 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / April 2006I'm losing control of the BGs
Things are not going well here, I'm still shaking. What's worse is that on top of it I seem to be losing control of the bgs, the numbers are worse than they were when this started for the same meal, and I'm starting to routinely see 120s 1 and 2 hours pp even with a meal with very few carbs in it. I had a bad night last night, was up most of it shaking. Last night for dinner I had turkey meatloaf (made with flax meal), broccoli, and salad, then glass of psyllium and 4 pecan halves before bed. Before bed and several hours afterwards (I kept waking up) I was at 128. I had lifted weighs in between dinner and the snack, was that it? But they didnt go down. This AM was up shaking at 5 and tested myself with a tbsp of almond butter on a half a wasa cracker (5-6 g carbs). Those #s were ok (though I think high for 6 g carbs), oscillated between 97 and 107, landing at 94 at 1 1/2 hours. Then I got called into work (system problem) and had 3 almonds and a stick of string cheese in the car at around 9. Felt funny around 10:30, tested and I was at 123. Ate 2 eggs and a pile of steamed kale and was at 100 20 min later, then 97 20 min after that, but was back up to 121 at 1 hour. There was hardly any carbs in that, just the kale, about 5 g max including fiber! Why does it go to the 120s with hardly any carbs in there? Does anyone know what's going on here? Since the bg goes down after I eat, and I'm shaking from adrenaline, I'm assuming a lot of this is liver dumps. How do you get them to stop? If I eat, it just seems to set them off again. If I don't eat, it sets them off. When this first started I was shaking but frequently seeing numbers in the 80s, sometimes lower. Despite losing 30 lbs and exercising like a beast the numbers are just getting worse. I saw the doc again in desperation on Thursday. He still doesn't think I need an endo (!) but scheduled me with a nutrionist in the endocrinology dept. The appt isn't for 3 weeks!!! He did move up the 24 hour urine test to check for adrenal problems, I'm doing it this weekend. Considering I'm always in the bathroom this is going to be a treat ::sigh::. I'm going to call him on Monday and demand an endo appt. I will drive to Boston if I have to (have friends there in health care who could probably get me in). The endo people here are so backed up that a friend of mine whose daughter has Graves disease has to go to Boston for care. Could this be the beginning of late-onset T1? LQ > Things are not going well here, I'm still shaking. What's worse is that > on top of it I seem to be losing control of the bgs, the numbers are [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Could this be the beginning of late-onset T1? > LQ Sounds like an April Fools joke. dave David, bite me. I'm not diabetic, I shouldn't be getting numbers in the 120s off of no carbs (or should I? ) and I've been shaking non-stop for 7 weeks now. Go bother someone else, I'm not in the mood for it. LQ > David, bite me. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > LQ Wow! I guess some hypochondriacs can be overly sensitive about their affliction. get some help. And stop bothering me. <g> Dave > I guess some hypochondriacs can be overly sensitive about their affliction. f.ck you. Stab yourself in the leg with an epi-pen 10 or 15 times a day and see how you feel. Now do it every day for 7 weeks. Do it at 4 AM too, just for sh.ts and giggles. I bet you wouldn't like having your chain yanked either. How does this killfile thing work again, anyway? LQ >>I guess some hypochondriacs can be overly sensitive about their affliction. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > LQ LOL! The quicker you KF me, the happier I'll be! dave If you hate my threads so much why do you even read them? Are you such a small little man that you just enjoy baiting people who aren't feeling well? Do you go down to the local hospital and trip people on crutches for fun on weekends, or yell "Baldy!" at the chemo patients? LQ > LOL! The quicker you KF me, the happier I'll be! And the quicker you realise that there are people who have experiences you haven't had the happier we all will be. You have never experienced severe reactive hypoglycemia. I can't even begin to explain just how bad it is other than to say it is like having your worst hypo over and over again all day every day for weeks, months, years. It seems that if you haven't experienced it then anyone who does is a hypochondriac. There is a world outside the one of Dave you know. >LOL! The quicker you KF me, the happier I'll be! > >dave Hi Dave You did ask for a reminder. This is the first. Meant as a friend. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 2x500mg  SignatureEverything in Moderation - Except Laughter. >>I guess some hypochondriacs can be overly sensitive about their affliction. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > LQ LQ, just KF the jerk. He has nothing to offer and no self control. Susan David...., tsk, tsk. LQ obviously feels very bad. Remember your committment to being a nice guy? Michelle > David...., tsk, tsk. LQ obviously feels very bad. Remember your > committment to being a nice guy? Oxymoron. He is still the same Bay Area Dave arsehole he always was, he just tried and failed miserably at trying to be normal. > > David...., tsk, tsk. LQ obviously feels very bad. > Remember your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > always was, he just tried and failed miserably at trying to > be normal. What puzzles me is that you and some others are jumping all over Dave here but have remained mute in another thread where Susan made some very cruel and hateful personal comments to a poster that make anything said in this thread look rather tame. Kurt >> "Michelle" <bookbug2005@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1143920050.534829.99380@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> > David...., tsk, tsk. LQ obviously feels very bad. >> Remember your [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > very cruel and hateful personal comments to a poster that make > anything said in this thread look rather tame. If Dave had spoken the truth, that LQ was a hypochondriac then there is no big deal. She isn't a hypochondriac so I jumped on him. The truth sometimes hurts, but at least let it be the right truth. >>>"Michelle" <bookbug2005@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > jumped on him. The truth sometimes hurts, but at least let > it be the right truth. Go back to her original post and see if you can see why I'd consider her a hypochondriac. Dave > Go back to her original post and see if you can see why I'd consider > her a hypochondriac. Her original postings are before this thread. That is why I can't see why you called her that. You came in halfway through the movie. >>Go back to her original post and see if you can see why > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > can't see why you called her that. You came in halfway > through the movie. Let's stick within the context of the beginning of THIS thread. the game has changed as the OP has revised her information, which is why I have said later today that she's RH. BUT I'm quite serious when I think (my OPINION, is all) she is a hypochondriac. Better to know it and be treated, than