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 / March 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Insulin injections for early diabetes

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
barbara@the-kaplans.com - 20 Mar 2006 23:14 GMT
I've been "developing" diabetes for the past couple of years.  It
started with IGT (140 to 185 postprandial) and normal (85-95) fasting
numbers, but now my numbers average 110 fasting and have been known to
enter the low 200s an hour after eating.  Since I'd prefer not to go
low carb, if possible, this seems to mean that I need some sort of
medication.  But everything I've read about has so many side effects
and contraindications, except for insulin.  Why not insulin for early
diabetes?  I've read that early use can save beta cells.  Anybody
know about this?  Also, if this is true, why don't doctors recommend
insulin more frequently?  Thanks,
Barbara
Uncle Enrico - 20 Mar 2006 23:45 GMT
When I first read "Diabetes Solution" by Dr. Richard K. Bernstein, M.D., he
wrote  about pleading with his newly diagnosed patients to begin insulin
early. His view, however, urges early insulin with a low carb diet and an
intensive regimen of multiple daily injections of small doses to achieve a
normal blood sugar profile.

There is research showing that beta cell function can be preserved with
early insulin therapy, particularly if you can halt overproduction of your
own insulin which is linked with weight gain and increasing insulin
resistance.

However, there is a concern that Type II's who are not adhering to a diet
and exercise regimen can gain weight with insulin injections and begin
injecting more and more insulin to counteract increasing insulin resistance
as they develop heart problems and an increased cancer risk because of
hyperinsulinemia.

If you're looking to insulin as a means of eating more carbs, you could wind
up like a very overweight Type II neighbor of mine who injects huge amounts
every day. His health is not good.

I elected to start early insulin tx with a 5.3 A1C on orals only. I'm glad
I'm on insulin, but I watch what I eat and exercise religiously to keep my
weight down. Insulin gives me dependable, predictable control.

Best wishes.

> I've been "developing" diabetes for the past couple of years.  It
> started with IGT (140 to 185 postprandial) and normal (85-95) fasting
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> insulin more frequently?  Thanks,
> Barbara
Alexander Arnakis - 21 Mar 2006 00:45 GMT
>I've been "developing" diabetes for the past couple of years.  It
>started with IGT (140 to 185 postprandial) and normal (85-95) fasting
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>insulin more frequently?  Thanks,
>Barbara

There's a downside to having too much insulin circulating in the
bloodstream. As I understand it (I once attended a lecture by a Howard
University professor of endocrinology, on this subject), high levels
of insulin have the effect of cancelling certain anti-coagulants in
the blood, thereby making heart attacks and strokes more likely.

Type 1 diabetics don't have this problem, because for them, the
insulin they take simply replaces the insulin that their bodies don't
make, and the serum insulin doesn't rise above "normal" levels. But
for many Type 2's, one of the features of their diabetes is insulin
resistance. Since their own insulin isn't being used effectively,
their bodies respond by making more of it. If you add outside insulin
to the mix, the problem is made even worse.

This is just one of the ways in which Type 2 diabetes is a more
difficult disease than Type 1. If indeed your problem is insulin
resistance, it would seem that the treatment of choice would be
medication to try to break down that resistance, rather than add even
more insulin.
Alan S - 21 Mar 2006 05:16 GMT
>>I've been "developing" diabetes for the past couple of years.  It
>>started with IGT (140 to 185 postprandial) and normal (85-95) fasting
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>medication to try to break down that resistance, rather than add even
>more insulin.

Seems to make sense. But It's the first time I've seen that
viewpoint.

Have you ever seen a support study or reference for the
Howard University Professor of Endocrinology's position on
this?
Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 2x500mg
Signature

Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

Alexander Arnakis - 21 Mar 2006 07:26 GMT
>Seems to make sense. But It's the first time I've seen that
>viewpoint.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
>d&e, metformin 2x500mg

It's been a long time, so I don't remember the details. But take a
look at these links:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hyperinsulinemia/HQ00896
http://www.jewishhospitalcincinnati.com/cholesterol/insulin_resistance.htm
http://www.ccjm.org/pdffiles/Nambi1202.pdf
Alan S - 22 Mar 2006 01:57 GMT
>>Seems to make sense. But It's the first time I've seen that
>>viewpoint.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>http://www.jewishhospitalcincinnati.com/cholesterol/insulin_resistance.htm
>http://www.ccjm.org/pdffiles/Nambi1202.pdf

Thank you. I've read the Jewish Hospital one before and the
others look interesting. Time to read needed now.

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

Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

Jenny - 21 Mar 2006 01:27 GMT
  Since I'd prefer not to go
> low carb, if possible, this seems to mean that I need some sort of
> medication.  But everything I've read about has so many side effects
> and contraindications, except for insulin.

 Why not insulin for early
> diabetes?  I've read that early use can save beta cells.  Anybody
> know about this?  Also, if this is true, why don't doctors recommend
> insulin more frequently?

1. There is a good medicine for type 2 diabetes which is well worth
trying, Metformin. It has been in use for decades and the only major
side effect which we used to worry about (lactic acidosis) turns out not
to happen any more often than in people not on the drug. It lowers blood
sugar and prevents weight gain. It appears to be cardio-protective. The
extended release form doesn't cause anywhere near the stomach problems
earlier forms did. What's not to like?

2. Insulin for type 2s comes in two forms, basal (one or two shots a
day) which is what most Type 2s are taking when they say "I'm on
insulin" and fast acting insulin used before meals.

The basal insulins on the market today will not control your meals. They
only lower your fasting and pre-meal numbers.

The fast acting insulins have to be matched quite precisely to your carb
intake. For someone like you who still has a decent second phase insulin
release (which is why you don't stay over 200 for 4 hours) it is quite a
challenge to shoot enough to cover a high carb meal without ending up
having a serious hypo.  Even the "short acting" stuff lasts for 3 hours
or more so you can have pretty numbers at one hour and very little
circulating blood sugar left at 3.

Now try to figure out how much carbohydrate is in that order of fries
and that muffin on your plate, or in the cookie or piece of cake you are
planning to have for dessert. Let's say you need 1 unit for every 5
grams. Great, you've just guessed that you've got 55 grams on your
plate. Shoot 11 units. Whoops, turns out you really had 40 grams. Now
you've got 3 units too much insulin floating around in your system which
is going to suck away a lot of your blood sugar.  Time to start scarfing
more sugary stuff. Whoops, got too much sugary stuff, blood sugar is
back over 200 again.

Can you see why even those of us using insulin have to keep our carbs
much lower than so called "normal?"

