 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / February 2008Low-carb Diet May be Beneficial in Type 2 Diabetes
http://diabetes.org/diabetesnewsarticle.jsp?storyId=16767290&filename=20080114/r eutersmedical20080114engreutersconsobesityengreutersconsobesity15404739185182398 80824149EDIT.xml or http://tinyurl.com/26ggrx (excerpt) NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Restricted-carbohydrate diets seem to improve blood sugar control and reduce harmful triglyceride levels in adults with type 2 diabetes, but it is unclear whether these diets aid in weight control or weight loss, new research suggests. "Many patients with diabetes are looking for ways to lower blood sugar, and they are often confused about which meal plan would be best for them to follow," Dr. Julienne K. Kirk from Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, noted in an email to Reuters Health. Kirk noted that there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend low or very low carbohydrate diets (that is, less than 130 grams per day) in patients with diabetes "since long-term effects have not been fully investigated." Kurt wrote in message <74255818-336a-4ba7-9762-745c3ba0b567@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>... >http://diabetes.org/diabetesnewsarticle.jsp?storyId=16767290&filename=20080114/r eutersmedical20080114engreutersconsobesityengreutersconsobe sity1540473918518239880824149EDIT.xml >or > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >adults with type 2 diabetes, but it is unclear whether these diets aid >in weight control or weight loss, new research suggests. It's pretty clear to me though. :-) Cheri >Kurt wrote in message ><74255818-336a-4ba7-9762-745c3ba0b567@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >It's pretty clear to me though. :-) Has been for what, in the 60+ years since we could measure cholesterol? The 140+ years since Banting? So nice of them to bring us this "new" research, but fail to spot the full picture. Nicky. T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid D&E, 100ug thyroxine Last A1c 5.6% BMI 25 > >Kurt wrote in message > ><74255818-336a-4ba7-9762-745c3ba0b...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > cholesterol? The 140+ years since Banting? So nice of them to bring us > this "new" research, but fail to spot the full picture. CYRANO: "There goes Le Bret, Growling!" From "Cyrano de Bergerac" by Edmond Rostand (Brian Hooker translation) > Kurt wrote in message > <74255818-336a-4ba7-9762-745c3ba0b567@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > It's pretty clear to me though. :-) Same here. I'm on 225g of carbs per day. I have lost 20 pounds, got my BGs down to normal level and am keeping them there. When I "cheat" a little on my carbs, up go my BG's. So for me it's not MAY be, it IS.  SignatureT2 - Oct. '96 - Lantus, oral meds, diet http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel Undo the munge to reply by email On Jan 16, 3:12�am, "DarkSentinel" <darkmungesenti...@munge.charter.munge.net> wrote: > > Kurt wrote in message > > <74255818-336a-4ba7-9762-745c3ba0b...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > down to normal level and am keeping them there. When I "cheat" a little on > my carbs, up go my BG's. So for me it's not MAY be, it IS. Hate to break it to you, but in this newsgroup you'd be considered eating a high-carb diet. Kurt > On Jan 16, 3:12�am, "DarkSentinel" > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Perhaps by some, but as he's said before...he's a big guy. 225g of carbs may be extremely low compared to what he was eating before and may be adequate for controlling his BGs. John C. > > On Jan 16, 3:12�am, "DarkSentinel" > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > carbs may be extremely low compared to what he was eating before and > may be adequate for controlling his BGs. Hey, I agree with you but in this newsgroup it seems that low carb is usually defined as under 100 grams per day. I eat anywhere from 150 to 200 and am labelled a "high carb" eater...go figure. Kurt > > > On Jan 16, 3:12�am, "DarkSentinel" > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I probably eat around 150 grams per day and with fine control I might add. The others that picked with my binge (remember that thread Kurt?) of french fries wont believe that though. My meter believes I can eat the carbs I eat every day though.:-) >>>> On Jan 16, 3:12?am, "DarkSentinel" >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >>>>>> Kurt wrote in message <74255818-336a-4ba7-9762-745c3ba0b...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>... http://diabetes.org/diabetesnewsarticle.jsp?storyId=16767290&filename =20080114/reutersmedical20080114engreutersconsobesityengreutersconsobe >>>>>> sity1540473918518239880824149EDIT.xml >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > wont believe that though. > My meter believes I can eat the carbs I eat every day though.:-) other than things with sugar in them or sugar itself , i can eat just about anything i like and it doesn't do , much to my test results , i go from 5 to 7 and back to 5 , all in about 3 hours >Hey, I agree with you but in this newsgroup it seems that low carb is >usually defined as under 100 grams per day. In this newsgroup low carb has never been defined. period. > I eat anywhere from 150 >to 200 and am labelled a "high carb" eater...go figure. > >Kurt what imaginary person has labeled as such? quote it. SignatureMåck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/type1and2/ http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco" http://www.ratbags.com/dechunging/ "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 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... . >> On Jan 16, 3:12�am, "DarkSentinel" >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > carbs may be extremely low compared to what he was eating before and > may be adequate for controlling his BGs. Indeed. At 6'3", I am not small by ANY stretch of the imagination...lol My dietician set this diet up, and as I have said I RARELY eat what I am allotted. I prefer the "free" foods. I live on cucumbers. Since I have dropped 20lbs so far, and am maintain normal numbers, I would say it is effective, no? SignatureT2 - Oct. '96 - Lantus, oral meds, diet http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel Undo the munge to reply by email DarkSentinel wrote in message ... >My dietician set this diet up, and as I have said I RARELY eat what I am >allotted. I prefer the "free" foods. I live on cucumbers. Since I have >dropped 20lbs so far, and am maintain normal numbers, I would say it is >effective, no? I'd say it sort of speaks for itself, yes. :-) Cheri "DarkSentinel" <darkmungesentinel@munge.charter.munge.net> a écrit ... >>> On Jan 16, 