must check it out further. If only to send
something to the newspaper the article appeared in. My
personal results are similar to yours btw.
Roger Zoul - 17 Mar 2006 22:15 GMT
::: Ozgirl wrote:
::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
:: something to the newspaper the article appeared in. My
:: personal results are similar to yours btw.

I see.  I would like to know a little more about this local Oz whack job.
You never know... :)
I'm happy about your results!
Ozgirl - 17 Mar 2006 22:38 GMT
"Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> I see.  I would like to know a little more about this local Oz whack job.
> You never know... :)
> I'm happy about your results!

Ok, found the newspaper, I'll make a new thread. Give me 5.
Roger Zoul - 17 Mar 2006 22:46 GMT
:: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
::
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
::
:: Ok, found the newspaper, I'll make a new thread. Give me 5.

Cool. thanks.
Ricavito - 17 Mar 2006 05:04 GMT
> Hi All
>
[quoted text clipped - 122 lines]
> --
> Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

Hey thanks for laying this all out Alan, this was very informative.
It's great to have the information in comparative form, such as you
have done here.  Now, to each his own, but personally my goal is less
than 140 all the time (not that I'm meeting it consistently), but it's
a goal nonetheless and I think a realistic one.
Ozgirl - 15 Mar 2006 20:51 GMT
> > x-no-archive: yes
> >
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> happens between 105 & 139. So why not aim for keeping
> it below 105.

I do. Under 105 is non daibetic numbers. The complications
are showing in IGT, IFG and diabetic numbers.
Alan S - 15 Mar 2006 22:30 GMT
>But research also allegedly shows that a whole lot of bad damage
>happens between 105 & 139. So why not aim for keeping
>it below 105.

Just, I think you may need to define "it". Fasting, 1hr
post-prandial or 2hr post-prandial?

I haven't followed the whole thread - would you re-post the
links to that research please? What is your source?
Non-diabetics regularly exceed 105 and can reach 139
post-prandially.

I wish there was more research on post-prandial peak numbers
- but there is very little, and none that I know of
recommending the levels you are talking about.

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 2x500mg
Signature

Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

Just - 16 Mar 2006 03:32 GMT
>> But research also allegedly shows that a whole lot of bad damage
>> happens between 105 & 139. So why not aim for keeping
>> it below 105.
>
> Just, I think you may need to define "it".

peak. Other than that, reading through the thread
may help you figure out that we are talking about
Susan's peak which is reached in the first hour
after a meal.

> Fasting, 1hr
> post-prandial or 2hr post-prandial?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Non-diabetics regularly exceed 105 and can reach 139
> post-prandially.

Read through the thread - you would understand the
significance of the range 105-139.

> I wish there was more research on post-prandial peak numbers
> - but there is very little, and none that I know of
> recommending the levels you are talking about.
Ma¢k - 15 Mar 2006 16:19 GMT
>Stopped quoting- it is getting confusing...
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>something to shoot for. You make it sound like one is a failure if they
>cant acheive it.

140 is NOt a realistic goal????

since when? for what type ?

on what planet?

Signature

Mâck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper
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 ô)  
--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."
             ....Bilbo Baggins

Jesus never hated anyone.

DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate...
.

           

David - 15 Mar 2006 17:54 GMT
> Stopped quoting- it is getting confusing...
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> something to shoot for. You make it sound like one is a failure if they
> cant acheive it.

excellent point, and one I've been bringing up here for ages...just
don't expect the holier-than-thou types to listen.

Dave
Alan S - 15 Mar 2006 23:46 GMT
>excellent point, and one I've been bringing up here for ages...just
>don't expect the holier-than-thou types to listen.
>
>Dave

You're saying all type 2's are "holier than thou"?

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 2x500mg
Signature

Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

David - 16 Mar 2006 00:09 GMT
>>excellent point, and one I've been bringing up here for ages...just
>>don't expect the holier-than-thou types to listen.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
> d&e, metformin 2x500mg
don't put words in my mouth. I was saying no such thing.  Apparently you
can't follow the thoughts of this thread, so stop participating until
you get your act together.

dave
Ozgirl - 15 Mar 2006 20:49 GMT
> Stopped quoting- it is getting confusing...
>
> Regarding 140 being realistic or not...
>
> You are setting up someone for disappointment with goals that _you_ can
> easily attain.

I see it more as giving people as many facts as possible
about diabetes, its care and complication risks. Then a
person can make their own educated decision.