Insulin for type 2s is strictly for after you can't achieve normal blood
sugars using carb restriction, and even then you will still have to be
very aware of your carb intake every time you eat.
--Jenny

http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes  Diabetes Info

http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/newlydiagnosed.htm Get Your Blood
Sugar Under Control
oldal4865 - 21 Mar 2006 01:32 GMT
barbara@the-kaplans.com wrote in message
<1142892899.226626.211930@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
>I've been "developing" diabetes for the past couple of years.  It
>started with IGT (140 to 185 postprandial) and normal (85-95) fasting
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>insulin more frequently?  Thanks,
>Barbara

 That question as stated assumes that blood sugar control is the Type 2
diabetic's greatest problem.    In fact,  one can make a strong argument
that the increased heart attack risk of high Insulin Resistance is the Type
2 diabetic's greatest problem. **

That's a strong argument for starting T2 on anti-Insulin Resistance meds.
Metformin has the least side effects of the anti-I.R. meds,   Actos and
Avandia have more side effects but are also more powerful.    You can
'stack" metformin and (Actos or Avandia).

Metformin has a record of 40 years very successful and very safe use.   It
carries some risk but note that Type 2 diabetes is a deadly disease, almost
certain to cause premature death in its victims.    Diabetics don't really
have the option of avoiding all risk;  they must instead choose the risk
they wish to endure.

That said,   the combination of metformin for anti-Insulin Resistance and
insulin for any residual blood sugar control  works very well.   Of course,
that assumes that you are already using the Miracle Therapy for anti-Type 2
diabetes,  i.e.

   a.  Lose fat lb
   b.  Gain muscle lb
   c.  Exercise every day,  the more vigorously the better
   d.  Restrict your carbohydrate intake,  aim for slowly-digesting carbs;
spread your daily carb ration over several small meals.

Why don't more docs prescribe insulin?

Two big reasons:

     a.   Most folks hate the thought of taking insulin.   They will plead
for alternate therapies.   They will plead to be "taken off" insulin as soon
as possible.    They will actually refuse to take the insulin when
prescribed.

Note that insulin use will disqualify a diabetic for some occupations.    In
many areas,  it bars you from a pilot's license and a commercial drivers
license.

    b.  Docs are afraid to give folks insulin.    Insulin injections carry
the risk of low blood sugar episodes which can lead to accidents of one sort
or another.    Docs always have to balance the risk of a hypo against the
risk of complications from high blood sugars.

They tend to favor offering the risk of high blood sugar over the risk of
hypos.     That may not be an optimum choice,  but that's the way it is.

That said,  a strong argument can be made that if you,  Barbara,  combine a
strong effort at the "Miracle Therapy" with a single daily shot of slow
insulin taken before bedtime,  you will delay the onset of full-blown Type 2
diabetes for a very long time,  possibly for the rest of your life.   Lord
knows where you will find a doctor who will give you that advice and/or a
prescription but still,  the argument can be made.

(** Comments on heart attack risk and high Insulin Resistance apply to
80-90% of Type 2 diabetics.   There is a poorly understood minority,
estimated at 10-20% of Type 2 diabetics,   who do not suffer from high
Insulin Resistance and thus have a lesser risk of premature heart attack.

Umm. . .one of the better tests for identifying such folks is to give them
anti-Insulin Resistance meds and see if the meds help their blood sugar
control.    Surprise!  One of the common therapy strategies for newly
diagnosed diabetics is to give them anti-Insulin Resistance meds.   If they
work,  fine.   If they don't,   start them on insulin.)

Regards
 Old Al
Jenny - 21 Mar 2006 02:07 GMT
> That said,  a strong argument can be made that if you,  Barbara,  combine a
> strong effort at the "Miracle Therapy" with a single daily shot of slow
> insulin taken before bedtime,  you will delay the onset of full-blown Type 2
> diabetes for a very long time,  possibly for the rest of your life.   Lord
> knows where you will find a doctor who will give you that advice and/or a
> prescription but still,  the argument can be made.

But even with a basal, she'll still be facing post-prandial highs if she
continues to eat a high carb diet. Especially since, being recently
diagnosed, her fasting bg is probably not the problem her post-meal
numbers are, so too much basal will give her hypos.

--Jenny

http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes  Diabetes Info

http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/newlydiagnosed.htm Get Your Blood
Sugar Under Control
oldal4865 - 21 Mar 2006 15:01 GMT
Jenny wrote in message ...
>> That said,  a strong argument can be made that if you,  Barbara,  combine a
>> strong effort at the "Miracle Therapy" with a single daily shot of slow
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>--Jenny

     Exactly.

 " . . .  d.  Restrict your carbohydrate intake,  aim for slowly-digesting
carbs;
spread your daily carb ration over several small meals. . . ."

Regards
 Old Al
Jenny - 21 Mar 2006 16:13 GMT
>   " . . .  d.  Restrict your carbohydrate intake,  aim for slowly-digesting
> carbs;
> spread your daily carb ration over several small meals. . . ."

Yup.

Unfortunately, the OP's reason for wanting insulin was so that she could
keep eating a high carb diet.

BTW, while I have you here, have you any thoughts on why adding the
Ultralente basal insulin to my regimen and slightly upping my carbs has
significantly decreased my triglycerides and increased my HDL?  My
TG/HDL ratio is now approaching 1 (with HDL at 75 mg/dl) and the other
ratios all improved too, which is the opposite of what I was expecting
to see.

--Jenny

http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes  Diabetes Info

http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/newlydiagnosed.htm Get Your Blood
Sugar Under Control
bj - 21 Mar 2006 16:20 GMT
>>   " . . .  d.  Restrict your carbohydrate intake,  aim for
>> slowly-digesting
>> carbs; spread your daily carb ration over several small meals. . . ."
>
> Unfortunately, the OP's reason for wanting insulin was so that she could
> keep eating a high carb diet.

What do you consider a "high carb diet"?
or, for that matter, how do you deduce "high carb" from not wanting to go
"low carb"?
where's the cutoff point(s)?

I'm not a low carber, but I don't think I'm a high-carber either -- more
like "moderate". I do use meal-related Prandin & would consider using
insulin instead.

I find that I don't react well to just low-carb meals. And I got tired of
eating all my meals in bits & pieces, with hardly any time "in between
meals" to go do anything time-consuming.
bj
Susan - 21 Mar 2006 16:42 GMT
> What do you consider a "high carb diet"?

One that raises bg outside of healthy normal range for the individual in
question.

> or, for that matter, how do you deduce "high carb" from not wanting to go
> "low carb"?
> where's the cutoff point(s)?

For her, it would be the point at which she stopped maintaining her self
described obesity and high bgs; at least that's a starting point for
moderating carbs.

Susan
Jenny - 21 Mar 2006 16:52 GMT
> What do you consider a "high carb diet"?
> or, for that matter, how do you deduce "high carb" from not wanting to go
> "low carb"?
> where's the cutoff point(s)?