3:12?am, "DarkSentinel" >>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > dropped 20lbs so far, and am maintain normal numbers, I would say it is > effective, no? DS, I can only agree with you that your diet has been effective for you IN THE SHORT TERM. For lack of information, (tho I think you know), you must complement your diet with things that bring you the essential oligo-elements such as selenium, iron, magnesium, calcium etc., that you need to make you a 'big strong boy' ... I post this mainly for the lurkers who may not be aware that a body needs more than cucumbers to survive in a healthy manner, and to let you know that I care about YOUR health too .. Frank > "DarkSentinel" <darkmungesentinel@munge.charter.munge.net> a écrit ... >>>> On Jan 16, 3:12?am, "DarkSentinel" [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > needs more than cucumbers to survive in a healthy manner, and to > let you know that I care about YOUR health too .. Oh I do. I have posted that previously. In addition to everything else I take, I take the "Nature Made Diabetes Health Pack". Kind of weird though, they recently added Green Tea to it, but it doesn't trigger my tea allergy. Not enough of it guess...<shrugs> http://www.naturemade.com/ProductDatabase/prd_prod.asp?productid=122 Having played football and other sports, I always took my vitamins and supplements. This one is just directed to my condition. SignatureT2 - Oct. '96 - Lantus, oral meds, diet http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel Undo the munge to reply by email Huh..according to who? Comon kurt i thought we were going in a new direction? 220 grams carbs isnt much if he is eating healthy low spike foods and you know thats what most of us eat here...only a couple go real low carb and thats because of dietary issues etc...and even they arent as low carb as many are in everyday life. I just did the math and i eat about that in carbs a day..of course the net carbs is alot less when all said and done but thats nitpicking and serves no point..i eat bread and fruit and veggies and milk and nuts etc all containing carbs..even ice cream bars...just low spike. Name five people who regularly post here who dont eat carbs? In the food group we are talking muffins and cherry cobbler.. KROM "Kurt" <kurtwheeling1965@hotmail.com> wrote Hate to break it to you, but in this newsgroup you'd be considered eating a high-carb diet. Kurt > Huh..according to who? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > In the food group we are talking muffins and cherry cobbler.. I doubt very much if most of those of us who identify as low carb are eating more than half that much, for the most part. True, I eat mountains of carbs by volume, but very low carb by % of calories or even grams counted, due to starch avoidance and extreme high fiber content. Others may eat higher than that, but I doubt most low carbers are netting more than 100 grams per day. I think at 225, the OP may have lowered/reduced/controlled carb consumption compared to past eating habits, but is not eating low carb by any definition, unless total calories are very, very high. Susan My point is few here eat low carb to the extent kurt says..i probably eat as much if not more carbs then he does..just non spiking ones. KROM > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Susan > My point is few here eat low carb to the extent kurt says..i probably eat as > much if not more carbs then he does..just non spiking ones. Hard to say; as Alice points out, those of us who've been at it a while don't count carbs, we just eat what's good for us and don't eat what experience has taught us is not. It's just not a relevent discussion; neither you nor Kurt has any idea how many carbs any of us are eating. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It's just not a relevent discussion; neither you nor Kurt has any idea how > many carbs any of us are eating. For me, I was so out of control, I needed a baseline to start from. I was never taught to eat healthy until now. Maybe my dietician realized what I didn't about the high chance of going hypo when I started the insulin. Which DID happen because I DON'T eat what I am allotted. Who knows? Not that I am getting an idea what I can and can't eat, I'll probably do like others. But everyone has to start somewhere. SignatureT2 - Oct. '96 - Lantus, oral meds, diet http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel Undo the munge to reply by email >> My point is few here eat low carb to the extent kurt says..i probably eat as >> much if not more carbs then he does..just non spiking ones. > Hard to say; as Alice points out, those of us who've been at it a while > don't count carbs, we just eat what's good for us and don't eat what > experience has taught us is not. > It's just not a relevent discussion; neither you nor Kurt has any idea > how many carbs any of us are eating. I only ever counted my carbs once, years ago, just out of curiosity in response to a thread discussing carb consumption. It suddenly occurred to me that I may have made a mistake in my figures, because I used a US carb counting program and a US food database to do the calculations, and I'm not sure whether by doing that I inadvertently included fibre in my carb counts. I didn't realise at the time that US carb contents figures at least sometimes include indigestible carbs. So despite supposedly being a low carber because I carefully control my carb consumption, I have even less idea of how much carb I eat than I thought I did... SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] Yeah which is why eat by what me body and meter tells me..lifes much easier that way then couting stuff..lol KROM "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote > > I only ever counted my carbs once, years ago, just out of curiosity in > response to a thread discussing carb consumption. It suddenly occurred [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > my carb consumption, I have even less idea of how much carb I eat than > I thought I did... > Huh..according to who? According to having been here for a number of years. You are relatively new...or so it seems...225 is considered high carb in here. > Comon kurt i thought we were going in a new direction? You mean the fact that heretofore we agreed on some things. :) This doesn't seem to be one of them so to you that means we are going in the wrong direction? > 220 grams carbs isnt much if he is eating �healthy low spike foods and you > know thats what most of us eat here Most here seem to eat below the 100 grams a day mark. >...only a couple go real low carb and > thats because of dietary issues etc...and even they arent as low carb as > many are in everyday life. Huh? > I just did the math and i eat about that in carbs a day..of course the net > carbs is alot less when all said and done but thats nitpicking and serves no > point..i eat bread and fruit and veggies and milk and nuts etc all > containing carbs..even ice cream bars...just low spike. Then according to most "low carbers" in this newsgroup - and there are quite a few - you are a high carber. Don't mean to shock you or anything, but that is the truth. > Name five people who regularly post here who dont eat carbs? I never said that people here don't eat carbs...just that 225 per day would be considered high carb by most here. > In the food group we are talking muffins and cherry cobbler.. ??? Kurt > KROM > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Kurt On Jan 16, 11:20?am, "krom" <thekromremoverem...