 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / July 2006what is the real range of numbers for the FBG?
Hi all, I got my first FBG result this moirning with my new meter. The result was 116 mg/dl. So whether I am or not, I guess it's close. The alt.support.diabetes site says it's 110. Quentin told me it's 127. And then I read in another book that the numbers at which one becomes diabetic is an individual thing. Holy cow, how am I supposed to know? The ADA says pre-diabetes is between 100 and 126, for the FBG or FBS, so I think I'll go with that. Ok, pre-diabetic it is. I don't know about alt.support.diabetes, but I have seen other alt.support.whatever sites with less than correct info, on other topics. Quentin looks to be pretty much right on. So I guess this is the phase where the hypoglycemia comes into it. Anyway, after all the testing I do today, I'll be repeating it Sat. or Sunday. thanks, Tracy kohlrabi_croce wrote in message <1151681423.894229.21640@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>... >Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Tracy If you are asking about non-diabetic FbG, they are usually below 100. This NEJM article cited below suggests that 87 is a dividing line which marks increased risk of progression to full-blown T2 diabetes. In the sample of nominally "non-diabetic" healthy young men discussed below, 20% had FbG below 81; 40% had FbG below 86; 60% had FbG below 90; 80% had FbG below 94 and 100% were below 99. In any case, bG at 2 hours after eating often is a more sensitive test, i.e. in one study** , 33% of folks with normal FbG met T2 diagnosis criteria based on after-eating-bG (**see: http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3597 ) http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/353/14/1454 "New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 353:1454-1462 October 6, 2005 Number 14 Normal Fasting Plasma Glucose Levels and Type 2 Diabetes in Young Men ". . . The normal fasting plasma glucose level was recently defined as less than 100 mg per deciliter (5.55 mmol per liter). Whether higher fasting plasma glucose levels within this range independently predict type 2 diabetes in young adults is unclear. Methods We obtained blood measurements, data from physical examinations, and medical and lifestyle information from men in the Israel Defense Forces who were 26 to 45 years of age. . . . . . .. A multivariate model, adjusted for age, family history of diabetes, body-mass index, physical-activity level, smoking status, and serum triglyceride levels, revealed a progressively increased risk of type 2 diabetes in men with fasting plasma glucose levels of 87 mg per deciliter (4.83 mmol per liter) or more, as compared with those whose levels were in the bottom quintile (less than 81 mg per deciliter [4.5 mmol per liter], P for trend <0.001). . .." Regards Old Al Well, I already figured I wasn't in the normal range. I was wondering about the numbers for "pre-diabetic" vs. diabetic. > Well, I already figured I wasn't in the normal range. > I was wondering about the numbers for "pre-diabetic" > vs. diabetic. It's like being a little bit pregnant : ( Nicky.  SignatureA1c 10.5/5.4/<6 T2 DX 05/2004 1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine 95/73/72Kg > > Well, I already figured I wasn't in the normal range. > > I was wondering about the numbers for "pre-diabetic" > > vs. diabetic. > > It's like being a little bit pregnant : ( It is, but only a little. :) What I mean is, there is a distinctly bimodal distribution as to pregnancy in the population, whereas I do not know of bimodality in FBG or other indicators, though there may be one. Doug > What I mean is, there is a distinctly bimodal distribution as to > pregnancy in the population, whereas I do not know of bimodality in FBG > or other indicators, though there may be one. Would you settle for a nice straight line function instead? <G> Look at how heart attack risk rises as A1c rises from the truly normal 4.7 p through the so-called normal range. The latest data suggests that for every 1% rise in the A1c (i.e. from 4.7% to 5.7%) heart attack risk is two and a half times greater. "Diabetic" neuropathy and retinopathy both become more frequent in the so-called "pre-diabetic" range too. It is little comfort to someone who dies of a blood-sugar related heart attack that they weren't "diabetic" when they died. Ditto those who start going blind at pre-diabetic numbers. Also, it's important to note that there isn't a clear relationship between fasting blood sugar and post-meal blood sugar. The study I cited in another message today, the Meigs' study of the pattern of diabetes onset using the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging data makes it clear that the pattern of diabetic deterioration which starts with elevated fasting blood sugar appears to be a different syndrome from the form of diabetes that starts with elevated post-prandial blood sugars. In both cases people become fully diabetic, but in a large population of normal people followed for 10 years more developed the elevated post-prandial numbers before deteriorated fasting numbers on their way to diabetes. This suggests that if you are trying to prevent diabetes and its complications, you'd do better to check the normalcy of post-prandial blood sugars IF you have normal fasting values as you may be well on the way to diabetes with those non-diabetic fasting values. http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/52/6/1475 The Natural History of Progression From Normal Glucose Tolerance to Type 2 Diabetes in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging James B. Meigs, Denis C. Muller, David M. Nathan, Deirdre R. Blake, and Reubin Andres --Jenny http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes Diabetes Info http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/newlydiagnosed.htm Get Your Blood Sugar Under Control > > What I mean is, there is a distinctly bimodal distribution as to > > pregnancy in the population, whereas I do not know of bimodality in FBG > > or other indicators, though there may be one. > > > Would you settle for a nice straight line function instead? <G> Yes. As given. > This suggests that if you are trying to prevent diabetes and its > complications, you'd do better to check the normalcy of post-prandial > blood sugars IF you have normal fasting values as you may be well on the > way to diabetes with those non-diabetic fasting values. I had thought post-prandial sugar was a gross approximation to what I thought was the "gold standard", the glucose tolerance test. Now I think I see that a post-prandial sugar is an exact measurement of what happens after you eat your chosen meal. The number is affected by two things; what you choose to eat, and how you respond to your choice. Is that a good understanding? You can control your post-prandial sugar in the short term with menu choice, and in the long term with that choice, exercise, and medication. Right? Doug > I had thought post-prandial sugar was a gross approximation to what I > thought was the "gold standard", the glucose tolerance test. Now I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > control your post-prandial sugar in the short term with menu choice, > and in the long term with that choice, exercise, and medication. Right? Yes! The GTT standard was set arbitrarily and quite high. The AACE (American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists) guidelines are that people with diabetes should keep their blood sugars under 140 mg/dl. I've seen that described as "at two hours" in one publication, but just "under 140 mg/dl" without the qualifier someone else in their materials. Yet another place I've seen them say that normal is under 120 but that 140 is a reasonable target for people with diabetes. If you would prefer to have normal blood sugars, shoot for under 120. The problem with high blood sugars is that some organs, notably the retinas and the nerves take in glucose when the concentration of glucose in the blood raises. They don NOT need insulin to take in glucose. Once in the cell, too much glucose causes problems. This is why