For someone eating a Standard American Diet (SAD) moderate carb as most
of us here define it looks an awful lot like low carb. Remember that the
SAD is 300 grams of carb a day!

I deduce "not wanting to go low carb" and meaning, "I don't want to give
up bread, potatoes, and dessert with every meal".

> I'm not a low carber, but I don't think I'm a high-carber either -- more
> like "moderate". I do use meal-related Prandin & would consider using
> insulin instead.

I've been eating moderate carb for the past year or so myself, since
adding metformin to my mix, but though it seems to me I'm eating a lot
of carb compared to my previous regimen, when I add it up, I rarely am
eating over 100 grams a day.

And even though I'm thrilled that I can eat a lot more "normally" on my
current regimen with the peaky insulin which will cover a lot of carbs
at lunch, it only takes a half order Pad Thai or half a serving of fries
to remind me that I am, in fact, diabetic.

I suspect a case could be made that dropping to Bernstein levels for a
month might have the unexpected benefit of making the person feel like
they're eating normally when they go back to 95 grams day. <g>

--Jenny

http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes  Diabetes Info

http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/newlydiagnosed.htm Get Your Blood
Sugar Under Control
bj - 21 Mar 2006 17:25 GMT
> I suspect a case could be made that dropping to Bernstein levels for a
> month might have the unexpected benefit of making the person feel like
> they're eating normally when they go back to 95 grams day. <g>

I suspect that it would make me feel like crap & not be able to maintain my
exercise regime.
bj
Kurt - 21 Mar 2006 19:19 GMT
> > I suspect a case could be made that dropping to Bernstein levels for a
> > month might have the unexpected benefit of making the person feel like
> > they're eating normally when they go back to 95 grams day. <g>
>
> I suspect that it would make me feel like crap & not be able to maintain my
> exercise regime.

Many would find the same thing, bj.  I'm glad you included exercise in
your response because so often people don't.  Either they forget or
they just don't do anything so it never factors into their "advice."

In a strange paradox it's important and yet dangerous for someone to
talk about how many carbs they eat every day.  It's important because
it gives others an insight to where the person is coming from.  And
it's dangerous because some might feel that they personally are eating
too many carbs, or not enough.

The definition used in this thread of high carbs being one that raises
bg outside of a normal range in my case would mean 0-5. :)  I'm a Type
1.  One more example of one size does not fit all.

Best,
Kurt
barbara@the-kaplans.com - 21 Mar 2006 20:48 GMT
Thank you everybody for your wonderful posts.  Bye the way, when I say
I don't want to go low carb, I don't mean I want to have cake and
cookies after every meal.  Heaven forbid!  But I don't want to forego
fruit or starchy vegetables or good whole-grain bread or reasonable
amounts of pasta.  That's what moderate carb means to me, not big
desserts or sweet snacks.

Here's another question: How does one know if one suffers from high IR?
I'm not certain that I have it, since the only criterion I seem to fit
is a high waist-to-hip ratio.  Otherwise, I'm of normal weight (not
skinny, but not quite overweight, having a BMI of 24), have been a
regular exerciser for the past twenty-five years or so, have reasonably
good cholesterol (HDL 80, LDL 110), triglicerides (125), etc. But my
entire family is diabetic (JonK, a semi-regular poster here, is my
brother), so in my case it seems that getting diabetes has always been
inevitable. Is there a test for IR? Thanks again. I don't know what I'd
do without this group.

Barbara
Susan - 21 Mar 2006 20:57 GMT
> Thank you everybody for your wonderful posts.  Bye the way, when I say
> I don't want to go low carb, I don't mean I want to have cake and
> cookies after every meal.  Heaven forbid!  But I don't want to forego
> fruit or starchy vegetables or good whole-grain bread or reasonable
> amounts of pasta.  That's what moderate carb means to me, not big
> desserts or sweet snacks.

Okay, so here's the thing; if those things ring the bell at the top of
your meter, they're not good for you, whether or not you're
philosophically opposed to avoiding them.  :-)  Many low carbers work
small portions into a plan, or have them less than daily (or weekly), or
as occasional treats.  Some fruits are better/safer bets than others.
Whole kernel rye is best among the grains. Your meter is your guide to
what's best for you, personal tastes aside.

> Here's another question: How does one know if one suffers from high IR?
>  I'm not certain that I have it, since the only criterion I seem to fit
> is a high waist-to-hip ratio.

And you're type 2 diabetic.  Your WHR is a sign, though your lipids are
great, on the face of it.

 > Otherwise, I'm of normal weight (not
> skinny, but not quite overweight, having a BMI of 24), have been a
> regular exerciser for the past twenty-five years or so, have reasonably
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> inevitable. Is there a test for IR? Thanks again. I don't know what I'd
> do without this group.

In the distant past, I read of c-peptide/glucose ratio being used to
predict IDDM amond NIDDMs, and I know that some docs use a fasting
insulin test, but it's not that easy to get a good result for reasons
having to do with specimen handling, IIRC.  Michelle may have something
to add here.

Susan
oldal4865 - 21 Mar 2006 21:08 GMT
barbara@the-kaplans.com wrote in message
<1142970509.452262.178610@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
>Here's another question: How does one know if one suffers from high IR?
> I'm not certain that I have it, since the only criterion I seem to fit
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>Barbara

  There are two tests that I know of:

 1.   Rule of Thumb:    Lousy cholesterol,  especially triglycerides and
HDL.    If you take meds to improve your lipids,  then the R.O.T. gets
chancy.    Your lipids look sort of spectacular.

  Is your HDL really 80 ? ! ? !      Note that HDL like that is a recipe
for a very long life.

2.   HOMA analysis.     Somehow convince your doc to order a simultaneous
fasting insulin and fasting blood sugar.    Plug the answers into the Homa
Calculator computer program at the Oxford University site.

    http://www.dtu.ox.ac.uk/index.html?maindoc=/riskengine/

(click on "Homa Calculator" on the left side of the above web page)

Regards
 Old Al
barbara@the-kaplans.com - 21 Mar 2006 21:20 GMT
Yes, Al, my HDL is really 80.  Somehow in this department I guess I
picked the right parents.  As far as its being a recipe for a long
life, I hope so.  Back in the seventies, before they separated HDL from
LDL, my dad had a total cholesterol of 160, which sounds fabulous.  He
was also reasonably thin.  Nonetheless, he'd had two coronaries by the
age of 55.  So I wonder if any of this means anything.  Time will tell.

Ciao,
Barbara
Jenny - 21 Mar 2006 22:50 GMT
  Back in the seventies, before they separated HDL from
> LDL, my dad had a total cholesterol of 160, which sounds fabulous.  He
> was also reasonably thin.  Nonetheless, he'd had two coronaries by the
> age of 55.  So I wonder if any of this means anything.  Time will tell.