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Huh..according to who? According to having been here for a number of years. You are relatively new...or so it seems...225 is considered high carb in here. > Comon kurt i thought we were going in a new direction? You mean the fact that heretofore we agreed on some things. :) This doesn't seem to be one of them so to you that means we are going in the wrong direction? > 220 grams carbs isnt much if he is eating ?healthy low spike foods and you > know thats what most of us eat here Most here seem to eat below the 100 grams a day mark. >...only a couple go real low carb and > thats because of dietary issues etc...and even they arent as low carb as > many are in everyday life. Huh? > I just did the math and i eat about that in carbs a day..of course the net > carbs is alot less when all said and done but thats nitpicking and serves > no > point..i eat bread and fruit and veggies and milk and nuts etc all > containing carbs..even ice cream bars...just low spike. Then according to most "low carbers" in this newsgroup - and there are quite a few - you are a high carber. Don't mean to shock you or anything, but that is the truth. > Name five people who regularly post here who dont eat carbs? I never said that people here don't eat carbs...just that 225 per day would be considered high carb by most here. > In the food group we are talking muffins and cherry cobbler.. ??? Kurt > KROM > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Kurt Damnit Kurt, get with the program man! Krom has been here a bit over 6mons now and don't you know anything???? Krom is an EXPERT by now, knows all, sees all. :P But ya you're right, 225gm of carbs a day is definately by any means NOT low carb. Sad how some are sooooo fooled. lol > Most here seem to eat below the 100 grams a day mark. Really? I haven't seen any indication of that at all. I can name maybe 4 or 5 who post here regularly who have posted that they eat under 100 grams a day of carbs. I started a post a few months back asking everyone how many carbs they ate a day. Most here seem to favor a low spike diet without regard to grams of carbs consumed. John C. > Really? I haven't seen any indication of that at all. I can name maybe > 4 or 5 who post here regularly who have posted that they eat under 100 > grams a day of carbs. I started a post a few months back asking > everyone how many carbs they ate a day. Most here seem to favor a low > spike diet without regard to grams of carbs consumed. You're absolutely right, for the most part. It just happens that for most folks, 100grms per day or under is what it takes to keep spikes at bay. There are some of us who aim to stay in even tighter control, like under 120 at all times, and that typically requires a non starch diet, with lots of carbs by volume, but low in carbs, like fibrous, leafy, colorful stuff. There's a wide variety here, when it comes to eating plans, choices, meds or no meds, carb levels, etc. But the most common definition in the scientific literature of low carb is under 100 grams, the level at which ketosis is reliably initiated. Susan But again you eat alot of carbs by volume... My point is a noob who hears low carb all he thinks of is you living on bacon and steak and butter...at least thats the idea man kurt seems to push aboout the people here.... which is wildly inacurate and what i wish to correct from him..not that i can..but i can wish..lol. KROM > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Susan >> Most here seem to eat below the 100 grams a day mark. > Really? I haven't seen any indication of that at all. I can name maybe > 4 or 5 who post here regularly who have posted that they eat under 100 > grams a day of carbs. I started a post a few months back asking > everyone how many carbs they ate a day. Most here seem to favor a low > spike diet without regard to grams of carbs consumed. My impression too. I thought only a few here were under 100gms carb, and most of the "low carbers" or "low spikers" were (like me) between 1-200. And contrary to Kurt's suggestion that he's called a high carber here, in recent months I've seen him being called a low-carber or nearly a low-carber in terms of his diet, as opposed to his support for the rather higher general recommendations of the ADA. SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] In alt.support.diabetes on 17 Jan 2008 01:10:30 GMT in Msg.# <5v7o86F1ld5jtU2@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > And contrary to Kurt's suggestion that he's called a high > carber here, in recent months I've seen him being called a low-carber > or nearly a low-carber in terms of his diet, as opposed to his support > for the rather higher general recommendations of the ADA. I saw that pointed out, too. SignatureDonnaB shallotpeel, T2 since June 06, USA In article <f7d57ab5-7c02-4dc6-9731-91a3dd08f36c@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > Most here seem to eat below the 100 grams a day mark. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > everyone how many carbs they ate a day. Most here seem to favor a low > spike diet without regard to grams of carbs consumed. You have to distinguish between meal planning and meal composition. I don't, for the most part, eat dishes that I know will spike me. Since I have 10 years of experience with this kind of eating, dinner planning is at the level of "cauliflower or broccoli?" and so forth. However, I periodically write down everything I eat in a day and figure out the nutritional profile (calories, grams of fat, carbs, fiber, protein, etc.). When I do that, I typically end up with 1200-1500 calories and probably 40-70 grams of carbohydrate. I don't *ever* view 70 grams of carb as a maximum daily carb amount when I'm deciding what I want to eat each day; it just works out that way. If, when the lab provides pizza for lunch, I just eat the toppings, it's not because I sit down and figure out what the carb content of one full slice of pizza is; rather, I know, from experience, that I'll get a spike, and a delayed spike at that, from eating the stuff below the toppings. When you posted your