to suffer. (Or do you think there is no such thing as a hypochondriac?) dave >>>Go back to her original post and see if you can see why >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > have said later today that she's RH. BUT I'm quite serious when I > think (my OPINION, is all) she is a hypochondriac. Better to know > it and be treated, than to suffer. (Or do you think there is no such > thing as a hypochondriac?) Of course there are hypochondriacs but as I have been where LQ has been and I know the degree of suffering, I know that she isn't in that category. How many back problems aren't really there? How many times have I said you are lying about the degree of pain and disability you suffer? I could, given the statistics on back and neck pain that doesn't exist but I have read enough of your posts to be able to say you do indeed have problems. RH is a real thing, it varies from a few tremors or a feeling of hunger to full blown debilitating symptoms and everything in between. : Of course there are hypochondriacs but as I have been where : LQ has been and I know the degree of suffering, I know that : she isn't in that category. I agree. Been through the "I don't believe you, you're exaggerating," too. Plus, I've gone through the chronic back pain, and that is hard to describe to the docs, too. I've got it all documented now, though, with all these x-rays/mri's since the fall last year. Signaturebh-wages at swbell.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ : Of course there are hypochondriacs but as I have been where : LQ has been and I know the degree of suffering, I know that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] : of hunger to full blown debilitating symptoms and everything : in between. >>>>"Michelle" <bookbug2005@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1143920050.534829.99380@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >>>>>David...., tsk, tsk. LQ obviously feels very bad. >>>> >>>>Remember your >>>> >>>>>committment to being a nice guy? >>>>Oxymoron. He is still the same Bay Area Dave arsehole he >>>>always was, he just tried and failed miserably at trying >>>What puzzles me is that you and some others are jumping >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >>>anything said in this thread look rather tame. >> If Dave had spoken the truth, that LQ was a hypochondriac >> then there is no big deal. She isn't a hypochondriac so I >> jumped on him. The truth sometimes hurts, but at least let >> it be the right truth. > Go back to her original post and see if you can see why I'd consider her > a hypochondriac. It's easy to see why *you* think she's a hypochondriac, but that's not the point. The point is whether she *is* a hypochondriac, which is an entirely different question. SignatureChris 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/] Hey, telling the truth doesn't make someone an "arsehole." >>David...., tsk, tsk. LQ obviously feels very bad. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > always was, he just tried and failed miserably at trying to > be normal. > Hey, telling the truth doesn't make someone an "arsehole." Except it isn't the truth. He hasn't had severe RH and neither have you but you both seem qualified to answer what you don't know about. I am sure Dave's crook back is not what it appears, he is being such a hypochondriac over his back, you know how he sooks. He just needs attention. >>Hey, telling the truth doesn't make someone an "arsehole." > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > what it appears, he is being such a hypochondriac over his > back, you know how he sooks. He just needs attention. Having a hard time assesing the difference between LQ's complaints and my back pain, OZ? doesn't really suprise me... BTW, have you seen me curse? dave > >>Hey, telling the truth doesn't make someone an "arsehole." > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Having a hard time assesing the difference between LQ's complaints and > my back pain, OZ? doesn't really suprise me... BTW, have you seen me curse? The bit about your back was tongue in cheek to show you how stupid you are in telling someone with a real problem they are a hypochondriac. You know nothing about RH so why do you feel the need to comment in this thread? >>>>Hey, telling the truth doesn't make someone an > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > are a hypochondriac. You know nothing about RH so why do you > feel the need to comment in this thread? If I listed all the things you don't know, I'll get writer's cramp. LQ is basically a flaming hypochondriac, plain and simple. If YOU want to buy in to it; fine, just don't expect us all to follow along. enjoy your ignorance; it's blissful, isn't it? <g> Dave > David...., tsk, tsk. LQ obviously feels very bad. Remember your > committment to being a nice guy? > > Michelle I didn't cast the first stone, now did I? She's been cursing at me. Have I cursed back? Noooo. I offered her a free diagnosis: hypochondria. <g> Dave >I didn't cast the first stone, now did I? She's been cursing at me. >Have I cursed back? Noooo. I offered her a free diagnosis: >hypochondria. <g> True, LQ cursed first. However, if someone is truly feeling ill regardless of the cause, it behooves a nice person to have a bit of sympathy. Even if you truly believe the problem is "all in her mind", you can't disregard the fact that she feels bad. Your "free diagnosis" does nothing to help, and in fact only made her feel worse--hence the cursing. Dave, I know you're a smart guy, and often have valid ideas to offer, but unfortunately, your lack of sympathy for others causes some to totally disregard much of what you say. I don't think that's what you're striving for. Michelle > I offered her a free diagnosis: hypochondria. <g> I vaguely remember someone complaining about people here who dispense advice like doctors. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 2x500mg SignatureEverything in Moderation - Except Laughter. > David, bite me. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > LQ He slipped off the wagon. Maybe he'll try to stay on topic and supportive from now on. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Susan So you want me to support someone who has an issue with hypochondria and not hyperglycemia? She'd make a LOUSY diabetic, so for her sake, I hope she doesn't end up as such. she needs a shrink. Dave > > x-no-archive: yes > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > not hyperglycemia? She'd make a LOUSY diabetic, so for her sake, I hope > she doesn't end up as such. she needs a shrink. You and Mary so deserve each other, she is worse because she has had some medical training. You are just an ignorant know nothing. Plenty of those around. >>>x-no-archive: yes >>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > has had some medical training. You are just an ignorant know > nothing. Plenty of those around. LOL! Careful, or I'll fall in love with you! You are such a charmer! dave > David, bite me. > > I'm not diabetic, I shouldn't be getting numbers in the 120s off of no > carbs (or should I? ) and I've been shaking non-stop for 7 weeks now. > > Go bother someone else, I'm not in the mood for it. Maybe you are diabetic. But it doesn't sound like type 1. You'd have much higher numbers if this were the case. SignatureSee my webpage: http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm > David, bite me. > > I'm not diabetic, I shouldn't be getting numbers in the 120s off of no > carbs (or should I? ) and I've been shaking non-stop for 7 weeks now. You have impaired glucose tolerance, you can get 120 from eating or not. There is a balance there somewhere, you just haven't found it yet. >David, bite me. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >LQ Hi LQ I've not been keeping up. Remind me. What do your doctors and specialists say, and how recently have you seen them? I have read several of your posts on BGs, shakes and symptoms. I do know that you've been worried about reactive hypoglycemia. But the severity of your symptoms and the relatively mild BG levels that lead to them would have me wondering if there is a deeper cause that has not yet been diagnosed. I think your primary goal is discovering the right diagnostician and specialist to be certain of the underlying problem. I don't think you'll find that person here. Cheers Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 2x500mg 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. :: I'm going to call him on Monday and demand an endo appt. Good idea. Good luck. :: LizardQueen wrote: :::: I'm going to call him on Monday and demand an endo appt. :: :: Good idea. Good luck. Hey, I bought this book a while ago because I was having exercise-induced hypoglycemia from trying to cycle for long periods on LC. The book is: Hypoglycemia for Dymmies Perhaps you might find something inside that might offer a clue to get you feeling better until you can get some real help from the medical community. In any case, I doubt it will hurt to read up some. :: Roger Zoul wrote: :::: LizardQueen wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] :: :: Hypoglycemia for Dymmies Dang! That's "Dummies". :: Perhaps you might find something inside that might offer a clue to :: get you feeling better until you can get some real help from the :: medical community. In any case, I doubt it will hurt to read up some. <snip> > ::The book is: > :: > :: Hypoglycemia for Dymmies > > Dang! That's "Dummies". Ya see, I though it was one of those Brittish English terms that us English speaking Americans misuse. It really isn't English, or so I have been told. -Sax > :: I'm going to call him on Monday and demand an endo appt. > > Good idea. Good luck. Yes, good luck. I was lucky enough to see an endo for mine and that was 28 years ago. Sadly there hasn't been much progression in identifying and treating RH since then. Going between 90 and 120 doesn't constitute RH. Try going between 180 and 40. That's problematic. >>:: I'm going to call him on Monday and demand an endo > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and that was 28 years ago. Sadly there hasn't been much > progression in identifying and treating RH since then. > Going between 90 and 120 doesn't constitute RH. Try going between 180 > and 40. That's problematic. Geez, you get worse and worse. You really don't have a clue about this Mary. At my very worst I didn't go very high at all, still within normal range and I didn't drop to a theoretical low either. It's the speed of the drop Mary, not the size. >>Going between 90 and 120 doesn't constitute RH. Try going > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > theoretical low either. It's the speed of the drop Mary, not > the size. I think you are getting caught up by LQ's paranoia. You are both making a big deal out of nothing. She needs therapy. You need a muzzle. dave > >>Going between 90 and 120 doesn't constitute RH. Try going > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I think you are getting caught up by LQ's paranoia. You are both making > a big deal out of nothing. She needs therapy. You need a muzzle. And you need to realise you know nothing about a heck of a lot of things, you may borrow my muzzle anytime. >>>>Going between 90 and 120 doesn't constitute RH. Try > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > And you need to realise you know nothing about a heck of a > lot of things, you may borrow my muzzle anytime. What, and risk you running amuck, nipping everyone in sight? When I feel the need, I'll just employ a bit of self control. Tonight, I'm feeling saucy! (Wayne's World ref) Dave > >>Going between 90 and 120 doesn't constitute RH. Try going > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I think you are getting caught up by LQ's paranoia. You are both making > a big deal out of nothing. She needs therapy. You need a muzzle. This has gone too far! You don't seem to know a thing about RH. I do think LQ has some problem other than/in addition to BG. But your lame cracks aren't helping! SignatureSee my webpage: http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm Hey, you don't even know. I had a VERY speedy drop during my period of RH. But in 1983, no one gave any consideration to anyone who had such symptoms. I was taking college classes at night--I remember drinking a can of OJ from the machine just to keep my BG up high enough to make it through the test. Little did I know that soon after drinking, I would crash. I DID EXPERIENCE VERY QUICK CRASHES (over 200 to 40 in 20-30min). Don't ever accuse me of NOT knowing what you're talking about. I've REALLY been there, DONE that. Why is it that you think you're the only one to experience these problems? >>Going between 90 and 120 doesn't constitute RH. Try going > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > theoretical low either. It's the speed of the drop Mary, not > the size. > Hey, you don't even know. I had a VERY speedy drop during my period of > RH. But in 1983, no one gave any consideration to anyone who had such [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 20-30min). Don't ever accuse me of NOT knowing what you're talking > about. I've REALLY been there, DONE that. Because you are dismissing LQ's symtoms. BTW you were full blown diabetic with frequesnt numbers over 200, why are you calling it RH? My orginal endo said I had the most severe RH he had ever witnessed - symptomatically that is, the losing the ability to stand, the violent shaking etc. So why are you so dismissing? If I had taken OJ in my RH episodes I would have crashed and burned very quickly, starting the whole process over continuously. Severe RH exists, so where's your support? You're talking now, versus 1983. MDs are much more informed now. I had BGs over 200, but the MDs dismissed it because I wasn't overweight. Oh, please, I did experience the crashes very violently and very often throughout the day. I knew there was something wrong, but in 1983, only my ophthomologist who diagnosed me with retinopathy knew there was really something wrong. He sent me for BG testing, which was abnormal, but still the GPs didn't pay any attention. Those of you who are in this position during this day in age, should be THANKFUL. I never received a diagnosis until that day in 1996 when the endo started me on insulin. Do you NOT think that I felt crummy for many years prior to that diagnosis? Your endo gave you such credences because at this time in history, MDs recognize RH. At my time of distress, only those, like myself, who did research on their own (no internet), knew that the problem was with an intolerance to glucose. And no one listened to me. It was more than frustrating. Stop criticizing me. You just have no clue how it was many years ago. >>Hey, you don't even know. I had a VERY speedy drop during > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > whole process over continuously. Severe RH exists, so > where's your support? > Your endo gave you such credences because at this time in history, MDs > recognize RH. At my time of distress, only those, like myself, who did > research on their own (no internet), knew that the problem was with an > intolerance to glucose. And no one listened to me. It was more than > frustrating. Stop criticizing me. You just have no clue how it was > many years ago. Honey, OZ LIVES to criticize! Let's go watch the March of the Penguins. Dave > You're talking now, versus 1983. MDs are much more informed now. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > me on insulin. Do you NOT think that I felt crummy for many years prior > to that diagnosis? Because you weren't overweight? What a bunch of nonsense! > Your endo gave you such credences because at this time in history, MDs > recognize RH. At my time of distress, only those, like myself, who did > research on their own (no internet), knew that the problem was with an > intolerance to glucose. And no one listened to me. It was more than > frustrating. Stop criticizing me. You just have no clue how it was > many years ago. I had RH back in the '60s and '70s. We didn't have meters back then but it certainly was recognized. SignatureSee my webpage: http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm Yes, because I didn't appear to be a typical Type 2. Also, I had a normal fasting on tests, but went well over 200 on random testings. But at that time the only number that MY DOCTORS were concerned with was the fasting, which had to be above 140 to be DM, and there was no "impaired glucose tolerance," range defined. Why do you have to be so offensive? Well, I guess you should be thankful that you had better doctors than I did, shouldn't you? Julie, I don't lie. I'm just telling you my experience. Some here think that they are the only ones who have experienced RH. As you have said many times, each of us is different. >>You're talking now, versus 1983. MDs are much more informed now. >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I had RH back in the '60s and '70s. We didn't have meters back then but it > certainly was recognized. > Yes, because I didn't appear to be a typical Type 2. Also, I had a > normal fasting on tests, but went well over 200 on random testings. But [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > they are the only ones who have experienced RH. As you have said many > times, each of us is different. I'm not being offensive. I did not have good Drs. when I was first diagnosed with diabetes. In fact if I had been diagnosed properly I may not have progressed into neuropathy. My diagnosis came about after going to the hospital because I couldn't walk and was very sick to my stomach. This after being told repeatedly that I didn't have diabetes and there was nothing wrong with me. SignatureSee my webpage: http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm > Yes, because I didn't appear to be a typical Type 2. Also, I had a > normal fasting on tests, but went well over 200 on random testings. > But at that time the only number that MY DOCTORS were concerned with > was the fasting, which had to be above 140 to be DM, and there was no > "impaired glucose tolerance," range defined. Considering the same glucose impairment/diabetes criteria guidelines were used from 1979 til a couple of years ago, that is total bullshit. Hells bells, in 1978 when I had my GTT they were in place. Blame the doctor if need be but don't try to claim things didn't exist back then. > Why do you have to be so offensive? Well, I guess you should be > thankful that you had better doctors than I did, shouldn't you? > Julie, I don't lie. I'm just telling you my experience. Some here > think that they are the only ones who have experienced RH. As you > have said many times, each of us is different. Each of us are different. If your experiences had been as bad as LQ's or mine there is no way you could be dismissing them the way you do, nor would it lead to you calling LQ a hypochondriac. When your legs collapse from under you and your arms become useless jelly, when your speech becomes very slurred, when your body shakes uncontrollably, when your brain "shudders" within your skull, when you see stars, when your heart races at a million miles an hour and all this many times a day for a long time then no, you aren't suffering from hypochondria. You are being offensive by not understanding that someone can be worse off than you. I never called LQ a hypochondriac. Why do you all keep confusing me with Dave? Hello! We are different people! Get it??? If the criteria weren't known to me or my doctors, in essence, they didn't exist. You are so bent on being abusive, and proving yourself right, that you don't actually LISTEN to anyone. I've never called LQ anything. So good for you that you were so well informed in 1978. Most of us were not, including our doctors. Oh, how I wish I had known you at that time. Then perhaps I wouldn't have suffered for so many years. >>Yes, because I didn't appear to be a typical Type 2. > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > suffering from hypochondria. You are being offensive by not > understanding that someone can be worse off than you. > I never called LQ a hypochondriac. Why do you all keep confusing me > with Dave? Hello! We are different people! Get it??? Hello, when I called him an arsehole because of it, you asked me why, when he was only speaking the truth. Separate people, same thoughts about LQ. You really must keep up Mary, it will save embarrassment. "Hey, telling the truth doesn't make someone an "arsehole." If the criteria weren't known to me or my doctors, in essence, they > didn't exist. You are so bent on being abusive, and proving yourself > right, that you don't actually LISTEN to anyone. I've never called LQ > anything. So good for you that you were so well informed in 1978. > Most of us were not, including our doctors. Oh, how I wish I had > known you at that time. Then perhaps I wouldn't have suffered for so > many years. > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >> suffering from hypochondria. You are being offensive by not >> understanding that someone can be worse off than you. >When your legs collapse from under you and : your arms become useless jelly, when your speech becomes [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : this many times a day for a long time then no, you aren't : suffering from hypochondria. < An apt description of me from 1971 to 2001. My RH dx came in '71 while I was living in Izmir, Turkey. Doctors *did* know about RH then, and how to treat it, even telling me about the probability of having diabetes later in life. The only thing they missed on me was that I actually tested (5 hr GTT) as Diabetic with RH, but they put me on diabetic diet, anyway, so it actually was being treated. It was hard to be *sugar-free* at that time, and especially overseas where our American food was greatly limited, and buying off the market was limited because of health reasons (couldn't have their meat, milk, etc., but could buy fresh vegetables, thought