Back in the 60s my dad had a total cholesterol of 340 mg/dl. He was also
thin.

He lived to be 100. At the end of his life he participated in a study at
Albert Einstein Medical School which has since been published which
identified a form of LDL cholesterol which is very large and fluffy and
associated with longevity. Needless to say, he had it.  I was also part
of the study and I have it too, which is nice as my cholesterol hovers
around 290. My HDL is currently 75 and my triglycerides 85.

BUT, what complicates the situation is my dad also apparently inherited
the family diabetes gene from his mother, and most of his lean, active
siblings died much younger of heart attacks on in his early 60s.

What made my dad live so long when his many siblings didn't? My guess is
 NOT eating much of anything. I analyzed my dad's diet with software as
he ate mostly the same things every day. It was low carb, low fat, low
salt, and low calorie and he ate that way religiously for the whole 56
years I knew him.  My mom told me that he'd put on a great deal of
weight in his early 40s and gone on this diet then and felt so good on
it he never went off it. Needless to say, he wasn't much interested in
food, as most of us can't eat that way. I sure can't. Beyond that he
took a daily walk. That's it.

So you may be like me--you've got a good gene and a bad gene but you'll
have to normalize your blood sugar to get the benefits of the good gene.

--Jenny

http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes  Diabetes Info

http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/newlydiagnosed.htm Get Your Blood
Sugar Under Control
Jenny - 21 Mar 2006 22:42 GMT
>  2.   HOMA analysis.     Somehow convince your doc to order a simultaneous
> fasting insulin and fasting blood sugar.    Plug the answers into the Homa
> Calculator computer program at the Oxford University site.
>
>      http://www.dtu.ox.ac.uk/index.html?maindoc=/riskengine/

Al,

I used the HOMA calculator with my fasting C-peptide results and it came
out with a result that told me I had much higher IR than I turned out to
have based on my response to R, Ultralente and Lantus. So I'm not sure
it holds up for the non-IR Type 2.

--Jenny

http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes  Diabetes Info

http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/newlydiagnosed.htm Get Your Blood
Sugar Under Control
Jenny - 21 Mar 2006 22:40 GMT
> Here's another question: How does one know if one suffers from high IR?
>  I'm not certain that I have it, since the only criterion I seem to fit
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> inevitable. Is there a test for IR? Thanks again. I don't know what I'd
> do without this group.

Barbara,

You sound like you may very well have one of the inherited genetic forms
of diabetes that are NOT characterized by insulin resistance. Do some
reading up on MODY diabetes. I've put together a page about it on my web
site. Click on the "Diagnosing Diabetes"  tab to find it.

http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/

In my case, the normal increase of insulin resistance that happens in
middle age seems to have pushed me over the line from severe Impaired
Glucose Tolerance to full fledged diabetes.

Metformin normalizes my insulin response completely, though.  I had zero
problems controlling my weight until my blood sugars crossed over that
line around age 50. But I was diagnosed with "prediabetes" when I was an
active 108 lb person in her late 20s based on a Glucose Tolerance Test.
And both my pregnancies turned diabetic too, though afterwards I was
told I was "normal."

Do the other people in your family who are diabetic also normal weight?

My cholesterol is a lot like yours, very high HDL and low Triglycerides
but I have very high LDL which is also genetic but, fortunately, a good
kind to have.

There isn't any test for IR that I know of. In my case, the test was
that I started hypoing on 6 units of basal insulin (though it took a
while to realize what was going on as I had a bum blood sugar meter.)
I've gotten back to normal numbers on 4 units. A typical insulin
resistant type 2 of my size eating about at my carb level would be
taking at least 30 units.

What kind of insulin doses do the people in your family end up taking?
Type 1 doses? Type 2? That might help you get an idea too, since a lot
of relatives on one side of the family raises the possibility of a
genetic link.

--Jenny

http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes  Diabetes Info

http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/newlydiagnosed.htm Get Your Blood
Sugar Under Control
Alan S - 22 Mar 2006 02:28 GMT
>Thank you everybody for your wonderful posts.  Bye the way, when I say
>I don't want to go low carb, I don't mean I want to have cake and
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
>Barbara

Hi Barbara.

Earlier you said "I've been "developing" diabetes for the
past couple of years.  It started with IGT (140 to 185
postprandial) and normal (85-95) fasting numbers, but now my
numbers average 110 fasting and have been known to enter the
low 200s an hour after eating."

Now you've added a familial history of diabetes.

I'm afraid that you are going to have to review "I don't
want to forego fruit or starchy vegetables or good
whole-grain bread or reasonable amounts of pasta."

The portions that you consider "reasonable" are, I suspect,a
lot different to the portions that your meter will show you
are "reasonable" if you start testing as suggested in
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/NewlyDiagnosed.htm

My logic is to use medications, and possibly eventually
insulin, only if reasonable efforts at diet and exercise
don't succeed. Otherwise, you will end up using excessive
medication to attempt balance a poor diet and exercise
regimen; a balancing act which I've rarely seen work for a
T2. But that's just my opinion.

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

I have no medical qualifications beyond my own experience.
Choose your advisers carefully, because experience can be
an expensive teacher.

Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

Chris Malcolm - 22 Mar 2006 14:47 GMT
> Thank you everybody for your wonderful posts.  Bye the way, when I say
> I don't want to go low carb, I don't mean I want to have cake and
> cookies after every meal.  Heaven forbid!  But I don't want to forego
> fruit or starchy vegetables or good whole-grain bread or reasonable
> amounts of pasta.  

I didn't want to give up those either. But my meter told me that I had
to, unless in the context of pretty serious amounts of exercise, much
more than I can manage every day, or even every other day.

> That's what moderate carb means to me, not big
> desserts or sweet snacks.

I've never eaten big deserts of sweet snacks, so giving those up
wasn't an option. Generally speaking bread, potatoes, and pasta, even
in small snack amounts, are more than my particular combination of IR,
pancreatic damage, and who knows what other malfunctions, can handle.

So I had to decide whether I liked potatoes and bread enough to be
willing to risk the long term effects of the high BGs they give me. I
decided they weren't worth it. Having got used to how much better
starchy carbs made me feel in the short term, I was very surprised to
discover that giving them up made me feel a lot better in the longer
term. That was an unexpected benefit which helps my motivation a lot,
since it's hard giving something up just for the sake of an abstract
intellectually apprehended and only probable reduction in a risk
factor.

It's rather like the discovery I made decades ago that while not
having a cigarette made me feel much worse in the short term, in the
longer term I felt a lot better for having stopped smoking them.