question, the reaction of many of the long-term T2s was that it was a fairly meaningless question, in terms of the way we plan our meals. Signature"[xxx] has very definite opinions, and does not suffer fools lightly. This, apparently, upsets the fools." ---BB cuts to the pith of a flame-fest >You have to distinguish between meal planning and meal composition. I >don't, for the most part, eat dishes that I know will spike me. Since I [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >was that it was a fairly meaningless question, in terms of the way we >plan our meals. Yeah, what she said - almost exactly - except work don't ever buy me pizza :D And from what I recall of Alice's meal posts, there's things she can eat that spike me, and vice versa. It's so hugely individual... which is why Jennifer's test,test,test advice is so impressive. Nicky. T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid D&E, 100ug thyroxine Last A1c 5.6% BMI 25 : In article : <f7d57ab5-7c02-4dc6-9731-91a3dd08f36c@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, : > > Most here seem to eat below the 100 grams a day mark. : > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : > everyone how many carbs they ate a day. Most here seem to favor a low : > spike diet without regard to grams of carbs consumed. : You have to distinguish between meal planning and meal composition. I : don't, for the most part, eat dishes that I know will spike me. Since I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] : I know, from experience, that I'll get a spike, and a delayed spike at : that, from eating the stuff below the toppings. : When you posted your question, the reaction of many of the long-term T2s : was that it was a fairly meaningless question, in terms of the way we : plan our meals. Thanks, Alice, That sums u much of what I do, usually. I know that I can have a large serving of a cooked vegetble and a large salad with my protein at dinner and a pice of fresh fruit, or 10-12 cherries in season, etc. I know my cottge cheese, fruit an yogurt breakfast does not spike me, even thugh the carbs may well vary depending on the fruit available. I really don't c"count" allthe time, bu tmay, occasinal kep track particularly when not eating at home. Wendy > On Jan 16, 11:20?am, "krom" <thekromremoverem...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Huh..according to who? [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > low > carb. Sad how some are sooooo fooled. lol Oh you are the expert on what works for everyone. So silly of us not to have remembered that. Since I am maintaining normal numbers how do you explain that? I suppose all of should be taking the same meds, eating the same thing no matter what. You need to get with it. I said that was what I was allotted, NOT what I actually eat. If you and others consider it high carb, so what? It works for ME, and maintains MY numbers, that is all that matters. SignatureT2 - Oct. '96 - Lantus, oral meds, diet http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel Undo the munge to reply by email I guess trying to take things to a higher level is a joke to her..sad. Funny thing is ive been here almost exacttly a year..but accuracy has never been her strong suit... KROM "DarkSentinel" <darkmungesentinel@munge.charter.munge.net> wrote >> >> Damnit Kurt, get with the program man! Krom has been here a bit over >> 6mons [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > carb, so what? It works for ME, and maintains MY numbers, that is all that > matters. > On Jan 16, 11:20?am, "krom" <thekromremoverem...@hotmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > But ya you're right, 225gm of carbs a day is definately by any means NOT low > carb. �Sad how some are sooooo fooled. lol I think a couple of people who are posting in this thread are being purposely obtuse. DS seems to be very confused as he took my "225 in this newsgroup is high carb" as a personal attack on his eating plan. How could anyone misconstrue that? He is working with a dietician which is what I recommend to everyone as opposed to basing your diabetes management on what strangers in a newsgroup tell you. It obviously is working well for him and I applaud that and would encourage him to continue on. 225 grams of carb is not high carb in my definition, but it is in this (mostly) low carb newsgroup. Many here choose not to eat the recommended 130 carbs per day and brag about it. Then of course there is the usual Chris Malcolm post that uses any thread as a way to trash the ADA. Although he's proven time and time again that he doesn't really understand what the ADA dietary recommendations are. He also doesn't know the difference between a mustard seed and whole grains, or that diabetics should test more often than once a month. If I had to define low-carb and high-carb I would do it as follows, but with a big caveat that it's hard to determine what an individual needs if the X factors of exercise and medication are not included. So these ranges are strictly based on reading posts in here for over 5 years. Extreme Low-Carb = 0-30 Low-Carb = 30-100 Moderate Carb = 100-200 High Carb = 200-400 Call Jenny Craig = 400 to Infinity Let me repeat before the dogpiling starts. These are numbers that seem to relate to the many discussions I've read IN THIS NEWSGROUP. They do not reflect how I think the average person eats. People should work with a professional to determine what their particular dietary needs based on many factors that are relative to them, such as how active they are, what medications they are taking, and if they have other medical conditions. Kurt I think the point your missing kurt is IF you could give me a krispy kream doghnut that didnt spike me i'd eat it happily carbs and all. True low carbers would eat the doghnut due to the carbs..i dont eat it due to the spike in BG..which is a big difference. Most i read here are low spike eaters rather then low carbers. KROM On Jan 16, 12:38?pm, "rk" <rkh...