My point was to enforce the idea that it is just a goal-
> something to shoot for. You make it sound like one is a failure if they
> cant acheive it.

Pointing out that lowering starches is doable is not quite
the same as what you are saying.
Alan S - 15 Mar 2006 22:25 GMT
>Stopped quoting- it is getting confusing...
>
>Regarding 140 being realistic or not...
>
>You are setting up someone for disappointment with goals that _you_ can
>easily attain.

No, she is not. For the majority of type 2 it is an
attainable goal. That has been repeatedly demonstrated by
posters here - and on many other forums, including the ADA
forum. Additionally, if you read here a while longer, you'll
realise that nobody attained their goals easily.

>My point was to enforce the idea that it is just a goal-
>something to shoot for. You make it sound like one is a failure if they
>cant acheive it.

You stopped quoting, so let's re-state where we came from.
Loretta (a type 2) said:

"Owl, here we believe that the acceptable number at one hour
is under 140 which would be what a non diabetic might have"

You (a type 1 IIRC) replied:
"I certainly appreciate the worthiness of the goal (<140),
but it is not realistic to expect a diabetic to be able to
attain it regularly. For those that do, that is wonderful,
fantastic, and I applaud your ability to be able to do that.
For everyone else, though, setting a goal that is perhaps
somewhat unrealistic can be a source of frustration,
diappointment, worry, and stress- which of course is
counterproductive.
Obviously, one should strive for it, but one should also not
panic (as LizQueen seems to be doing) if your numbers aren't
"perfect" by your own standards."
And LizQueen is neither type yet - but probably IGT with
reactive hypoglycemia.

Loretta's comment is very valid for type 2; yours may be
equally valid for type 1 - I'll let the type 1's comment on
that, and LQ's immediate concerns are to stop her shakes and
RH symptoms.

We are discussing three different conditions here as though
they are the same. They are not; they are related with some
common aspects but they have different symptoms, different
treatments and may need different BG goals and action
targets.

This thread should be in Kurt's "ADA" thread - it is a
classic example of the confusion you get when you lump all
of the diabetic conditions under one name and try to treat
them as one condition. That is one of the prime problems I
have with the ADA.

As a seperate comment - I could never accept that I should
not strive for a goal because I may be disappointed.  I
treat that sort of disappointment as educational, to help me
understand what I need to change in my method - not my goal.

I prefer frustrations to complications. And as a type 2,
apart from a couple of recent glitches mentioned elsewhere,
I rarely see numbers over 8(144) these days - at any time.

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 2x500mg
Signature

Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

wmmckee@cox.net - 15 Mar 2006 22:57 GMT
> Loretta (a type 2) said:
>
> "Owl, here we believe that the acceptable number at one hour
> is under 140 which would be what a non diabetic might have"

Hi Alan and others,

As someone who has been at the T2 game for over a year now, I should observe
that for the past six months, I generally have been able to bring myself
into compliance with the 140, or less, goal at one hour post prandial
through adherence to the diet and moderate exercise approach advocated in
this group by Quentin, you, Jennifer, and many others. A major part of my
success was sensible weight loss (50-60 lbs over 8-9 months) and sensible,
but not radical, low carb eating, with a focus upon salads, greens, beans
(including lentils and chickpeas), mushrooms, artichokes, some nuts,
berries, and very moderate amounts of occasional fish, chicken, turkey, lean
beef, and lean pork. Only every now and then do I have eggs or things like
cheeses, but I do enjoy them. It is a very rare day that I have more than
100-125 total carbs in a single day.

I know my story is what people will call anecdotal, and I am certainly aware
that everyone is different in their responses to diet, exercise, and
medication, but I think I am probably fairly typical of many T2 diabetics. I
agree with you that striving for a goal that may at first seem difficult to
achieve is far the better course than not trying at all.

In the end, I submit that the victory in this battle against diabetes, if
there is to be any victory, will go to those who make positive and
responsible choices in their lifestyle in the present moments of daily
living. To give up is to invite the Grim Reaper to an early harvest.

Will, T2
Roger Zoul - 15 Mar 2006 15:55 GMT
::: ---> I do, too.
::
:: Another point of agreement.  Look, I only objected to your assertion
:: that under 140 wasn't realistic for most diabetics.  It's difficult
:: for some, perhaps impossible for others, but it's very attainable
:: for most type 2s, some with, some without medication.

I'm confused as to why this is even at point of debate.  What gives here?  I
thought a lot of T2s here had good control.