retinopathy and neuropathy (nerve damage) are found in people with "pre-diabetic" blood sugar levels. Not as often as in those with "diabetic" levels, but enough to make you think it might be a good idea to go for much better control than doctors currently advise. Signature--Jenny http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes Diabetes Info http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/newlydiagnosed.htm Get Your Blood Sugar Under Control >> > Well, I already figured I wasn't in the normal range. >> > I was wondering about the numbers for "pre-diabetic" >> > vs. diabetic. >> >> It's like being a little bit pregnant : ( > It is, but only a little. :) > What I mean is, there is a distinctly bimodal distribution as to > pregnancy in the population, whereas I do not know of bimodality in FBG > or other indicators, though there may be one. <pedant> The distribution of pregnancy over the population is unimodal: it has *one* hump, over the female part of the population. </pedant> 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/] > <pedant> The distribution of pregnancy over the population is > unimodal: it has *one* hump, over the female part of the > population. </pedant> Coffee on screen again, mutter : ) Nicky. SignatureA1c 10.5/5.4/<6 T2 DX 05/2004 1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine 95/73/72Kg > Well, I already figured I wasn't in the normal range. > I was wondering about the numbers for "pre-diabetic" > vs. diabetic. It doesn't really matter, because the treatment in each case is the same. You're sliding down the slippery lope. You may or may not yet have slid past the flag stuck in the ground which says "diabetes starts here", but the point is at least to slow down the slide, hopefully to stop it. The first thing to try is reducing your consumption of the things that give you the largest post-meal or post-snack BG spikes. The finger of suspicion first points to the concentratedly sugary and starchy things like cakes, bread, sugary drinks, potatoes, pasta, pastry, rice. Your BG meter will tell you what give you personally the largest rises in BG. Don't panic. This has been going on for a long time, and while dangerous in the long term it's no sudden killer. You've got plenty of time to learn how to put the brakes on, and every small step is good progress. Unfortunately there's no single treatment recipe, because we're all different, and at different stages. But as you find out more about your BG behaviour there are folk here who can give good advice and point you to good sources of information for whatever flavour of diabetes or pre-diabetes you may turn out to have. 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/] > Well, I already figured I wasn't in the normal range. > I was wondering about the numbers for "pre-diabetic" > vs. diabetic. Before people develop type 2 diabetes, they almost always have "pre-diabetes" -- blood glucose levels that are higher than normal but not yet high enough to be diagnosed as diabetes. There are 41 million people in the United States, ages 40 to 74, who have pre-diabetes. Recent research has shown that some long-term damage to the body, especially the heart and circulatory system, may already be occurring during pre-diabetes. Research has also shown that if you take action to manage your blood glucose when you have pre-diabetes, you can delay or prevent type 2 diabetes from ever developing. Together with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the American Diabetes Association published a Position Statement on "The Prevention or Delay of Type 2 Diabetes" to help guide health care professionals in treating their patients with pre-diabetes. There is a lot you can do yourself to know your risks for pre-diabetes and to take action to prevent diabetes if you have, or are at risk for, pre-diabetes. The American Diabetes Association has a wealth of resources for people with diabetes. People with pre-diabetes can expect to benefit from much of the same advice for good nutrition and physical activity. The links on this page are cornerstones of successful management of pre-diabetes. much more here. http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-prevention/pre-diabetes.jsp if Bob the moderator is the best the ADA is willing to give those diabetics that end up on their message board... it is an insult to all diabetics. how about letting a real doctor defend your beliefs instead of spammers selling books. Tom > kohlrabi_croce wrote in message > <1151681423.894229.21640@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > > >I don't know about alt.support.diabetes, but I have seen -> >other alt.support.whatever sites with less than correct info, > >on other topics. Quentin looks to be pretty much right on. > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > i.e. in one study** , 33% of folks with normal FbG met T2 diagnosis > criteria based on after-eating-bG There's an interesting article in June issue of Diabetes Care about pre-diabetes (based on FBG), comparing those who have FBG 100-109 to those whose FBG is 110-125. They found a much higher risk of IGT and diabetes for those with FBG between 110-125. "RESULTS--Clinical demographics were similar in 95 subjects with IFG100 compared with 41 subjects with IFG110, respectively: age 50 vs. 51 years, BMI 32.2 vs. 33.8 kg/[m.sup.2], female 44 vs. 46%, and black 36 vs. 41% (all P = NS). Relative to NGT, IFG100 and IFG110 were associated with ("conferred") significant (Fig. 1) but comparable risk of the metabolic syndrome by International Diabetes Federation criteria (odds ratio ([OR] 7.10 [95% CI 4.39-11.46] vs. 10.33 [4.87-21.88]), but IFG110 conferred greater risk by NCEP criteria (5.86 [3.66-9.37] for IFG100 vs. 17.25 [7.58-39.14] for IFG110; P = 0.025). There were also only minor differences in risk for elevated C-reactive protein (1.27 [0.76-2.121 vs. 1.54 [0.77-3.09]) and alanine amino-transferase (4.03 [2.55-6.38] vs. 2.87 [1.52-5.41]). However, only IFG110 increased the risk for high urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (0.59 [0.32-1.08] for IFG100 vs. 2.05 [1.05-4.02] for IFG 110) and LDL cholesterol >130 mg/dl (0.99 [0.61-1.58] vs. 2.42 [1.28-4.56]) (both P < 0.03 for IFG100 vs. IFG110). In contrast, there was a more dramatic difference in risk of postchallenge glucose intolerance (IGT or diabetes). The risk conferred by IFG100 was 2.53 (1.554.13), while the risk for IFG110 was 11.54 (5.78-23.02) (P = 0.0004). In multivariable analyses adjusting for age, race, sex, and BMI, the risk of glucose intolerance was OR 3.22 (95% CI 1.845.66) for IFG100 vs. 13.14 (6.12-28.23) for IFG110 (P = 0.001). " Extract of article; you can't see the whole thing unless you subscribe: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/extract/29/6/1405 -kincherk This post not CC'd by email On 30 Jun 2006 08:30:23 -0700, "kohlrabi_croce" >Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The alt.support.diabetes site says it's 110. >Quentin told me it's 127. G'day G'day Tracy aka kohlrabi_croce Most of the problems in the world are caused by "it" Have you ever noticed that? People remember numbers but forget what they apply to. 127 mg/dL = 7 mmol/L is the figure used for an official diagnosis of diabetes. I think I need a good strong coffee to figure out which "it" we are tackling today. Personally I think it is desirable to be aiming at a figure of 100 mg/dL = 5.5 mmol/L as a fasting blood glucose. Some people suggest a lower figure is safer. > And then I read in another book that the numbers at which one >becomes diabetic is an individual thing. >Holy cow, how am I supposed to know? The official numbers are 127 mg/dL = 7 mmol/L fasting. Official numbers though are funny things. They satisfy insurance companies for instance because the diabetic condition is considered irreversible at that level and that is vitally important to insurance companies. The time to do something about the diabetic progression is obviously before this stage. >The ADA says pre-diabetes is between 100 and 126, >for the FBG or FBS, so I think I'll go with that. Ok, >pre-diabetic it is. That seems likely to me. >I don't know about