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/]

Chris Malcolm - 22 Mar 2006 14:23 GMT
>>>   " . . .  d.  Restrict your carbohydrate intake,  aim for
>>> slowly-digesting
>>> carbs; spread your daily carb ration over several small meals. . . ."
>>
>> Unfortunately, the OP's reason for wanting insulin was so that she could
>> keep eating a high carb diet.

> What do you consider a "high carb diet"?
> or, for that matter, how do you deduce "high carb" from not wanting to go
> "low carb"?
> where's the cutoff point(s)?

> I'm not a low carber, but I don't think I'm a high-carber either -- more
> like "moderate". I do use meal-related Prandin & would consider using
> insulin instead.

> I find that I don't react well to just low-carb meals. And I got tired of
> eating all my meals in bits & pieces, with hardly any time "in between
> meals" to go do anything time-consuming.

I found that when I added more protein and fats to my diet, and
reduced the carbs, that I was actually able to go for longer without
food without getting hungry. I can also go hungry for quite a while
without getting tired, low in energy, and finally nauseous and dizzy,
which was wahat used to happen to me when I ate much more carby stuff.

It took several weeks for these changes to become apparent. Hard to be
exact since my diet was progressively evolving all the time in a low
carb direction, as I learned more and more by testing.

I'm not sure if how I eat would be called low carb, but it's very much
lower in carbs, and higher in fats and protein, than it used to be,
and than the typical diets of my non-diabetic friends. I also eat
fewer meals, and much fewer snacks, than I used to, simply because I
no longer need to. Of course YMMV, but in my case moving in the low
carb direction has reduced my need for frequent food.

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/]

oldal4865 - 21 Mar 2006 18:09 GMT
Jenny wrote in message ...

>BTW, while I have you here, have you any thoughts on why adding the
>Ultralente basal insulin to my regimen and slightly upping my carbs has
>significantly decreased my triglycerides and increased my HDL?  My
>TG/HDL ratio is now approaching 1 (with HDL at 75 mg/dl) and the other
>ratios all improved too, which is the opposite of what I was expecting
>to see.

 Whoa,  that's a surprise.   I would sort of expect it if you had been
running 7+ HbA1c but you haven't.

   Regards
     Old Al
Larry - 21 Mar 2006 16:17 GMT
Hi Oldal: I'm sure glad you added at the end of your message that some
T2s (10-15%)don't have IR and hence may have a less chance of heart
attacks. I'd like to think thin T2s who are cardiovascular fit and
demonstarted low IR fall into this category.  My only other question...
when you refer to anti-insulin resistant properties of metformin...Are
you refering primarily to improvement in lipid profile and reduction in
weight as a result of metformin therapy. If so whats wrong with statin
treatment combined with weight control to accomplish the same thing?
Maybe I'm confused on this issue.

Larry

Larry
> barbara@the-kaplans.com wrote in message
> <1142892899.226626.211930@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
[quoted text clipped - 78 lines]
> Regards
>   Old Al
Jenny - 21 Mar 2006 16:45 GMT
> Hi Oldal: I'm sure glad you added at the end of your message that some
> T2s (10-15%)don't have IR and hence may have a less chance of heart
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> treatment combined with weight control to accomplish the same thing?
> Maybe I'm confused on this issue.

I'm sure Al will respond, but the "anti-insulin resistant properties" of
Metformin also include its ability to fool muscle tissue into thinking
it has just exercised and turn to burning glucose rather than storing it
as fat. This may be one of the reasons it helps stabilize weight.

The other thing metformin does, at least for me, is reduce
triglycerides, possibly by blocking some process in the liver while not
lowering HDL. Statins do not reduce TGs and may lower HDL. This is
significant as there is quite a bit of evidence that the TG/HDL ratio is
more significant than the calculated LDL (which is what Statins affect)
in predicting cardiac risk.

In fact, there's some evidence that the real contribution of statins is
in reducing inflammation in the cardiovascular system which, if your CRP
is normal might not be all that useful.

--Jenny

http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes  Diabetes Info

http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/newlydiagnosed.htm Get Your Blood
Sugar Under Control
Larry - 22 Mar 2006 04:03 GMT
Jenny: You say " ability to fool muscle tissue into thinking....." If
weight/fat is not a problem to begin with then logically metformin
therapy should not be beneficial in that way. Correct? In addition
Tricor for example has a specific indication to lower trig levels
better than metformin. So what is the big hype for metformin other than
as a antihyperglycemic agent. I suggest metformin IF and ONLY IF
effective in lowering BG/A1c, Statin to improve lipid profile and if
trigs are still a problem add maybe Tricor. Metformin can't and is not
indicated to do it all.

Larry
> > Hi Oldal: I'm sure glad you added at the end of your message that some
> > T2s (10-15%)don't have IR and hence may have a less chance of heart
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/newlydiagnosed.htm Get Your Blood
> Sugar Under Control
Susan - 22 Mar 2006 13:34 GMT
> Jenny: You say " ability to fool muscle tissue into thinking....." If
> weight/fat is not a problem to begin with then logically metformin
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> trigs are still a problem add maybe Tricor. Metformin can't and is not
> indicated to do it all.

Statins have a very high risk/benefit profile, and researchers do not
agree that LDL lowering (especially *with* HDL lowering, too) prevents CHD.

Lowering bg and TGL is very effective risk reduction.

Metformin pretty reliably lowers TGLs.

Susan
barbara@the-kaplans.com - 22 Mar 2006 13:55 GMT
Alan: I've been testing for the past two years, and am therefore very
aware of what a "reasonable" portion is according to my meter.
Unfortunately, what used to be reasonable seems now to elevate the
numbers beyond an acceptable level.  Other than a sweet tooth, which
I'm well aware of and am trying to satisfy with nutrasweet etc., my
eating habits are very careful, i.e. not as many carbs as the ADA
recommends but more than Atkins would advise (I average between 100-150
grams per day).  I very much want to maintain eating a "balanced diet,"
which means fruit and whole grains as well as meat, veggies and fat.
Somehow it just doesn't seem healthy to eliminate entire food groups,
other than sugar (which is only a food group to a sweet tooth like me,
and which I've eliminated except for an occasional cheat).  Years ago I
tried an Atkins type diet; it caused incredible constipation because
there's very little fiber.  Guess I need the beans.  Even though I
would love to lose a few pounds for aesthetic reasons, I'm not
overweight and also have been a gym rat for a quarter of a century, so
I think I've found through experience that diet and exercise are just
insufficient.  Sure, I could go to extremes, limit carbs to 50 per day
as some do in this group (and hats off to all of you who have the
discipline to eat that way), but I just do not want to.  I am
absolutely NOT saying that I must have french fries, pizza, cake and
ice cream.  I'm saying I must have fruit and whole wheat bread and
chili con carne, and if i can't, well then, I'll medicate.  And then my
question is still: what's wrong with a little lantus?
Thanks,
Barbara
Susan - 22 Mar 2006 14:20 GMT
> Alan: I've been testing for the past two years, and am therefore very
> aware of what a "reasonable" portion is according to my meter.
> Unfortunately, what used to be reasonable seems now to elevate the
> numbers beyond an acceptable level.