@gotcha.com> wrote: > "Kurt" <kurtwheeling1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > low > carb. ?Sad how some are sooooo fooled. lol I think a couple of people who are posting in this thread are being purposely obtuse. DS seems to be very confused as he took my "225 in this newsgroup is high carb" as a personal attack on his eating plan. How could anyone misconstrue that? He is working with a dietician which is what I recommend to everyone as opposed to basing your diabetes management on what strangers in a newsgroup tell you. It obviously is working well for him and I applaud that and would encourage him to continue on. 225 grams of carb is not high carb in my definition, but it is in this (mostly) low carb newsgroup. Many here choose not to eat the recommended 130 carbs per day and brag about it. Then of course there is the usual Chris Malcolm post that uses any thread as a way to trash the ADA. Although he's proven time and time again that he doesn't really understand what the ADA dietary recommendations are. He also doesn't know the difference between a mustard seed and whole grains, or that diabetics should test more often than once a month. If I had to define low-carb and high-carb I would do it as follows, but with a big caveat that it's hard to determine what an individual needs if the X factors of exercise and medication are not included. So these ranges are strictly based on reading posts in here for over 5 years. Extreme Low-Carb = 0-30 Low-Carb = 30-100 Moderate Carb = 100-200 High Carb = 200-400 Call Jenny Craig = 400 to Infinity Let me repeat before the dogpiling starts. These are numbers that seem to relate to the many discussions I've read IN THIS NEWSGROUP. They do not reflect how I think the average person eats. People should work with a professional to determine what their particular dietary needs based on many factors that are relative to them, such as how active they are, what medications they are taking, and if they have other medical conditions. Kurt > Then of course there > is the usual Chris Malcolm post that uses any thread as a way to trash > the ADA. Thanks for reminding me, I do sometimes forget these days. THE ADA IS A COCKROACH! > Although he's proven time and time again that he doesn't > really understand what the ADA dietary recommendations are. I still don't. That's why when discussing them in the past I've quoted and cited the relevant pages in detail. But I gave up discussing them a long time ago after discovering that nobody here could offer me a satisfactory explanation of the ADA's dietary recommendations. So now as Kurt points out I just sneer at them at least once in every thread, although as I posted recently, I do regard their most recent change as a promising first step in the semicircular journey they're going to have to make over the next few to several years. > He also > doesn't know the difference between a mustard seed and whole grains, > or that diabetics should test more often than once a month. Oh dear! I do hope this isn't the beginnings of dementia: I've tested four times today already, and it's not even time for lunch yet! That's really blown my January average! Now that you've reminded me I'll put the BG meter away at once and not touch it again until February. How could I forget something as elementary as my own BG testing advice? :-) SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] >> Then of course there >> is the usual Chris Malcolm post that uses any thread as a way to trash [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >could I forget something as elementary as my own BG testing advice? >:-) Chris, you'd have a better conversation discussing cosmology with a cranberry. SignatureLarry, T2, Saskatchewan, Canada. DX 24 Aug 07. D&E Metformin 2000mg, Ramipril, Simvastatin Dx A1c 8.1 : Latest 5.1 My argument with ya kurt is ya always toss the term low carber around like a curse..theres a huge different between eating low carb and a non spiking carb diet diet. I mentioned the foods on the foods group because cherry cobbler etc isnt low carb..but can be made low spiking. The whole net carb thing i dont go for because my meter tells me i can spike on some supposed low net carb foods and not on some "regular" foods. But anyhoo.... KROM On Jan 16, 11:20?am, "krom" <thekromremoverem...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Huh..according to who? According to having been here for a number of years. You are relatively new...or so it seems...225 is considered high carb in here. > Comon kurt i thought we were going in a new direction? You mean the fact that heretofore we agreed on some things. :) This doesn't seem to be one of them so to you that means we are going in the wrong direction? > 220 grams carbs isnt much if he is eating ?healthy low spike foods and you > know thats what most of us eat here Most here seem to eat below the 100 grams a day mark. >...only a couple go real low carb and > thats because of dietary issues etc...and even they arent as low carb as > many are in everyday life. Huh? > I just did the math and i eat about that in carbs a day..of course the net > carbs is alot less when all said and done but thats nitpicking and serves > no > point..i eat bread and fruit and veggies and milk and nuts etc all > containing carbs..even ice cream bars...just low spike. Then according to most "low carbers" in this newsgroup - and there are quite a few - you are a high carber. Don't mean to shock you or anything, but that is the truth. > Name five people who regularly post here who dont eat carbs? I never said that people here don't eat carbs...just that 225 per day would be considered high carb by most here. > In the food group we are talking muffins and cherry cobbler.. ??? Kurt > KROM > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Kurt > Huh..according to who? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > In the food group we are talking muffins and cherry cobbler.. You may as well be talking to the wall bud. The ones that are giving you crap fail to understand the "not all diabetics are the same" principle. It works for me, has helped me drop weight, and keep my numbers where they are supposed to be, and in the end, that is all that matters. Whether some consider it high carb is irrelevant. I have been coming in/lurking as far back as 2002. Maybe longer but I can't remember what nicks I used back then, and the same old sh.t was going on then. SignatureT2 - Oct. '96 - Lantus, oral meds, diet http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel Undo the munge to reply by email DarkSentinel wrote in message ... >I have been coming in/lurking as far back as 2002. Maybe longer but I can't >remember what nicks I used back then, and the same old sh.t was going on >then. Yes, and it will be the same 5 years from now, human nature being what it is. I consider myself fairly low carb, but I try to stay out of the eating plans of others. I'm a big believer in "whatever works." :-) Cheri > DarkSentinel wrote in message ... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it is. I consider myself fairly low carb, but I try to stay out of the > eating plans of others. I'm a big believer in "whatever works." :-) Same here. No one has the same metabolism, so what works for one, doesn't work for others. SignatureT2 - Oct. '96 - Lantus, oral meds, diet http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel Undo the munge to reply by email Yeah i came here a year ago and my newsready let me grab like 5000 posts ..maybe more i recall into the past so i read for monts before i found this newserver that allows posting..the old one was read only. People can attack me all day i got thick skin..lol KROM > I have been coming in/lurking as far back as 2002. Maybe longer but I > can't remember what nicks I used back then, and the same old sh.t was > going on then. > Yeah i came here a year ago and my newsready let me grab like 5000 posts > ..maybe more i recall into the past so i read for monts before i found > this newserver that allows posting..the old one was read only. > > People can attack me all day i got thick skin..lol Unfortunately, there are some that think that if you weren't here at the inception of the group, you have nothing to add to it. They resort to trying to deride or insult you. All it serves to do, is make them look idiotic and petty. SignatureT2 - Oct. '96 - Lantus, oral meds, diet http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel Undo the munge to reply by email Didnt you get the memo?..we arent "real" diabetics as type two's anyhoo.. heh KROM "DarkSentinel" <darkmungesentinel@munge.charter.munge.net> wrote > > Unfortunately, there are some that think that if you weren't here at the > inception of the group, you have nothing to add to it. They resort to > trying to deride or insult you. All it serves to do, is make them look > idiotic and petty. Damnit, are you now telling me that I'm not a real diabetic, and just hang out in this group so I can be close to real diabetics, sort of like people that hang around where the Hollywood stars congregate? ;-) Cheri krom wrote in message ... >Didnt you get the memo?..we arent "real" diabetics as type two's anyhoo.. > >heh > >KROM > Damnit, are you now telling me that I'm not a real diabetic, and just > hang out in this group so I can be close to real diabetics, sort of > like people that hang around where the Hollywood stars congregate? ;-) <sets up a map stand, selling syringe and Insulin pen souvenirs, and low-carb snacks> To the right you'll see the house of..... SignatureT2 - Oct. '96 - Lantus, oral meds, diet http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel Undo the munge to reply by email Yeah real diabetics are kewl! KROM > Damnit, are you now telling me that I'm not a real diabetic, and just > hang out in this group so I can be close to real diabetics, sort of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >>KROM > Didnt you get the memo?..we arent "real" diabetics as type two's anyhoo.. > > heh Dang, I musta missed it. Probably when I was injecting my insulin. SignatureT2 - Oct. '96 - Lantus, oral meds, diet http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel Undo the munge to reply by email >> Yeah i came here a year ago and my newsready let me grab like 5000 posts >> ..maybe more i recall into the past so i read for monts before i found [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >to deride or insult you. All it serves to do, is make them look idiotic and >petty. Which ones think they are members of the founding group? SignatureMåck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/type1and2/ http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco" http://www.ratbags.com/dechunging/ "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 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... . >>> Yeah i came here a year ago and my newsready let me grab like 5000 posts >>> ..maybe more i recall into the past so i read for monts before i found [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Which ones think they are members of the founding group? Never said anything about founders bud. But if you remember from another thread, Kurt was trying to allude that since rk has been around so long, people shouldn't get on her when she pulled that sh*t with me. THAT is what I was referring to. SignatureT2 - Oct. '96 - Lantus, oral meds, diet http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel Undo the munge to reply by email >> Yeah i came here a year ago and my newsready let me grab like 5000 posts >> ..maybe more i recall into the past so i read for monts before i found [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >to deride or insult you. All it serves to do, is make them look idiotic and >petty. The fact that they've been here so long and haven't learned a damned thing -- and brag about it -- is what makes them look idiotic and petty. SignatureBlueBrooke T2/D&E/June 2005 May 2007 A1c 5.5 Oct 2007 Yellow Belt! Yeah! BlueBrooke <.@.> wrote in message <2odcp3l773h6qt9uqvtkgt05o1lqplrp26@4ax.com>... >>> Yeah i came here a year ago and my newsready let me grab like 5000 posts >>> ..maybe more i recall into the past so i read for monts before i found [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >thing -- and brag about it -- is what makes them look idiotic and >petty. :) Cheri >>> Yeah i came here a year ago and my newsready let me grab like 5000 posts >>> ..maybe more i recall into the past so i read for monts before i found [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > thing -- and brag about it -- is what makes them look idiotic and > petty. Far be it for me to disagree...;) SignatureT2 - Oct. '96 - Lantus, oral meds, diet http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel Undo the munge to reply by email >>> Yeah i came here a year ago and my newsready let me grab like 5000 posts >>> ..maybe more i recall into the past so i read for monts before i found [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >thing -- and brag about it -- is what makes them look idiotic and >petty. They use the group in write-only mode and read only what they project onto the inside of their own eyelids. Trust me on this, I just ploughed back through over four years of these groups, *some* of them know less now by an order of magnitude than they did a few years back. How To Disrupt Newsgroups http://gandalf.home.digital.net/trollfaq.html http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/CoS/index.html Why http://samvak.tripod.com/ http://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/usenet/guide/fwit-faq.html Who http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/index.htm HTH ;) > On Jan 16, 3:12�am, "DarkSentinel" > <darkmungesenti...@munge.charter.munge.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Hate to break it to you, but in this newsgroup you'd be considered > eating a high-carb diet. And you are a dietician? You are an expert on nutrition? From what I WAS eating, that is EXTREMELY low carb, and as I stated before in other posts, I RARELY eat my allotted carb allowance. If anything, I do 1/2 to 1/3 what I am allowed. So YES, I am eating a low carb diet. SignatureT2 - Oct. '96 - Lantus, oral meds, diet http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel Undo the munge to reply by email On Jan 16, 4:14 pm, "DarkSentinel" <darkmungesenti...@munge.charter.munge.net> wrote: > > On Jan 16, 3:12�am, "DarkSentinel" > > <darkmungesenti...@munge.charter.munge.