alt.support.diabetes, but I have seen >other alt.support.whatever sites with less than correct info, >on other topics. Quentin looks to be pretty much right on. Thanks. One of the virtues of asd is that it is an open forum and when I make a mistake someone corrects it very promptly. >So I guess this is the phase where the hypoglycemia comes >into it. Tracy, you appear to be getting a good handle on it. Hypoglycemia is far less common amongst T2 diabetics who are not on insulin or insulin inducing oral meds than amongst T1s or those prediabetics who go through a reactive hypoglycemia phase. >Anyway, after all the testing I do today, I'll be repeating >it Sat. or Sunday. > >thanks, > >Tracy Tracy, I'm delighted you are doing something about your condition while you are most likely in a reversible state. Bet many people wish they had. Best wishes, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin . > G'day G'day Tracy aka kohlrabi_croce HI Quentin :) > Most of the problems in the world are caused by "it" > Have you ever noticed that? People remember numbers but forget what > they apply to. 127 mg/dL = 7 mmol/L is the figure used for an official > diagnosis of diabetes. I think I need a good strong coffee to figure > out which "it" we are tackling today. Ah, sorry, I meant the level of mg/dL in the FBG that gives the diabetes diagnisis. > >The ADA says pre-diabetes is between 100 and 126, > >for the FBG or FBS, so I think I'll go with that. Ok, > >pre-diabetic it is. > > That seems likely to me. I'm glad to know...and it does coincide with the symtpms I'm noticing. > Tracy, you appear to be getting a good handle on it. Hypoglycemia is > far less common amongst T2 diabetics who are not on insulin or insulin > inducing oral meds than amongst T1s or those prediabetics who go > through a reactive hypoglycemia phase. Good to know. You're right, it takes a while to get all this stuff straight. > Tracy, I'm delighted you are doing something about your condition > while you are most likely in a reversible state. Bet many people wish > they had. Thank you, that's kind of you :). How about a broccoli stick toast? ( I mean the kind where you say stuff like: Salud!) Tracy > The ADA says pre-diabetes is between 100 and 126, > for the FBG or FBS, so I think I'll go with that. Ok, > pre-diabetic it is. The ADA's number was chosen arbitrarily by a group of "experts" who admitted that their goal was to keep people from being diagnosed as diabetic until they were close to the level where they had to start worrying about going blind. This is all documented on my web page at Misdiagnosis by Design http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14046782.php Somewhere on my pages you'll also find a discussion of how blood sugar deteriorates where you'll see a study that found that the fasting blood sugar stays mildly impaired sometimes for years and then suddenly starts to deteriorate very swiftly, and when that happens, the post meal control deteriorates very swiftly too. in short, you've burnt out your last reserve of beta cells by the time your fasting blood sugar starts to approach 120 mg/dl. So the smart thing to do is to stop that destructive process before the fasting is so bad that you are killing beta cells both fasting and post-prandially. The low 80s does look like true normal. The ADA numbers as you'll find out if you read that page above have no bearing on the blood sugar of European populations which are diabetic at lower fasting levels. --Jenny http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes Diabetes Info http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/newlydiagnosed.htm Get Your Blood Sugar Under Control > > The ADA says pre-diabetes is between 100 and 126, > > for the FBG or FBS, so I think I'll go with that. Ok, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Misdiagnosis by Design > http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14046782.php yes, I looked at that....hmm. You said something on there about "the commitee gets rid of pre-diabetes." It doesn't look to me like they are trying to keep people with pre-diabetes from doing something about it: http://www.diabetes.org/pre-diabetes/faq.jsp And I quote: Q: Why do I need to know if I have pre-diabetes? A: If you have pre-diabetes, you can and should do something about it. Studies have shown that people with pre-diabetes can prevent or delay the development of type 2 diabetes by up to 58 percent through changes to their lifestyle that include modest weight loss and regular exercise. The expert panel recommends that people with pre-diabetes reduce their weight by 5-10 percent and participate in some type of modest physical activity for 30 minutes daily. For some people with pre-diabetes, intervening early can actually turn back the clock and return elevated blood glucose levels to the normal range. > Somewhere on my pages you'll also find a discussion of how blood sugar > deteriorates where you'll see a study that found that the fasting blood [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > fasting is so bad that you are killing beta cells both fasting and > post-prandially. yes, I hope to try. Tracy > > > The ADA says pre-diabetes is between 100 and 126, > > > for the FBG or FBS, so I think I'll go with that. Ok, [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Tracy Thanks for posting the ADA cite, Tracy. You will find that many in here, Jenny being one of the main haters, will discredit the ADA and misrepresent them at every turn. But there are a few of us in here who realize the important work they are doing. Best of health to you. Kurt > Thanks for posting the ADA cite, Tracy. You will find that many in > here, Jenny being one of the main haters, will discredit the ADA and > misrepresent them at every turn. But there are a few of us in here who > realize the important work they are doing. I hesitate to attribute malice to the ADA, nevertheless, recognizing that much of their advice is BAD is hardly the same as hating them. Kurt on the other hand seems to define "hate" as "not admitting that the ADA is infallible divine revelation" Don't just listen to Jenny OR Kurt--look up the documents and studies they cite and evaluate them yourself. SignatureWes Groleau Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which the only specification is that it should run noiselessly. -- unknown "Wes Groleau" <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote in message news:tvxpg.183 > Don't just listen to Jenny OR Kurt--look up the documents and studies > they cite and evaluate them yourself. i have to admit... i wouldnt take the advice of a total newbie on their evaluation of studies. i wouldnt want that same newbie to take it either. if a newbie feels they are qualified to evaluate studies, most of the time i think they are wrong Tom > "Wes Groleau" <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote in message news:tvxpg.183 > > Don't just listen to Jenny OR Kurt--look up the documents and studies [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > if a newbie feels they are qualified to evaluate studies, most of the time i > think they are wrong It looks to me like it doesn't take that much smarts to look at the results of one's blood test in the morning on a empty stomach, see that it is 116, look at the "official range" of 100 to 126, (for pre-diabetes), then ask oneself: gee, where does 116 fall within that range? Could it be...in the middle? Sorry to get snarky here, but geez! Or are you saying that the 100 to 126 range is not correct? If it isn't, would somebody please direct me to the medical oraganization that has a better grip on it than eith the ADA or the NIH? Because if neither of them have a good enough grip on it, how could I expect any doctor to? thanks, Tracy As for the rest of my numbers from yesterday, now I hesitate to post them here. I'll just say that I went by this: _____________________________________________________________ http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/insulinresistance/index.htm A glucose tolerance test measures your blood glucose after an overnight fast and 2 hours after you drink a sweet liquid provided