Yep, when they start to creep up, they really leap up.  :-/

  Other than a sweet tooth, which
> I'm well aware of and am trying to satisfy with nutrasweet etc., my
> eating habits are very careful, i.e. not as many carbs as the ADA
> recommends but more than Atkins would advise (I average between 100-150
> grams per day).

Actually, in all fairness, after the first two weeks, Atkins also allows
for gradual increase of carbs to the individual level that allows you to
maintain good control, whatever that level is.

 > I very much want to maintain eating a "balanced diet,"
> which means fruit and whole grains as well as meat, veggies and fat.

Here's the thing; you don't have a balanced metabolism.

> Somehow it just doesn't seem healthy to eliminate entire food groups,
> other than sugar (which is only a food group to a sweet tooth like me,
> and which I've eliminated except for an occasional cheat).

There is only nutritional improvement to be gained from reducing or
eliminating starches in favor of leafy, colorful, fibrous veggies and
fruit.  If nutrition is your concern with eliminating a food group,
don't let it be.  If it's about preference, you'll have to decide which
bothers you more, declining diabetic control or less starch in your diet.

I think we all indulge in occasional sweets; in my case, it means a walk
right after a dessert or some sushi.

>  Years ago I
> tried an Atkins type diet; it caused incredible constipation because
> there's very little fiber.

Then it wasn't an Atkins type diet; you substitute high fiber foods for
starch. My fiber consumption (I LC, not any particular plan) has gone
way up as I've cut starch from my diet.

  Guess I need the beans.  Even though I
> would love to lose a few pounds for aesthetic reasons, I'm not
> overweight and also have been a gym rat for a quarter of a century, so
> I think I've found through experience that diet and exercise are just
> insufficient.

Maybe, or maybe the right diet hasn't been hit on for you yet; that's a
job for you and your meter.

  Sure, I could go to extremes, limit carbs to 50 per day
> as some do in this group (and hats off to all of you who have the
> discipline to eat that way), but I just do not want to.  I am
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Thanks,
> Barbara

I have chili con carne all the time, with black soybeans, not kidney
beans.  What's wrong with insulin taken to cover eating stuff your own
insulin isn't covering is that it's associated with a higher risk of
certain cancers and atherogenesis.  Only you can decide if starchy stuff
is worth the risk.  But don't make a decision based upon a faulty notion
of balance; anytime you substitute starch for veggies, you're getting
less fiber and fewer antioxidants and phytonutrients.

Susan
Alan S - 22 Mar 2006 14:46 GMT
>Alan: I've been testing for the past two years, and am therefore very
>aware of what a "reasonable" portion is according to my meter.

From that I presume you mean that you have been
post-prandially testing one hour after eating? The one-hour
test is the one I go by. Maybe your peak is at two, but if
you don't test at one hour for a while as well, you'll never
know. I also presume you've read Jennifer's advice to
newbies by now? If not, I urge you to do so.

Susan answered better than I, so I'll let her comment stand
for me; one minor addition - if fibre is a problem, add
psyllium husk. I do not follow Atkins, and never have. I
follow my Accu-chek.

I'm not a low-carber, I'm a low-spiker. I rarely count my
carbs, just the numbers on my meter. If they go too high, I
cut back on the carbs next time I eat that meal; if they are
low at the right time I indulge in a treat occasionally. And
my meter has also let me find the timing in my day when I
can safely indulge in a little occasional treat - I ate my
first English Crumpet, dripping with butter, today, in three
years; bliss (but it may be three more years until the next
one:-) But I also know that I can't handle more than 5gms
before lunch.

When I have counted carbs I've never been lower than 50, and
usually higher than 100. Sometimes, significantly higher.

Good luck,

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

Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

oldal4865 - 22 Mar 2006 14:20 GMT
Larry wrote in message
<1142996597.752448.266570@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
>Jenny: You say " ability to fool muscle tissue into thinking....." If
>weight/fat is not a problem to begin with then logically metformin
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>Larry

   All valid arguments  but are most applicable to a minority** of T2.

Metformin is cheap and has a very impressive 40+ year safety record.    A
reasonable approach,  therefore, is to try metformin first,  and if it
doesn't do the job,   add Tricor,  Lopid,  Niacin,  statins,  etc.  etc.
That's about what the conservative docs do.

(** Nobody knows how many T2 are non-Insulin Resistant.   Diabetes
statistics are generally lousy and this area is worse than most.    I found
a 10% estimate;  Jenny found a 20% estimate)

Regards
 Old Al
Larry - 22 Mar 2006 16:36 GMT
Agree for the most part. Metformin's safety record should not
overshadow its rather weak efficacy in improving lipid profiles
compared to the more efective lipid lowering agents on the market. I
don't buy the notion that some NG people have that statins are still
too controversial and metformin would be a better drug for improving
lipids.

Larry
> Larry wrote in message
> <1142996597.752448.266570@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> Regards
>   Old Al
Susan - 22 Mar 2006 16:47 GMT
> Agree for the most part. Metformin's safety record should not
> overshadow its rather weak efficacy in improving lipid profiles
> compared to the more efective lipid lowering agents on the market. I
> don't buy the notion that some NG people have that statins are still
> too controversial and metformin would be a better drug for improving
> lipids.

Diet, bg control and exercise should be the first line approach to
improving lipids.  Improvement means ratios and LDL particle size,
though, not raw numbers.

Pantethine is an HMG-CoA inhibitor and thromboxane A2 inhibitor that
achieves statin results with no toxicity or adverse reactions reported,
even in dialysis and hepatitis patients.

Susan
Larry - 23 Mar 2006 02:35 GMT
Susan: I think we have discussed this before. As a general rule when
overall LDL levels are lowered by statin treatment, beneficial (good)
LDL particle size parallels these levels. Positive clinical end points
also back up these lab values in terms of reduction of CV events.

Larry
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Susan
Susan - 23 Mar 2006 03:04 GMT
> Susan: I think we have discussed this before. As a general rule when
> overall LDL levels are lowered by statin treatment, beneficial (good)
> LDL particle size parallels these levels.

Could you furnish the cites that prove that statins preferentially
preserve large LDL particles and only lower the VLDL?

 Positive clinical end points
> also back up these lab values in terms of reduction of CV events.