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > RARELY eat my allotted carb allowance. If anything, I do 1/2 to 1/3 what I > am allowed. So YES, I am eating a low carb diet. No, I am not a dietician, and unlike some in here, have never pretended to be. Did you read what I wrote? I said that in "this newsgroup" you would be considered high carb. Kurt >On Jan 16, 4:14=C2=A0pm, "DarkSentinel" ><darkmungesenti...@munge.charter.munge.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> >> >> > It's pretty clear to me though. :-) >> >> Same here. I'm on 225g of carbs per day. I have lost 20 pounds, got my >> >> BGs >> >> down to normal level and am keeping them there. When I "cheat" a little= > >> >> on >> >> my carbs, up go my BG's. So for me it's not MAY be, it IS. >> > Hate to break it to you, but in this newsgroup you'd be considered >> > eating a high-carb diet. >> And you are a dietician? You are an expert on nutrition? From what I WAS >> eating, that is EXTREMELY low carb, and as I stated before in other posts,= > I >> RARELY eat my allotted carb allowance. If anything, I do 1/2 to 1/3 what I= >> am allowed. So YES, I am eating a low carb diet. >No, I am not a dietician, and unlike some in here, have never >pretended to be. Did you read what I wrote? I said that in "this >newsgroup" you would be considered high carb. >Kurt Both of you are correct. Compared to the GENERAL POPULATION, 225g/day of carbs is considered "low carb". Compared to the self-selected, motivated people on a.s.d, "low carb" generally refers to 100g/day or below. Doctors dealing with the general population have great problems dealing with patient non-compliance issues. A great number of their patients refuse to even try. So the recommendations they deal with (such as by the American Diabetes Association and others) have been developed with the aim of getting the most good for the most people. The lower the carbs recommended, the fewer people actually follow the diet. (The same is true of low fat/low calorie diets, of course - the lower the number, the fewer that comply.) Essentially, they compare plans and say "The optimum plan gives the best results when followed but only a few patients will follow it. The rest will give up and go back to their old way of eating. The total benefit to the population at large is pretty small. The next best plan will give good results and a few more will follow that, but still not so many. That's a bit better overall, but still not so good. The third best plan will generally be helpful, and a lot more people will follow it. This plan gets us the best results overall for the population at large." AND IN THIS THEY ARE CORRECT. The people here, however, are not average patients. They are self-selected, generally highly-motivated individuals. The number of people here that will actually COMPLY with the best program is much higher. People here have been very concerned about WHICH PROGRAM GIVES THE BEST RESULTS FOR THEM AS INDIVIDUALS IF FOLLOWED rather than WHICH PROGRAM GIVES THE BEST RESULTS FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC WHEN BROADLY PRESCRIBED. It is only within the last year that the ADA has admitted that the REASON that they hadn't been advising people to go onto a lowcarb program is that they didn't think many people would be able to stay on it. For the 40 years prior to that (from when lowcarb hit it's first widespread wave of popularity back in the 60s) they had been denying that a lowcarb approach actually worked. They hadn't said "It works best, but many people can't stick with it." Instead, they said "The best program is (the third best program)." This deceptive practice caused a lot of hard feelings, which is only slowly subsiding. Even here we have found that there is no single answer that is best for everyone. There is a general consensus that blood sugar levels are more easily controlled as you reduce the amount of carbs you eat. But the plan each individual should follow will vary tremendously. It needs to be something that both works and keeps the patient happy. For some that might be 20g/day, for others it might be 100g/day - or even 225. There are no official definitions for "low carb" and "high carb" on this group - but again, by consensus I think that most people here would agree that the cutoff is somewhere in the 100g-125g/day region for the purposes of this newsgroup. If you keep below, say, 50g/day (many on Atkins and some other plans are around that level), that might be considered "very low carb". Above 100g/day but below the ADA guidelines might be considered "controlled carb". But don't take these as absolutes - these are merely my observations. As for my personal data point: I have pre-diabetes (Impaired Fasting Glucose and Impaired Glucose Tolerance but with numbers below the threshold for a diagnosis with diabetes). I have never been told by a doctor to measure my blood glucose - I do that on my own. Through D&E (diet and exercise) I have dropped 20 pounds and lowered my fasting blood glucose 10 points over the last couple of years. So even though this is a progressive disease and even though they keep dropping the threshold for diagnosis I have managed to keep my situation as "pre-diabetes". Today my fasting blood glucose was 101, my 2-hour post-prandial number (after a meal with about 60g carbs) was 156. I generally keep my carbs under 150g/day and consider myself eating a "controlled carb" diet, probably in the (second best plan) category. It's a level that is helping me and is one I can stay on long term. There's no question that a lower daily carb level (best plan) would help me lose weight faster - but the lower levels are something that I can only maintain for short periods of time. So I appear to be on the plan that's best FOR ME LONGTERM. But I also KNOW about the plans that would work better if I could stick to them. I have the choice to persue them or not as I see fit. The rational choice of an specific Informed Patient, not the safe guess of doctors using patient-compliance data from the general population. > Today my fasting blood glucose was 101, my 2-hour post-prandial number > (after a meal with about 60g carbs) was 156. Harold, how do you figure this makes you pre diabetic? The AACE recommends 140 at two hours after meal Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Susan But a AACE recommended PP number is not a diagnostic tool. I believe a diabetes Dx is only made with two fasting BGs over 126 (the way I was Dx'd) or a GTT over 200 at 2 hours...something like that. John C. > But a AACE recommended PP number is not a diagnostic tool. I believe a > diabetes Dx is only made with two fasting BGs over 126 (the way I was > Dx'd) or a GTT over 200 at 2 hours...something like that. No, it isn't, but it's an indication of how damaging numbers over 140 are. I've been