by the doctor or laboratory. If your blood glucose falls between 140 and 199 mg/dL 2 hours after drinking the liquid, your glucose tolerance is above normal but not high enough for diabetes. This condition, also a form of pre-diabetes, is called impaired glucose tolerance and, like IFG, it points toward a history of insulin resistance and a risk for developing diabetes. _____________________________________________________________ And at two hours, my blood glucose was much closer to 140 than to 199 mg/dL. So I consider that good news actually. It's true that what I ate was probably not as fast acting as a sugar drink. It had protein fat and fiber, although a high amount of it was rice noodles, which would actually be more glycemic than sucrose. So I can only consider it a rough estimate, but the fact the the bg was way closer to 140 than to 199 was a good sign. At least to me. And now I can proceed to eat low carb anyway. Thanks everybody, Tracy > And now I can proceed to eat low carb anyway. Which is a valuable piece of information in itself. Don't forget the exercise bit, and hopefully you can stave it off until you're 109. Nicky. SignatureA1c 10.5/5.4/<6 T2 DX 05/2004 1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine 95/73/72Kg > > And now I can proceed to eat low carb anyway. > > Which is a valuable piece of information in itself. Don't forget the > exercise bit, and hopefully you can stave it off until you're 109. > > Nicky. yeah that would be cool if it was in good health :). I wont forget. It's true that > what I ate was probably not as fast acting as a sugar drink. It had > protein fat and fiber, although a high amount of it was rice noodles, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Tracy that is why i would have followed the test and not make the adjustments you did. unless a rough estimate is what you were looking for. Tom > As for the rest of my numbers from yesterday, > now I hesitate to post them here. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Tracy Hi Tracy, I'm glad to hear it. I'm sorry the various (and yes, often vehement) difference of opinion made you hesitant to share your numbers. In their own peculiar way, everyone is trying to help. And by listening to everybody's viewpoint, you can learn something--even from those whose opinions you ultimately disagree with. As you pointed out earlier, it drives you to do the research to either prove or disprove their assertions. Those who are insistent on you seeking medical advice do so because not everyone has the same capacity to interpret the information. They do not want to mistakenly assume that someone has correctly interpreted the knowledge and needs no additional help for fear that person might shun a doctor's advice when outside help is truly needed. Consequently, they err on the side that all newbies are very uninformed. They are also afraid that in effort to control BG, people will not get proper nutrition. They feel that grains are a necessary part of the diet. It is my opinion that as long as I eat fruits, veggies, dried beans, nuts, protein, dairy, I will cover my nutritional requirements. I also feel it is healthier for me to eliminate the grains that spike my sugar rather than take a medication in order to continue to eat them. I've been watching this thread, and while I too will make a disclaimer that I'm not a doctor (nor do I play one on TV ;-), you've taken pretty much the same path that I have. I feel like you have comprehended the information well, and are applying it correctly. At the moment, by eating lower carb, I have a good handle on my blood sugar. For as long as it's true, I will continue this way. The minute it acts up, I'll be asking a doctor's help ASAP. I hope you will continue to share your progress--and pipe in and help other newbies as they arrive. Besides finding information, this group is a good place to keep yourself on track. I have no other diabetics (or prediabetics as the case may be) in my family, so it is nice to come here where other people have the same issues. Michelle T2 diet & exercise > Hi Tracy, > > I'm glad to hear it. yeah me too :). >I'm sorry the various (and yes, often vehement) > difference of opinion made you hesitant to share your numbers. In [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > earlier, it drives you to do the research to either prove or disprove > their assertions. yeah, and I survived nuclear physics bootcamp too, without a science or math background. I didn't get a good grade, but it's amazing that I even passed it. This is a lot more improtant than nuclear physics bootcamp. You're right, it does not hurt my learning process. It just makes me a little nervous about being told something that may or may not be correct. I do appreciate the intent to help. > Those who are insistent on you seeking medical advice do so because not > everyone has the same capacity to interpret the information. They do [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Consequently, they err on the side that all newbies are very > uninformed. That's understandable. > They are also afraid that in effort to control BG, people will not get > proper nutrition. They feel that grains are a necessary part of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > my sugar rather than take a medication in order to continue to eat > them. fer shure! > I've been watching this thread, and while I too will make a disclaimer > that I'm not a doctor (nor do I play one on TV ;-), you've taken pretty [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > (or prediabetics as the case may be) in my family, so it is nice to > come here where other people have the same issues. Yes, I appreciate all the help I've gotten. Tracy > > "Wes Groleau" <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote in message news:tvxpg.183 > > > Don't just listen to Jenny OR Kurt--look up the documents and studies [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Sorry to get snarky here, but geez! Hi Tracy, LOL! I'm with you--reading and interpreting this information isn't exactly rocket science. ;-) > Or are you saying that the 100 to 126 range is not correct? > If it isn't, would somebody please direct me to the medical > oraganization that has a better grip on it than eith the ADA > or the NIH? Because if neither of them have a good enough > grip on it, how could I expect any doctor to? Imho, the ADA is good on basic information. A lot of the people who are antogonistic to the ADA feel the way the do because the ADA tends to promote higher carb consumption than can realistically be used to keep post-prandial sugars within range. Also, historically, diabetes was not recognized by the ADA or medical profession who relies on them until the FBS was abnormal. By that time half of your insulin-prodcuing cells are gone. Many of these people were sick for a long time and went unrecognized as diabetics because their FBS were not abnormal, although their post-prandial ones were. Unfortunately, their disease had advanced to the point where much damage was done. This tends to make people hostile. Michelle T2 diet & exercise. > LOL! I'm with you--reading and interpreting this information isn't > exactly rocket science. ;-) :) > Imho, the ADA is good on basic information. A lot of the people who > are antogonistic to the ADA feel the way the do because the ADA tends [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > disease had advanced to the point where much damage was done. This > tends to make people hostile. Well that's understandable. It looks like they are giving due importance to pre-diabetes now though. Doctors genrally run with the herd anyway. Often the way to get the best info is to read books written by top doctors in the field. I learned that already. Tracy >> "Wes Groleau" <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote in message >> news:tvxpg.183 [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Sorry to get snarky here, but geez! dont worry about it. I have a feeling it wont be the last time. anyway... i was replying to Wes and his post to Kurt. > Or are you saying that the 100 to 126 range is not correct? my fbs are under 100 