they had to be soaked in Clorox before eating; water for cooking and drinking had to be carried from the hospital in empty jugs). At *that* point, the sugar free tx was sufficient for staving off the RH attacks, and I could really tell it whenever I deviated from that diet. I was very, very thin, and very active, and my endo says that is how I kept from having the full blown diabetes (requiring medication) until the time that I did, and then it was the Prednisone that lit the fuse. This (RH) and Rheumatoid Arthritis got me a lot of *it's in your head* comments from the military doctors until we retired in '80. Autoimmune diseases *come and go* and if a doctor saw me during a good period, they didn't want to believe the dx, even though they had my complete military medical file before them (this is following rheumatic fever and bacterial endocarditis as a child/teen). Thanks, Jan, for the perfect example of RH. Maybe we should all get together and put some RH facts out. Seems like we have enough experiences to do so. Billie (haven't reread this, so if I messed up, please forgive :-) Signaturebh-wages at swbell.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ : Each of us are different. If your experiences had been as : bad as LQ's or mine there is no way you could be dismissing [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : suffering from hypochondria. You are being offensive by not : understanding that someone can be worse off than you. > This (RH) and Rheumatoid Arthritis got me a lot of *it's in your > head* comments from the military doctors until we retired in '80. > Autoimmune diseases *come and go* and if a doctor saw me during a > good period, they didn't want to believe the dx, even though they had > my complete military medical file before them (this is following > rheumatic fever and bacterial endocarditis as a child/teen). The first endo I saw in 1978 actually saw one of my "episodes" during the GTT. He'd never seen one so severe ;) Not that he had doubted me, it just hit home more, seeing it in the flesh. He was going to use me as an example in one of his forthcoming lectures about RH. I had to sign for permission to use my GTT results, lol. During my GTT by the way, my bg never rose above high normal and never went lower than low normal. He said that was the most common scenario but numbers higher and lower had also been recorded in others. He was the first to tell me how the speed of the drop was the most common cause of the symptoms. My GGT went over 200, and fell to 40 (4th hour with a slight rise the 5th hour). Today, I can feel a fast movement, too, even when not as severe a swing, whether up or down. My meter is the only way I can tell whether I have gone up or down. A slow rise/drop is not as distinguishable, and with this steroid, my go up and down all the time, though we're sure hoping the Symlin will work on those spikes. Now that the lithotrypsies are done, and things calm down a bit, all things together will bring me some control. I enjoy your bits about your children; understand having a challenged child during the *older* years, too. It gets tough sometimes, but with the right mind-set, it *is* doable, and enjoyable! Wouldn't trade my 16 y/o for all the tea in China! Her *specialness* changed my life completely!! Signaturebh-wages at swbell.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ : The first endo I saw in 1978 actually saw one of my : "episodes" during the GTT. He'd never seen one so severe ;) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] : been recorded in others. He was the first to tell me how the : speed of the drop was the most common cause of the symptoms. > My GGT went over 200, and fell to 40 (4th hour with a slight rise the > 5th hour). My first GTT went to high normal by the 30 minute mark and plummetted within minutes after that. I felt the plummet big time, the endo saw the results of my fast drop, I was a quivering mess and couldn't stand. But it wasn't until the 45th minute that they measured and it was only low normal. There was a test at an hour where I was the same as at the 45th minute, then I was tested every half hour until 8 hours. There was a point in that first couple of hours where my bg's rose to midpoint normal where it pretty well stayed. That is why I originally ate half hourly for a while. Eventually it got to two hourly but no further. Before I was diagnosed I was finding that I ate cereal for breakfast and half an hour later, on the floor. Seems like way back then I still had a fairly good phase i insulin response. > You're talking now, versus 1983. MDs are much more informed now. > > I had BGs over 200, but the MDs dismissed it because I wasn't > overweight. Oh, please, I did experience the crashes very violently and > very often throughout the day. In such an unenlightened world, how on earth did you know your 1983 crashes were from 200's to 40's? How could you have had a husband who is a type 1 and not test yourself in the so called modern times with his meter and self diagnose yourself? Even in the boonies of Oz where we once used to get things years behind the US we had bg meters for home use in at least 1986 when my FIL got diagnosed type 2. The US has had them sionce around 1980. I then bought myself one soon after because I had GD in 1978 and knew from what the endo back then said about RH and GD being pre cursors that I would need to keep tabs on it. I had my second and third GD pregnancies in 1989 and 1990, the 4th and 5th in 1994 and 1995. I had excellent care for all and had follow testing for diabetes after every birth about 6-12 weeks later. With your nursing background I am just amazed at how you didn't know for so many years that you had diabetes. My ex got diagnosed in 1997, I made an appt for him on a Monday after a weekend of sleeping and peeing. He tested on my meter regularly, he became diabetic rather quickly, but he had had 3 severe shocks within 6 weeks of each other. The endo said that could have brought on diabetes earlier than what was inevitable given his family history. 1983 was not behind the times, even here. In 1971 when I had my first child another mum had a huge baby, they tested her for diabetes and she was positive. Which backward country did you say you come from again? A public hospital where we were seen mostly by nurses and doctors in training. I knew there was something wrong, but in > 1983, only my ophthomologist who diagnosed me with retinopathy knew > there was really something wrong. He sent me for BG testing, which was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > me on insulin. Do you NOT think that I felt crummy for many years prior > to that diagnosis? I cannot believe that between 1983 and 1996 you couldn't get a diagnosis or that you didn't twig enough to do your own bg testing on Dave's meter or one at work. Or how you couldn't convince a doctor colleague to test you thoroughly. None of what you have said in this and your other post about the RH from 200 to 40 or lack of diabetes diagnosis makes any sense at all. > Your endo gave you such credences because at this time in history, MDs > recognize RH. At my time of distress, only those, like myself, who did > research on their own (no internet), knew that the problem was with an > intolerance to glucose. And no one listened to me. It was more than > frustrating. Stop