At greatly reduced risk of other adverse events.

Susan
Larry - 24 Mar 2006 16:48 GMT
Susan: package insert for any of the statins is a good place to look.
The vast majority of lipids run in the labs report on LDL and not
fractionated particle size. There is a pragmatic reason for this as it
is a "safe bet" that general lowering of LDL values has good effects on
the CV sytem. It is true that a lowering of HDL is not good but a
lowered LDL is more important when going from say 190 to 70s.

Larry
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Susan
Susan - 24 Mar 2006 16:57 GMT
> Susan: package insert for any of the statins is a good place to look.
> The vast majority of lipids run in the labs report on LDL and not
> fractionated particle size. There is a pragmatic reason for this as it
> is a "safe bet" that general lowering of LDL values has good effects on
> the CV sytem. It is true that a lowering of HDL is not good but a
> lowered LDL is more important when going from say 190 to 70s.

We don't seem to see the same thing when we look at the information.

There are safer alternatives, both lifestyle and supplemental, that are
provent to achieve lower CVD risk and lipid profile improvements.

Susan
bj - 24 Mar 2006 23:04 GMT
> There are safer alternatives, both lifestyle and supplemental, that are
> provent to achieve lower CVD risk and lipid profile improvements.

If lifestyle doesn't do it, why should we consider [unregulated, unproven]
supplements to be "better" & "safer" than statins?
bj
Jenny - 22 Mar 2006 17:53 GMT
> (** Nobody knows how many T2 are non-Insulin Resistant.   Diabetes
> statistics are generally lousy and this area is worse than most.    I found
> a 10% estimate;  Jenny found a 20% estimate)

The 20% was a government statistic for non-obese type 2s, not non
insulin resistant type 2s. I haven't seen any stats for that.

I did see a stat that 5% of diabetics (not categorized as Type 1 or Type
2) were MODY. But MODY seems to be commonly misdiagnosed as type 1 when
severe enough to require insulin or developing in youth and as type 2
when more moderate.

--Jenny

http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes  Diabetes Info

http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/newlydiagnosed.htm Get Your Blood
Sugar Under Control
Larry - 24 Mar 2006 16:59 GMT
Jenny: Thanks for your reference about Impaired Insulin Secretion
verses Impaired Insulin Sensitivity by John Gerich at
http://edrv.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/4/491
This is the best review I've read on the heterogeneous nature of T2
diabetes. It requires careful reading but everyone should try to get
through it or at least part of it. Dr.Gerich's information almost
suggests (hints) at appropriate therapy for subcategories of T2. A
wonderful review article!

Larry
Jenny - 24 Mar 2006 22:26 GMT
> Jenny: Thanks for your reference about Impaired Insulin Secretion
> verses Impaired Insulin Sensitivity by John Gerich at
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Larry

Glad you found it of help!

I probably should go back and reread it myself and follow the cites.
It's been a while and I'm sure I'll see some of them with a heightened
awareness. I really wasn't anywhere as alert to the sheer diversity of
forms of diabetes back when I first encountered it as I am now.

Signature

--Jenny

http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes  Diabetes Info

http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/newlydiagnosed.htm Get Your Blood
Sugar Under Control

Jefferson - 22 Mar 2006 20:42 GMT
> Jenny: You say " ability to fool muscle tissue into thinking....." If
> weight/fat is not a problem to begin with then logically metformin
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> trigs are still a problem add maybe Tricor. Metformin can't and is not
> indicated to do it all.

There have been a number of studies of metformin's relationship to AMPK.
This is where the notion of fooling the muscle tissue into reacting like
they had been exercised comes in.  This mechanism was not know for much
of the 40 years of metformin use.
"AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) activity increases in response to
depletion of cellular energy stores, and this enzyme has been implicated
in the stimulation of glucose uptake into skeletal muscle and the
inhibition of liver gluconeogenesis. We recently reported that AMPK is
activated by metformin in cultured rat hepatocytes, mediating the
inhibitory effects of the drug on hepatic glucose production. In the
present study, we evaluated whether therapeutic doses of metformin
increase AMPK activity in vivo in subjects with type 2 diabetes."
Source: Metformin Increases AMP-Activated Protein Kinase Activity in
Skeletal Muscle of Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes -
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/51/7/2074

More finds:
AMPK+metformin - 444 finds - http://tinyurl.com/h5pqr

There is a connection between low dose insulin and metformin therapy in
respect to increased HDL level. My  HDL had been measuring 61-62 mg/dl
for 18 months before I started low dosing insulin.  It was 71 and 78 on
10/29/04 and 3/17/05 while I was able to exercise and use metformin (500
mg/day).  I ruptured my achilles tendon on 4/23/05 and successive tests,
while still good, have been 56 and 55 mg/dl on 8/19/05 and 3/3/06. I
also take 4x1000 mg of fish oil, 40 mg Lescol, and eat a combination of
nuts (walnuts, almonds, and pecans) daily.

A fairly extensive post from Google groups archives on TG/HDL and
insulin resistance: http://tinyurl.com/zsqfd.

Combination of Insulin and Metformin in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes
- http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/25/12/2133

"No significant changes were seen in diabetics receiving insulin and
placebo. There was a significant decrease in blood lipids (trygliceride
and cholesterol), an increase in HDL-cholesterol and a reduction in
blood pressure in diabetics taking metformin. These postive findings
were most marked in the 14 diabetics who experienced a good response to
metformin (glucose profile <10 mmol·l–1), and were less marked but still
significant in the remaining 13 diabetics, whose response to therapy was
not so good (glucose profile >10 mmol·l–1). The fasting insulin level
was significantly lower after six months of combined insulin-metformin
treatment as shown by a 25% reduction in the daily dose of insulin
(–21.6 U/day)." http://tinyurl.com/ksb63

Frank
Jefferson - 30 Mar 2006 18:57 GMT
> Jenny: You say " ability to fool muscle tissue into thinking....." If
> weight/fat is not a problem to begin with then logically metformin
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> trigs are still a problem add maybe Tricor. Metformin can't and is not
> indicated to do it all.