everytime i test unless i dont eat the right bed time snack or wait to long to test in the morning. many of those times my fbs is in the 80's. and i am diabetic. however if i dont eat for the 10 hours that is usually recommended i will have a liver dump and probably be able to be diagnosed. then again on one of those 10 hour fast i did have a fbs level in the 70's. i usually bring a small container of oj to take a few sips right after the blood is taken. > If it isn't, would somebody please direct me to the medical > oraganization that has a better grip on it than eith the ADA > or the NIH? if you want you can believe both or neither and just become healthier if needed. i know of no other organization that funds and researches more studies than the ADA. in 2005 alone they spent $40 million, have treated the most pre diabetics and knows how to prevent full blown diabetes or atleast delay it. i bet they even bought a blood/sugar meter. >Because if neither of them have a good enough > grip on it, how could I expect any doctor to? > thanks, > > Tracy all diabetes wants you to do is become as healthy as you can. same should be done for pre diabetics and non diabetics alike. so no matter the out come - becoming healthier seems like the best anyone can do. i wish i would have started to treat myself like a diabetic 20 years ago. instead of waiting for the diagnoses. Tom > It looks to me like it doesn't take that much smarts to look at the > results of one's blood test in the morning on a empty stomach, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > or the NIH? Because if neither of them have a good enough > grip on it, how could I expect any doctor to? If you do a Medline search on Impaired Glucose Tolerance, which is alleged by the NIH and ADA to be non-diabetic, and peripheral neuropathy, for example, you find many reports of diabetic complications in those with FBG below yours. Your body, your science experiment. I'd recommend you do your own research in the peer reviewed medical literature instead of reading predigested pap fed to you by those with financial stakes in something other than your health. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > predigested pap fed to you by those with financial stakes in something > other than your health. well Susan, I think it's better to keep this particular discussion limited to the issue at hand: Is the FBG range of numbers correct, and are the ADA and NIH and WHO correct in their use of the 2 hour standard, for the BGTT or OGTT or whatever it is? > well Susan, I think it's better to keep this particular > discussion limited to the issue at hand: Is the FBG > range of numbers correct, and are the ADA and > NIH and WHO correct in their use of the 2 hour standard, > for the BGTT or OGTT or whatever it is? The fbg range is set too high to diagnose diabetics, IMO. I was addressing the topic at hand by telling you that many folks develop severe diabetic complications without ever going into the ADA diabetic fbg range. Two hour post prandials catch a lot more diabetes than the fbg. Susan > If you do a Medline search on Impaired Glucose Tolerance, which is > alleged by the NIH and ADA to be non-diabetic, and peripheral > neuropathy, for example, you find many reports of diabetic complications > in those with FBG below yours. Would you be willing to post some links to specific abstracts? That is generally the way it's done. > Your body, your science experiment. I'd recommend you do your own > research in the peer reviewed medical literature instead of reading > predigested pap fed to you by those with financial stakes in something > other than your health. Sure, here's what I found out: ___________________________________________________ http://tinyurl.com/rk9e3 Are lower fasting plasma glucose levels at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes associated with improved outcomes?: U.K. prospective diabetes study 61. quote: "Individuals in the low FPG group had a significantly reduced risk for each predefined clinical outcome except stroke," ___________________________________________________ It does not recommend any lower level for establishing diabetes as opposed to "pre-diabetes," to prevent any possibility of complications. I don't know how they could, actually. They can't take people in the normal range and call them "pre-diabetic." I think that even though complications may happen in pre-diabetics, that may not mean the category should be done away with, if there's a chance at reversal. It kind of makes sense that complications could start at the pre-diabetic stage. How else can one notice symptoms and go do something about it? This was also interesting, but not necessarily related: __________________________________________________________________ http://tinyurl.com/gqa6f Comparison of fasting and 2-hour glucose and HbA1c levels for diagnosing diabetes. Diagnostic criteria and performance revisited. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal cutpoints for defining diabetes differ according to how diabetes itself is defined. When diabetes is defined as the upper component of the bimodal population distribution, a fasting glucose level somewhat lower than the current WHO cutpoint and a 2-h glucose level somewhat higher than the current WHO cutpoint minimized misclassification. When diabetic retinopathy defines diabetes, we found that the current fasting diagnostic criterion favors specificity and the current 2-h criterion favors sensitivity. These results should prove valuable for defining the optimal tests and cutpoint values for diagnosing diabetes. _____________________________________________________________________ here's another interesting one: _____________________________________________________________________ http://tinyurl.com/zrvgd Revisiting the oral glucose tolerance test criterion for the diagnosis of diabetes. CONCLUSION: Since Hb A1C levels are the best measures presently available that reflect long-term glycemia, we conclude that the 2-hour glucose concentration criterion on an oral glucose tolerance test for the diagnosis of diabetes should be raised from >/= 11.1 mmol/L (200 mg/dL) to >/= 13.3 mmol/L (240 mg/dL) to remain faithful to the concept that diagnostic concentrations of glucose should predict the subsequent development of specific diabetic complications (e.g., retinopathy). _________________________________________________________________ These guys actually want to raise the mg/DL for the 2-hour glucose concentration criterion. OK, I was wrong about the A1C not being used for diagnosis. I'll have to go tell that guy. This next is more related to what you brought up: ______________________________________________________________ http://tinyurl.com/kub84 Tests of glycemia for the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus. This paper discusses tests of glycemia for the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus, with particular reference to the 1997 diagnostic criteria of the American Diabetes Association. The potential benefits of the lower diagnostic threshold for fasting plasma glucose are not well defined. However, the change in the diagnostic cut-off for diabetes mellitus affects as many as 1.9 million persons in the United States; therefore, the medical and social costs of the lower threshold may be considerable. Type 2 diabetes mellitus is defined by a threshold imposed on the continuous distribution of glycemic levels, typically with respect to risk for microvascular complications. However, the burden of type 2 diabetes relates more to macrovascular than microvascular complications. Because no clear threshold exists for macrovascular complications, a formal balancing of direct and indirect costs with both microvascular and macrovascular complications may be appropriate to establish glycemic thresholds. Because fasting plasma glucose, hemoglobin A1c, and the oral glucose tolerance test all predict diabetic complications yet test reliability is better for fasting plasma glucose and hemoglobin A1c than for the oral glucose tolerance test, we suggest an alternative diagnostic approach: If random plasma glucose is elevated (> or =11.1 mmol/L [200 mg/dL]) and the hemoglobin A1c level is more than 2 SDs above the laboratory mean, then diabetes mellitus should be diagnosed, and management should be based on the hemoglobin A1c level. If the result of only one of these tests is positive, then fasting plasma glucose should be tested to evaluate the patient for impaired fasting glucose and diabetes mellitus. The glycemic threshold for type 2 diabetes should be established by cost-effectiveness analysis. The clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus could be streamlined by incorporation of hemoglobin A1c into established criteria. _______________________________________________________________ This is where I learned about the Random Plasma glucose Test. > Would you be willing to post some links to specific abstracts? > That is generally the way it's done. I posted many just weeks ago. Since you say you're very diligent about doing your own homework, and you choose to discredit even so well documented an expert as Jenny, I choose to repeat the recommendation that you do a Medline search on IGT and peripheral neuropathies, for starters. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Susan Who says Jenny is an expert? Is she an expert because she has a web site? If she is an expert, I sure wish she would clearly back up her claims with sources that clearly support them. Or are you Jenny? It's possible that Jenny let it slip...so I wonder. And it's a courtesy to include links to sources when you refer to them, not just tell people to go off and find them. There's a similarity betweeen you and Jenny right there. Ok, so I guess you are refusing to do that. I have done the best I could and posted what *I* found. Tracy >> I posted many just weeks ago. Since you say you're very diligent about >> doing your own homework, and you choose to discredit even so well >> documented an expert as Jenny, I choose to repeat the recommendation I thought Kurt was the one that tried to discredit Jenny. > Who says Jenny is an expert? Is she an expert because she has a An expert is somebody who comes from out of town and shows slides. > web site? If she is an expert, I sure wish she would clearly back up > her claims with sources that clearly support them. She posted a link to an article she wrote. That article had plenty of citations, plus a link to a scan of the _Diabetes_ article where appeared the very thing she was describing. SignatureWes Groleau Nobody believes a theoretical analysis -- except the guy who did it. Everybody believes an experimental analysis -- except the guy who did it. -- Unknown >> x-no-archive: yes >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> Susan > Who says Jenny is an expert? I do for one. Just my own personal judgement. I have no formal medical education, but it is part of my professional training to be able to recognise experts in domains with which I'm not familiar. > Is she an expert because she has a > web site? If she is an expert, I sure wish she would clearly back up > her claims with sources that clearly support them. IMHO she certainly does. > Or are you Jenny? It's possible that Jenny let it slip...so I wonder. It's not wise in newsgroups to start this voicing this kind of ad hominem suspicions unless you're very sure of your ground. Both Jenny and Susan and highly respected elders of this newsgroup, and you're not making yourself any friends with this kind of remark (the obvious exceptions excluded of course :-) > And it's a courtesy to include links to sources when you refer to them, > not just tell people to go off and find them. As has often been remarked in this newsgroup, when there's controversy, as there is in diabetic diagnosis and management, it isn't too hard to rummage up research papers which support whatever view you prefer, and this often leads to tedious citation wars which get nowhere. In these cases you either need to cite something which isn't a source, but a review of sources, along with the credentials of the reviewer, such as a medical consensus report, or else suggest the questioner do a medline search and form their own judgment. Often all that the questioner wants is some kind of indication of what the most popular view is, and a good indication of that can often be found by simply counting the pros and cons in first few pages of a medline or google scholar search. In sum, some people will suggest you do your own search, perhaps suggesting search terms, because they can see that the topic is becoming controversial and heated, and that is a good way of settling the question without getting sidetracked into a citation war. 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/] >> Who says Jenny is an expert? > >I do for one. Just my own personal judgement. I have no formal medical >education, but it is part of my professional training to be able to >recognise experts in domains with which I'm not familiar. Chris, an " expert" is a person with medical training. She is not one. Why do you expect me to take her word as if she is one? I think it's dangerous to tell newbies that they have to "tow the line" to a particular ng member, or they won't be acceptable to "the club." Next, I think the way she puts things is inflammatory and scary for newcomers. I think she has an axe to grind, and I think that may get in the way of her really being as helpful as maybe she could be. I think that it's inflammatory to claim that the ADA wants to keep people from being diagnosed unti they could be just about to go blind. I really don't think so. When one is diagnosed as diabetic, one has to start worrying about all kinds of possible ailments. I think she's twisting this to make the ADA look a certain way because of her feelings about them. You know, I have a problem with how my thyroid condition was dealt with, but I don't go around grinding an axe in front of other newly diagnosed newbies because of it. She doesn't back up her claims, and she doesn't explain herself well either. She doesn;t even keep her sources straight, quoting me one title and then posting another. And apparently there are others here who think that she misrepresents the ADA because of her personal feelings about them. I believe I see that, and I don't think that's very helpful for newcomers. OK?? And there's something interesting about this susan person too.... Take a look at George SHouse's post on this thread. Why couldn't he find all these abstracts that Susan says she just recently posted? I smell a fish in hot water. In short, I don't want to cause unpleasantness for the ng, so I'd rather just spend my time talking to the people who don't have these issues. That would be more uselful for everybody. So I'm no longer interested in either Jenny's or Susan's posts. >> And it's a courtesy to include links to sources when you refer to them, >> not just tell people to go off and find them. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >simply counting the pros and cons in first few pages of a medline or >google scholar search. I wasn't looking for the most popular view. That's ok, I think I got to the heart of the matter in my conversation with Michelle. That said, again, I do appreciate all the help I've gotten from everybody here. Tracy PS: I prefer to use my own judgement about who I think has a valid and useful opinion to share. So I will. > PS: I prefer to use my own judgement about who > I think has a valid and useful opinion to share. > So I will. What is it with these non-sequiturs? Don't you understand that without quoting some of what you're replying to you don't give the reader any context and, frankly, you come off as a clueless idiot? Priscilla >> PS: I prefer to use my own judgement about who >> I think has a valid and useful opinion to share. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Priscilla this is how they normally start with people that do not follow them blindly. and this is how this group has 1 mind set. they wait for you to return insults and then the real trolling starts. >this is how they normally start with people that do not follow them blindly. >and this is how this group has 1 mind set. >they wait for you to return insults and then the real trolling starts. Are they? Well that's good to know. Maybe I should consder that I got helped, and that's enough, and not hang around. I'm sure Jenny would be happy! >>this is how they normally start with people that do not follow them >>blindly. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that I got helped, and that's enough, and not hang around. > I'm sure Jenny would be happy! what you should do all depends on why you came. when i was first diagnosed i didnt come looking for help. I had myself and my diabetes team working for me. my first post was "I just found out i have diabetes type 2. I am a lover of food I can not tell you how much it hurts. I even cried a few hours ago. I have no idea what this will do to my life and how I will live. I will learn I will be here for now on reading what those of you with experience have to say and to help those who will walk in behind me. " i have seen what those with experience have to say and for the most part it wasnt for me. I stay now for those that walk in behind me. I believe Kurt is here for the same reason - it isnt realy much fun for me or Kurt to be posting here. i tend to think of Kurt as my reality check - when everything else just sounds so crazy. good lucky and i feel the best any newbie can do it to become more active. Tom >>>this is how they normally start with people that do not follow them >>>blindly. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >what you should do all depends on why you came. why are you so bent on directing people to make up their minds in one way and way only about this group? that alone says a great deal about you. >when i was first diagnosed i didnt come looking for help. >I had myself and my diabetes team working for me. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Tom I see where you left off all the name changes, the trolling, the inappropriate sexual comments and the out right lies you made about so many people. Just like the last time you went suckering a newcomer in to feeling sorry for Tom the perpetual victim who never did anything wrong himself. You are not the saint you want to believe you are Tom. SignatureMâck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt (o ô) --ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------------- "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ....Bilbo Baggins Jesus never hated anyone. DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... . i guess Mack forgot his medications today. I was simply replying to a post. i ignore Mack he doesnt really say much about anything. i do find it kind of funny how he took my simple post. I guess they still have something against people seeing how I post when I am not being trolled and flamed. Tom >>>>this is how they normally start with people that do not follow them >>>>blindly. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > to feeling sorry for Tom the perpetual victim who never did anything > wrong himself. You are not the saint you want to believe you are Tom. > i guess Mack forgot his medications today. I was simply replying to a post. > i ignore Mack he doesnt really say much about anything. > i do find it kind of funny how he took my simple post. > I guess they still have something against people seeing how I post when I am > not being trolled and flamed. What I think Mack forgot was the other side of the story when you first arrived and the hostility and the "hoping the ADA pays for your funeral" comment. It's time to put a lot of things in the past and deal with the present. All that crap was a long time ago and the sad part is we still all have diabetes. That's the only constant and the only thing that really matters here. Best, Kurt >> i guess Mack forgot his medications today. I was simply replying to a >> post. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > arrived and the hostility and the "hoping the ADA pays for your > funeral" comment. yea well that did hurt me. for the most part things like that have been resolved. and i guess in a way Muck has gotten his wish. no doubt this wont be the end of how bad I really am. one thing i did learn from some in this group and it wasnt from things said about me. If i have to be told how bad someone is chances are they are full of it. some of the people i have had flame wars in the past still answer my posts when i want to see what other diabetics have to say. its people like Muck that usually start things up again. > It's time to put a lot of things in the past and deal with the present. > All that crap was a long time ago and the sad part is we still all [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Best, > Kurt i feel the same way. I kinda like being able to post in peace and want to keep it that way. Tom >I really am. one thing i did learn from some in this group and it wasnt >from things said about me. If i have to be told how bad someone is chances >are they are full of it. > >Tom please show how you have been behaving differently? Boy, that's the truth! -- Cheri Kurt wrote in message <1152121154.502085.325610@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>... >It's time to put a lot of things in the past and deal with the present. > All that crap was a long time ago and the sad part is we still all [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Best, >Kurt > Boy, that's the truth! > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> Best, >> Kurt Kurt is one of the few here who has his head screwed on straight. Dave Kurt, is your email addy legit? I'd like to go offline to see if you are interested in something. Dave > Kurt, is your email addy legit? I'd like to go offline to see if you > are interested in something. In the words of M.C. Hammer...it's too legit to quit! In other words, yes. :) Best, Kurt >What I think Mack forgot was the other side of the story when you first >arrived and the hostility and the "hoping the ADA pays for your [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Best, >Kurt Actually I do remember that and when and why it started. As to putting it in the past, no problem with that, except every time people move on Tom plays the innocent victim looking for pity and to stir up trouble while forgetting his part in what he blames the group for. The only person Tom is really trying to convince of his lies is himself. And he fails at it. SignatureMâck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt (o ô) --ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------------- "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ....Bilbo Baggins Jesus never hated anyone. DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... . >> i guess Mack forgot his medications today. I was simply replying to a >> post. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What I think Mack forgot I see Mack is still at it again today. I do not have the time to bother with him. I am installing 2 ceiling fans, going to my doc, and a bunch of work. not to mention beating up puppies. Tom > I am >not to mention beating up puppies. > >Tom why does that not surprise anyone? It would very much surprise me since he spent thousands of dollars on his dogs when they were sick. I thought he was quite good hearted about all of the expense. :-) -- Cheri Ma¢k wrote in message ... >> I am >>not to mention beating up puppies. >> >>Tom > >why does that not surprise anyone? > It would very much surprise me since he spent thousands of dollars on > his dogs when they were sick. I thought he was quite good hearted about > all of the expense. :-) > > -- > Cheri welll :). i actually tell Jenny ( 5lbs mini pincher) that im going to kick her lil a.s and she runs away. and thank you Cheri. i kinda like when someone can correct a friend when saying something about someone else. Tom >It would very much surprise me since he spent thousands of dollars on >his dogs when they were sick. I thought he was quite good hearted about >all of the expense. :-) I have some very highly valued beach front property I will sell to you at an incredible bargain. The dismal swamp is quickly becoming the hottest growth sector in the area. SignatureMâck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt (o ô) --ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------------- "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ....Bilbo Baggins Jesus never hated anyone. DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... . "Ma¢k" <stopthespam@shootspammers.com> wrote in message > why are you so bent on directing people to make up their minds in one > way and way only about this group? ok everyone.. please walk away from the group.. Hurry. >that alone says a great deal about > you. it is not what I am underneith but what I post that defines me. > I see where you left off all the name changes, I am BatMan. >the trolling, Hey Muck just because your head is pointy does not make you sharp. >the > inappropriate sexual comments GFY >and the out right lies you made about so > many people. you are the smartest person I have ever met. > Just like the last time you went suckering a newcomer in > to feeling sorry for Tom the perpetual victim who never did anything > wrong himself. lol remember that? i fooled him/her. >You are not the saint you want to believe you are Tom. dont worry Muck.. I just do it for the donations > DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me > offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. sometimes talking to people like him is fun. its just hard for me to take them seriously. > If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to > me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... lol hey Kurt.. check this guy out.. he is just sooo mature Tom the Diabolic Diabetic >>this is how they normally start with people that do not follow them blindly. >>and this is how this group has 1 mind set. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >that I got helped, and that's enough, and not hang around. >I'm sure Jenny would be happy! do yourself a favor and look up in google, sushiboi, cheeseburger, copulator aka gantet's other posting identities before you get suckered into his perpetual victimhood. SignatureMâck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt (o ô) --ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------------- "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ....Bilbo Baggins Jesus never hated anyone. DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... . >>>this is how they normally start with people that do not follow them blindly. >>>and this is how this group has 1 mind set. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > copulator aka gantet's other posting identities before you get > suckered into his perpetual victimhood. You forgot to mention the vile, disguting accusations cheesebuggerer made when Quentin mentioned he was working less. Vicki >>>>this is how they normally start with people that do not follow them blindly. >>>>and this is how this group has 1 mind set. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Vicki no need, if anyone actually did their homework and looked up gantlet's aka Tom aka etc's behavior they would see it. If, like he claimed in another post in this thread, he actually wants to move on and post in peace, he should stop bringing up the past and lying by omission about his part in it portraying himself is an innocent victim. he brought it on himself with his own behavior. He came looking for pity and didn't find it and lashed out because of it and has been lashing out ever since. SignatureMâck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt (o ô) --ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------------- "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ....Bilbo Baggins Jesus never hated anyone. DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... . > > PS: I prefer to use my own judgement about who > > I think has a valid and useful opinion to share. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Priscila I got attacked in quite the same way when I first posted here because I was accessing the group through Google groups, and did not understand that those expereincing it as a usenet group could not see what I was responding to. Perhaps Tracy is viewing this through the same prism. Regardless of your take on her views, lack of context does not make her a clueless idiot. In my case after I was called a few names somebody explained the problem, which I otherwise could not have known about. Knowing that, I have been careful not to offend in quite that way, but I would never assume that someone else would couldn't make the same inadvertent mistake--or blame them for it. Morris > > > PS: I prefer to use my own judgement about who > > > I think has a valid and useful opinion to share. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > assume that someone else would couldn't make the same inadvertent > mistake--or blame them for it. It's been explained to her, and she's ignoring it. Priscilla >> problem, which I otherwise could not have known about. Knowing that, I >> have been careful not to offend in quite that way, but I would never >> assume that someone else would couldn't make the same inadvertent >> mistake--or blame them for it. > >It's been explained to her, and she's ignoring it. It was a mistake . Give me a f.cking break. >I got attacked in quite the same way when I first posted here because I >was accessing the group through Google groups, and did not understand [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >assume that someone else would couldn't make the same inadvertent >mistake--or blame them for it. Morris, Thank you very much for standing up for me. I think this just about did it for me. Tracy > And apparently there are others here who think that > she misrepresents the ADA because of her personal > feelings about them. I believe I see that, and I don't think > that's very helpful for newcomers. OK?? when i first came here i remember talking to my wife about this. i felt very sad and felt strongly that some of these people have to have money in this low carb thing. i dont understand how they would make you feel unwelcome if you dont just jump on and follow them blindly. there are spammers in every news group that is about something that can be sold. why not here? dont bother > >> Who says Jenny is an expert? > > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > That said, again, I do appreciate all the help I've gotten from > everybody here. :) Tracy, there have been a number of people here who have seen things this exact same way. Many of them leave, for differing reasons but the underlying cause is similar. I have a problem with anyone who seems to have an axe to grind withe the professional medical community and feels that they know more than all of them put goether. It can be, in a word, misleading and harmful to a newbie who comes here looking for support. The main factor that everyone should keep in mind when they are reading the "advice" of people in here is where the person giving it is coming from. We know nothing about each other except the words on the screen. Several of the loudest voices in this newsgroup have more medical problems than just diabetes and that is a huge variable. I always try to take into account one's overall health when I read the advice they give about diabetes. There are a few here that are not in very good health and suffer from a multitude of real or imagined other conditions that affect their diabetes. Would anyone really want to take diabetes diet advice from someone who has a lot more than diabetes affecting them, or who doesn't exercise, or has an axe to grind, or has an obvious agenda, or is always so selective with the data they use to back up their agenda? Well the answer to all of these questions, of course is, hell no. :) Best of health to you. Kurt >Tracy, there have been a number of people here who have seen things >this exact same way. Many of them leave, for differing reasons but the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >word, misleading and harmful to a newbie who comes here looking for >support. That's exactly the way I feel about it. >The main factor that everyone should keep in mind when they >are reading the "advice" of people in here is where the person giving [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message