criticizing me. You just have no clue how it was > many years ago. Mary, I had my first GTT in 1978, the endo I saw at the teaching hospital was a professor of endocrinology. What part of that many years ago don't I have a clue about? Before the GTT he said it sounded like I had reactive hypoglycemia. He told me it was a pre cursor to diabetes. RH was recognisable, just not always believed by some doctors, now you are doing to LQ what doctors supposedly did to you. Are you sure you are the one who knows more than their MD's about diabetes? I seem to recall that people who know more than their MD's get jumped on here. Oh wait, the last person who got jumped on for knowing more than her MD was jumped on by your good hubby. I guess he won't jump on you though. Different rules... P.S. 1983 wasn't the dark ages. You are not trying to convince a 20 year old here. Until recent changes in diagnostic criteria, the criteria was based on recommendations from 1979. Strange that. Hello--I didn't say I was documenting crashes in 1983. That's when I first had retinopathy and high post-prandial tests (at a lab). Yes, glucose meters have been out for years, but it wasn't until the 1990s that I found out that I could purchase a meter, and that's when I began seeing these drops for myself. It doesn't make any sense because I didn't have a husband who was T1 at that time, I wasn't a nurse at that time. Wow, you know my entire life's story, don't you? Like I told Julie, be thankful your doctors were good, and "believed" in RH. I had to figure it out for myself, but by then it was too late. I'm tired of you guys picking me apart. The only thing I tell LQ is to stop worrying. Being in a constant state of alarm could give her adrenalin rushes, shakes, etc. Maybe not, but worrying about 90-120 is not going to be healthful. >>You're talking now, versus 1983. MDs are much more > [quoted text clipped - 119 lines] > diagnostic criteria, the criteria was based on > recommendations from 1979. Strange that. > In such an unenlightened world, how on earth did you know > your 1983 crashes were from 200's to 40's? How could you [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > diagnostic criteria, the criteria was based on > recommendations from 1979. Strange that. Mary and I weren't together when she had RH. Blame her doctors for failing to make the dx. Blame yourself for being a knowitall who presumes much too much, too often. Dave > Mary and I weren't together when she had RH. > Blame her doctors for failing to make the dx. Strange to go for 13 years with high blood sugar and then get a type 1 diagnosis. Long honeymoon. Strange that for someone who knows more about diabetes than the MD's she works with, she couldn't guess she had diabetes? So presumably if you go by all Mary's words, she didn't meet you til after she was able to buy a meter sometime in the 1990's, a time that she then found out she was going super high then super low. She also appears to have become a nurse late in life. I wonder what definitive tests she had for her type 1 diagnosis. I wonder how a nurse can't have even half a clue about diabetes diagnosis for many many years. Surely nurses in training learn at least a small amount about diabetes. Mary's stories are all over the place, one minute she mentions RH crashes in 1983 in the same breath as measuring 200. Next she says the 200's were appearing once she realised, as a nurse, that lo and behold there is such a thing as home glucose meters. As a person who knows more about diabetes than her MD colleagues, surely the topic of "do you test at home" comes up occasionally with patients? And finally, you once mentioned that you were a type 1 on a pump and Mary was a type 2 on a pump. I wish the stories from the pair of you would remain consistent and at least half believable. >>Mary and I weren't together when she had RH. >>Blame her doctors for failing to make the dx. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > from the pair of you would remain consistent and at least > half believable. IF you were any more clueless than you appear to be from your posts in this thread, I doubt your ability to function as useful member of society. I won't even dignify your nonsense with any sort of meaningful response, as it would lost in that empty space behind your eyes. Dave Ozgirl, you just don't have a clue. Why do you spend so much time trying to make a fool of me? What is your motive? Me thinks you shame yourself. I am done with you and this thread. You don't have the ability to listen, so forget it. LQ can listen to your advice exclusively. I'm sure you're really worth it. >>Mary and I weren't together when she had RH. >>Blame her doctors for failing to make the dx. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > from the pair of you would remain consistent and at least > half believable. > Ozgirl, you just don't have a clue. Why do you spend so much time > trying to make a fool of me? What is your motive? Me thinks you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > listen, so forget it. LQ can listen to your advice exclusively. I'm > sure you're really worth it. Mary, you told LQ she was normal, and that she just wanted something to be wrong with her. I suppose in a sick Mary kind of way, debilitating hypo symptoms are normal. You are the one who should have a clue and you don't. You have poo hooed everything she has said or I have said. You posted a rambling disconnected post about your experiences, your doctors who didn't even know what diabetic criteria was, you are a nurse and never realised home meters were available for more than 10 years after they were on the market. And through all this you expect people to take you seriously as a nurse? Not to mention agreeing with Dave that he was telling the truth about LQ being a hypochondriac. You have a sick sense of what constitutes support. It is good that you are done with that thread, because someone suffering like LQ is does not need your brand of support, misinformation and downright total lack of basic medical knowledge. It's not the first time that you have been guilty of posting totally wrong medical information. Your answers twist and turn like the wind. I can't stop you making a fool of yourself and no one causes a person to look like a fool unless the evidence is already there and you repeatedly show your lack of knowledge - I am not responsible for that. If you weren't supposedly a trained medical person it wouldn't be half that bad, Dave puts his foot in it equally, but somehow we expect more from the medical fraternity. And I have no motives or agendas but I really like to see the truth and I like to see support. I have been in this group a long time and I know what good support can do. I have also seen the results of lousy support. >I DID EXPERIENCE VERY QUICK CRASHES (over 200 to 40 in 20-30min). I clocked a 160 --> 103 in 7 minutes a half hour after a can of Progresso soup. Mine can drop 20-30 pts in 5 or 10 minutes and I have the meter logs to show for it, including repeat tests a few minutes apart. I think you may have missed the part where I have a hypersensitivity to epinephrine. Even the low-epi novocaine at the dentist makes me shake. Same for my mother, and we've both had it for years. So what may not make you shake may make me shake, not everyone is the same. LQ So why are you talking about 120 to 90? If it was accurate, 160 to 103 in 7 minutes is quite a drop. Yes, you could certainly feel that. Have you had a GTT? >>I DID EXPERIENCE VERY QUICK CRASHES (over 200 to 40 in 20-30min). > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > LQ Because I've been eating to keep the spikes as low as possible but I'm still shaking. Did you think that after getting that kind of spike/drop off a can of soup I'd still be eating like that? Turns out I can feel a 120 -> 90 drop if it drops fast enough, and it does (5 or 10 minutes usually). I feel far better if I can keep the bgs dead flat but I'm finding that very difficult. It may not even be possible but at the times I've done it (no more than 10 pts movement) I feel almost human again. I have not yet had a GTT, my GP says I don't need one as my fastings are marginally ok (104 post liver dump in the AM, mid 90s if I manage the snack situation before bed well enough). He's deemed me RH on the basis of my meter readings. LQ > Because I've been eating to keep the spikes as low as possible but I'm > still shaking. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > LQ You'll never be able to keep your bg's "dead flat". dave :: LizardQueen wrote: :: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] ::: :: You'll never be able to keep your bg's "dead flat". Yes, they won't ever be dead flat. However, the rate in which they change is what can be improved upon (to avoid RH). > :: LizardQueen wrote: > :: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Yes, they won't ever be dead flat. However, the rate in which they change is > what can be improved upon (to avoid RH). of course, by maintaining proper eating habits that minimizes the RH. dave >> Because I've been eating to keep the spikes as low as possible but >> I'm still shaking. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> > You'll never be able to keep your bg's "dead flat". Depends on what you define dead flat. Mine go like 5.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, that's what I call flat. I do this every day of my life unless I change something. It is possible to remain almost static if you have an understanding of what cause insulin release, bg rises, blah blah. >>I DID EXPERIENCE VERY QUICK CRASHES (over 200 to 40 in 20-30min). > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > LQ Now THAT'S RH. You could have mentioned that at the beginning of this thread instead of carrying on about tiny variations in bg's. dave > Now THAT'S RH. You could have mentioned that at the beginning of this > thread instead of carrying on about tiny variations in bg's. > > dave This is not the first thread where LQ has been discussing her RH, as the first post in this thread indicates. You may buy a clue though. If you had been reading prior posts, and fully comprehending this thread you wouldn't have needed to go off half-cocked and the other half of the Bobbsy twins wouldn't have needed to argue that "you were just telling the truth" rather than being the insensitive blow-hard you really are. Both you and Mary have been incredibly insensitive in this thread. You both keep forgetting this is a "support" group, not a place for the dynamic duo to take pot shots at people who need help. >>Now THAT'S RH. You could have mentioned that at the > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > not a place for the dynamic duo to take pot shots at people > who need help. If the OP says one thing in one breath and another in the next breath, it's no wonder she's "misunderstood". I still think there's some hypochondria in her... <g> Dave Dave has never said that I'm a T2 on a pump. You sure get mixed up on things. >>Now THAT'S RH. You could have mentioned that at the > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > not a place for the dynamic duo to take pot shots at people > who need help. So is that why you take pot shots at me for no reason? How have I been unsupportive? I've only questioned LQs drop from 120 to 90 as being significant. I don't spend hours looking at past threads that she's participated in. When she mentioned a 7 minute drop from 160 to 103, I told her that indeed this is a drop that IS significant. I am supportive at appropriate times. I'm not here to demean anyone. But if I had a concern, I'm sure you would argue with me instead of support me. You spend a lot of time trying to demean me in the eyes of those you think may be watching. I'm not worried--people can see through your vain attempt. >>Now THAT'S RH. You could have mentioned that at the > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > not a place for the dynamic duo to take pot shots at people > who need help. > So is that why you take pot shots at me for no reason? How have I > been unsupportive? I've only questioned LQs drop from 120 to 90 as > being significant. I don't spend hours looking at past threads that > she's participated in. When she mentioned a 7 minute drop from 160 > to 103, I told her that indeed this is a drop that IS significant. I > am supportive at appropriate times. Once again, it is the speed of the drop with RH. And why can't you understand that there are people who feel the fast drop from 120-90? It happens. It may look insignificant but how it looks isn't important to an observer, it's how it feels to the person it is happening too. The symptoms come from the drop not the actual resultant bg. You can't have everyone neatly packed away in pigeonholes. <snip> > Geez, you get worse and worse. You really don't have a clue > about this Mary. At my very worst I didn't go very high at > all, still within normal range and I didn't drop to a > theoretical low either. It's the speed of the drop Mary, not > the size. Maybe a bit off topic, but since it is diabetic related... I notice quick changes in my BG as well. It isn't the average value but the large (and I think quick) change around that value. For example: Changing from 250 to 200 feels the same as 120 to 95. I get a kind of "dizzy" feeling. It isn't really dizzy, but a momentary "wave" in my head. If I am running 90-100 BG's for a few days and then drop to 75 or 80, I can feel it. I can't tell if the BG is going up or down, just that it has had a significant change. Does anyone else experience this? -Sax > <snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Does anyone else experience this? > -Sax I feel changes in mine all the time. Usually it is going down fast, when I feel it, but do also feel it when it is going up. When it goes down fast I feel like crap the rest of the day. SignatureSuzi A1c 6.4 T2 DX 10/2002 Glucophage 2 x 1000mg Lipitor 20mg (3 days a week), Enalapril 20mg 30 minutes walks 7 days a week <snip> > I feel changes in mine all the time. Usually it is going down > fast, when I feel it, but do also feel it when it is going up. > When it goes down fast I feel like crap the rest of the day. I can't say that I feel bad, just that I feel it. When going down I seem to always feel it... going up seems more masked. -Sax > > Going between 90 and 120 doesn't constitute RH. Try going > between 180 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > theoretical low either. It's the speed of the drop Mary, not > the size. Agreed! I passed out at the hospital when I was in there for a threatened miscarriage. I'd been in there for so many hours, I didn't get breakfast or lunch. When they