There have been a number of studies of metformin's relationship to AMPK.
This is where the notion of fooling the muscle tissue into reacting like
they had been exercised comes in.  This mechanism was not know for much
of the 40 years of metformin use.
"AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) activity increases in response to
depletion of cellular energy stores, and this enzyme has been implicated
in the stimulation of glucose uptake into skeletal muscle and the
inhibition of liver gluconeogenesis. We recently reported that AMPK is
activated by metformin in cultured rat hepatocytes, mediating the
inhibitory effects of the drug on hepatic glucose production. In the
present study, we evaluated whether therapeutic doses of metformin
increase AMPK activity in vivo in subjects with type 2 diabetes."
Source: Metformin Increases AMP-Activated Protein Kinase Activity in
Skeletal Muscle of Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes -
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/51/7/2074

More finds:
AMPK+metformin - 444 finds - http://tinyurl.com/h5pqr

There is a connection between low dose insulin and metformin therapy in
respect to increased HDL level. My  HDL had been measuring 61-62 mg/dl
for 18 months before I started low dosing insulin.  It was 71 and 78 on
10/29/04 and 3/17/05 while I was able to exercise and use metformin (500
mg/day).  I ruptured my achilles tendon on 4/23/05 and successive tests,
while still good, have been 56 and 55 mg/dl on 8/19/05 and 3/3/06. I
also take 4x1000 mg of fish oil, 40 mg Lescol, and eat a combination of
nuts (walnuts, almonds, and pecans) daily.

A fairly extensive post from Google groups archives on TG/HDL and
insulin resistance: http://tinyurl.com/zsqfd.

Combination of Insulin and Metformin in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes
- http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/25/12/2133

"No significant changes were seen in diabetics receiving insulin and
placebo. There was a significant decrease in blood lipids (trygliceride
and cholesterol), an increase in HDL-cholesterol and a reduction in
blood pressure in diabetics taking metformin. These postive findings
were most marked in the 14 diabetics who experienced a good response to
metformin (glucose profile <10 mmol·l–1), and were less marked but still
significant in the remaining 13 diabetics, whose response to therapy was
not so good (glucose profile >10 mmol·l–1). The fasting insulin level
was significantly lower after six months of combined insulin-metformin
treatment as shown by a 25% reduction in the daily dose of insulin
(–21.6 U/day)." http://tinyurl.com/ksb63

Frank
oldal4865 - 21 Mar 2006 18:45 GMT
Larry wrote in message
<1142954244.429307.44360@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>...
>Hi Oldal: I'm sure glad you added at the end of your message that some
>T2s (10-15%)don't have IR and hence may have a less chance of heart
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>Larry

". . . .Are you referring primarily to improvement in lipid profile and
reduction in weight as a result of metformin therapy. If so what's wrong
with statin treatment combined with weight control to accomplish the same
thing?. . ."

 Speaking as an engineer and not a medical person:

    a.   High Insulin Resistance is a serious problem for 80-90% of T2

    b.   Metformin attacks the I.R. directly,  and thus directly attacks
the big killer,  high triglycerides

   c.    Statins attack one of the symptoms of I.R.,   unattractive HDL and
LDL numbers.

That's enough for me.   I think statins in addition to anti-IR therapy are a
good idea but not in place of anti-IR therapy.     Also,  when you dig into
this stuff,   LDL not only turns out to be difficult to control but the
particle size of the LDL is very important.     LDL particle size correlates
with triglycerides levels so any diabetic technique that attacks
triglycerides levels is a preferred technique.

Of course,  if you're not IR,  the debate becomes more complex.    Metformin
partially suppresses  inconvenient glucose releases by the liver so it could
be justified on that alone.    But again,  Byetta does the same and more so
low IR folks have quite a few options.    The medical sites don't talk about
the non-IR T2 very often (actually,  I can't recall a single one that does)
so I am reduced to guessing in this area**. . .and remember what the "A"
stands for in SWAG.***

(** Jennifer is figuring out the non-IR,  T2 stuff the hard way.   Some of
her personal experiences are totally baffling)

(*** Some engineers' humor:   I actually had to fill out SWAG sheets every
year. . .and the initials stood for exactly what you think they do)

Regards
 Old Al
Jenny - 21 Mar 2006 22:25 GMT
> (** Jennifer is figuring out the non-IR,  T2 stuff the hard way.   Some of
> her personal experiences are totally baffling)

Jenny, not "Jennifer!" Different ladies!

But you are right. Non insulin resistant "Type 2s" don't get discussed.
Indeed, by definition, most information about Type 2 starts out
explaining that IR is the main characteristic of this kind of Diabetes.

I do fit the "natural history" for one type of MODY, but that's another
garbage can diagnosis that covers a rapidly growing collection of
unrelated genetic forms of diabetes.

The brief description of MODY is: "Diabetes in a non-obese person
usually appearing by age 30 but often later, without insulin resistance
and without GAD antibodies, where the person has normal C-peptide
production and may be misdiagnosed as either a Type 1 or Type 2
depending on the age of diagnosis.

MODY was originally defined as being inherited in an autosomal dominant
fashion--which it is. Except that not having a diabetic parent doesn't
exclude the diagnosis. Once they started doing more genetic testing of
people in known MODY lineages, they found people carrying the gene whose
blood sugar abnormality never rose above impaired glucose tolerance who
never were diagnosed with anything.

Unfortunately, not too many doctors know much about MODY and if they do
their knowledge can be 5 years out of date (before the Brits started
doing the genetic detective work that has come up with a lot more
understanding). Out of date doctors will say MODY only happens in people
under 20 with a diabetic parent, as that used to be the belief.

 --Jenny

http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes  Diabetes Info

http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/newlydiagnosed.htm Get Your Blood
Sugar Under Control
Kurt - 21 Mar 2006 02:33 GMT
> I've been "developing" diabetes for the past couple of years.  It
> started with IGT (140 to 185 postprandial) and normal (85-95) fasting
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> insulin more frequently?  Thanks,
> Barbara

Hi Barbara,

Old Al gave you excellent information, as he usually does when someone
asks a question here.  Diabetes is a very complicated disease and just
like snowflakes no two of us are the same.  Okay, bad analogy, but we
all do differ in terms of what foods we can eat, what medications will
work the best for us, and how our activity/exercise works into the
equation.  So, the main thing you should be doing is finding a good
doctor, preferably an endocrinologist, to ask these questions to.  He
or she will be able to zero in on what your specific needs are and help
you make the right choices.

Best,
Kurt
W. Baker - 21 Mar 2006 04:51 GMT
: I've been "developing" diabetes for the past couple of years.  It
: started with IGT (140 to 185 postprandial) and normal (85-95) fasting
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
: insulin more frequently?  Thanks,
: Barbara

It's a mixed thing.  some people swer by it even fore early diabetics, If
you do go on insulin yu have to be very careful as it is very easy to gain
weight.  In addition, insulin does noting for the insulin resistance most
of us type 2's are running around with and it will give u even more
insulin inthe blood stream that is nt being absorbed.  

If used in conjunction with a insulin resistance reducigndrug like
metformin or Actos or Avandia that problem may be solved, but if yu are
using something liike these drugs yu may well not be need the insulin.

There are good points and drawback to any course of treatment and, in
general, meds are best worked out between yu and your doctor.  We, ostly,
can give our own ersonal experiences.  

Wendy
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.