found me on the floor, they tried to give me oxygen. It was food I needed. But they tested my BG and said I was not low. Back then I didn't know enough to ask what the numbers were. SignatureSee my webpage: http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm > Things are not going well here, I'm still shaking. <snip> > Could this be the beginning of late-onset T1? > LQ First, try to relax. Stress isn't going to help your numbers. From your post I see you ate the following: tbsp of almond butter on a half a wasa cracker 3 almonds and a stick of string cheese Ate 2 eggs and a pile of steamed kale And you did the following: losing 30 lbs and exercising like a beast You seem to claim that you are not a diabetic at all. 120 is normal as far as I know. Personally, if I ate a cracker, a peanut shell, and a handfull of grass I would have an unhappy system too. I would definitely go to the nutritionist. Did you drink nothing?? If I ate what you ate and drank a beverage with caffein, I would shake too. Or, if you stopped drinking caffinated beverages, withdrawl for 1-2 weeks would be what I experience. Going to the endo isn't going to hurt you but I would imagine that your doctor can ask for tests and get results as well. -Sax >Personally, if I ate a cracker, a peanut shell, and a handfull of grass I would have an unhappy system too. I got a chuckle out of this, thanks. The doc thinks that I'm not diabetic but that I have functional reactive hypoglycemia, that I've proven with the meter (eat carbs, go way up, crash back down). I've been trying to work with diet changes to stop the bad feelings but am not having much luck, and now the really good numbers I had at the beginning of this aren't as good anymore, for identical meals. And the higher they go, the harder they crash and the more shakes I get (I've ended up cutting down on what I eat too and eating more frequently to try and minimize them). I've pretty much cut out most carbs but the more I cut out the less I seem to be able to tolerate which I don't understand. Ive been off caffeine since this started (almost 2 months ago), all I drank today was water. I'm actually pretty relaxed between shaking episodes, it's such a relief when it's not happening. Unfortunately there seems to be some sort of "hangover" from the shakes that last for 6 hours or so, so if I'm a mess at 4 AM I'll feel like crap until 10 or so. I read somewhere that the hormones from an adrenal incident last for about this same period so it all fits. LQ : >Personally, if I ate a cracker, a peanut shell, and a handfull : of grass I would have an unhappy system too. : I got a chuckle out of this, thanks. : The doc thinks that I'm not diabetic but that I have functional : reactive hypoglycemia, that I've proven with the meter (eat carbs, go : way up, crash back down). : I've been trying to work with diet changes to stop the bad feelings but : am not having much luck, and now the really good numbers I had at the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : I've pretty much cut out most carbs but the more I cut out the less I : seem to be able to tolerate which I don't understand. : Ive been off caffeine since this started (almost 2 months ago), all I : drank today was water. : I'm actually pretty relaxed between shaking episodes, it's such a : relief when it's not happening. Unfortunately there seems to be some : sort of "hangover" from the shakes that last for 6 hours or so, so if : I'm a mess at 4 AM I'll feel like crap until 10 or so. I read somewhere : that the hormones from an adrenal incident last for about this same : period so it all fits. : LQ Are yu a vegetrian? I don't see any meat in your diet. I know that my hypogycemic cousin ussed to eat meals with meat and vegetables and ate snacks of cheese frequently. It seemed to help keep his hypos froms developing rofrom being severe. I am no expert on yur condition, but I do know that frequent eatign of low or no carb fatty or protein snacks worked for several people I know. Hope his helps, Wendy >Are yu a vegetrian? Nope, not vegetarian (thank god, there wouldnt' be anything left to eat :lol:). I'm down to eggs, meat, some nuts, and vegetables. Some cheese too. What your cousin is doing sounds like what I've been trying, but I've been less successful at it than I hoped. Too many carbs and I get the reactive hypos, not enough and my liver seems to dump. I think I need to get better at eating before the mess starts. My hunger signals are all screwed up and sometimes I find myself heading for a shaking episode without much warning, and it seems harder to get out of it than to keep from ending up in it in the first place. LQ : >Are yu a vegetrian? : Nope, not vegetarian (thank god, there wouldnt' be anything left to eat : :lol:). : I'm down to eggs, meat, some nuts, and vegetables. Some cheese too. : What your cousin is doing sounds like what I've been trying, but I've : been less successful at it than I hoped. Too many carbs and I get the : reactive hypos, not enough and my liver seems to dump. : I think I need to get better at eating before the mess starts. My : hunger signals are all screwed up and sometimes I find myself heading : for a shaking episode without much warning, and it seems harder to get : out of it than to keep from ending up in it in the first place. : LQ Maybe you should try a set scehdule of a small protein rich snack every-say,2 hours during the day and try a longer time at night, just to,hopefully, get a bit more sleep. Loss of sleep can contribute to the shakes too. This is advice like a Mother, not a doctor:-) I hope you son find something that works for you, ad do see the endo, who shudl be able to find out more and advise you. Wendy "LizardQueen" <GreenRaven@att.net> wrote in message > I've pretty much cut out most carbs but the more I cut out the less I > seem to be able to tolerate which I don't understand. You don't need to cut out most carbs at this point, just learn how to have the right amount and the right spacing between those carbs. >You seem to claim that you are not a diabetic at all. 120 is normal as far >as I know. Personally, if I ate a cracker, a peanut shell, and a handfull [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >doctor can ask for tests and get results as well. >-Sax Actually, Sax, 120 may not be normal... In most of Europe, anything over 100 for FBG is considered diabetic. In the U.S., it is considered "a little high" and hyperglycemic... I think LQ probably does have a real problem that she obviously needs to address, sooner rather than later. She does feel absolutely horrible, and that is the first sign that something may be seriously wrong. True, it could be some other endocrine problem, but she needs a full workup to find that out. Will, T2 >>You seem to claim that you are not a diabetic at all. 120 is normal as >>far [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Will, T2 I think he was measuring after eating meals, I might be mistaken. I though the problem was the BG after eating the same meal today as a while ago. FBG "normal" here was 65-109 on tests from a few years ago and now I see they use 70-100. So, no different here as far as I can see. I think when you hear 60-16 or 70-140 they are generally referring to non fasting numbers. That is what I have seen so far. -Sax |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message