DM for many years and have never had fbg that high, but I was going over 200 after meals routinely. Any two readings over 200 at any time are diagnostic. You should test one hour after eating; if you're at 156 at two hours, odds are you're over 200 at 45 minutes to one hour. Susan >x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Susan I vary things. I have tested at 1-hour p-p several hundred times by now. I have never had a reading over 200. When I do my home OGTT I don't just test at 1 hour and 2 hours, I test every 15 minutes to get closer to finding the true peak reading. (If the continuous monitoring equipment was cheap and easy to get I would use that, but instead I just use lots of test strips.) > I vary things. I have tested at 1-hour p-p several hundred times by > now. I have never had a reading over 200. > When I do my home OGTT I don't just test at 1 hour and 2 hours, I test > every 15 minutes to get closer to finding the true peak reading. > (If the continuous monitoring equipment was cheap and easy to get I > would use that, but instead I just use lots of test strips.) Which at the moment gives rather more accurate figures than the current continuous monitoring technology anyway :-) SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] >> x-no-archive: yes >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> Susan >But a AACE recommended PP number is not a diagnostic tool. I believe a >diabetes Dx is only made with two fasting BGs over 126 (the way I was >Dx'd) or a GTT over 200 at 2 hours...something like that. > >John C. John has it right - 126 fasting/200+ pp are the numbers I was told to use FOR DIAGNOSIS, not "target numbers to manage to". Numbers under the diagnosis threshold but above "normal" are considered "pre-diabetic". That doesn't mean that the 156 at 2 hours is something for me to be happy about. It's a number that I use to adjust what I eat, how I exercise and so on. Some days 2h-pp is below 140, some (like yesterday) not. > John has it right - 126 fasting/200+ pp are the numbers I was told to > use FOR DIAGNOSIS, not "target numbers to manage to". Numbers under [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > exercise and so on. Some days 2h-pp is below 140, some (like > yesterday) not. The point is that if you're that high at two hours, you are NOT pre diabetic, far from it. Do you do one hour testing? Susan >x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> exercise and so on. Some days 2h-pp is below 140, some (like >> yesterday) not. >The point is that if you're that high at two hours, you are NOT pre >diabetic, far from it. >Do you do one hour testing? >Susan Yes, I often do one hour testing. An important point is that this was NOT a pure glucose solution like in a GTT (where the peak hits fast). This was a regular meal with a quite respectable fat content. That slows down the process and the peak generally hits later for me under those conditions. So if I have a relatively lowfat me I'll generally test at 1 hour, if I have a relatively highfat meal I'll generally test at 2 hours, and every now and then I switch around just to keep tabs on things. In general I feel I keep a fairly good handle on what my blood sugar is doing. I'm also in the 5% club for A1c. Sure, this is all one disease, and progressive, and "pre-diabetes" is just a measure of how far along the path one has traveled (or not traveled). But it can make a world of difference if you, say, try to buy health insurance. Saying that you have an existing case of diabetes might mean an extra $5000+/year (if you can get it at all), so pardon me if I stick to the same diagnostic figures that the health insurance companies are using. By their own numbers I am "pre-diabetic" and I am working hard not to cross their threshold even as they keep lowering the numbers. I recognize that some damage may happen above 140. That's a cumulative thing, how much above, how long, total lifetime exposure, etc. I do not ignore that. But I don't panic, either, if I go above. I try to go with the relative risk, not use an absolute cutoff "Is the risk greater than zero?" Eating food carries the risk of choking. Not eating food carries the risk of starvation. You CAN'T cut the risk to zero. The best you can do is make sensible decisions and tradeoffs, and there are darn few who claim to ALWAYS make the sensible decision (I sure don't). But I think that I am taking a reasonably sensible approach to this and have reasonably good patient compliance. Not perfect by any means, but reasonably good. >x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> exercise and so on. Some days 2h-pp is below 140, some (like >> yesterday) not. >The point is that if you're that high at two hours, you are NOT pre >diabetic, far from it. >Do you do one hour testing? >Susan Yes, I often do one hour testing. An important point is that this was NOT a pure glucose solution like in a GTT (where the peak hits fast). This was a regular meal with a quite respectable fat content. That slows down the process and the peak generally hits later for me under those conditions. So if I have a relatively lowfat me I'll generally test at 1 hour, if I have a relatively highfat meal I'll generally test at 2 hours, and every now and then I switch around just to keep tabs on things. In general I feel I keep a fairly good handle on what my blood sugar is doing. I'm also in the 5% club for A1c. Sure, this is all one disease, and progressive, and "pre-diabetes" is just a measure of how far along the path one has traveled (or not traveled). But it can make a world of difference if you, say, try to buy health insurance. Saying that you have an existing case of diabetes might mean an extra $5000+/year (if you can get it at all), so pardon me if I stick to the same diagnostic figures that the health insurance companies are using. By their own numbers I am "pre-diabetic" and I am working hard not to cross their threshold even as they keep lowering the numbers. I recognize that some damage may happen above 140. That's a cumulative thing, how much above, how long, total lifetime exposure, etc. I do not ignore that. But I don't panic, either, if I go above. I try to go with the relative risk, not use an absolute cutoff "Is the risk greater than zero?" Eating food carries the risk of choking. Not eating food carries the risk of starvation. You CAN'T cut the risk to zero. The best you can do is make sensible decisions and tradeoffs, and there are darn few who claim to ALWAYS make the sensible decision (I sure don't). But I think that I am taking a reasonably sensible approach to this and have reasonably good patient compliance. Not perfect by any means, but reasonably good. >That doesn't mean that the 156 at 2 hours is something for me to be >happy about. It's a number that I use to adjust what I eat, how I >exercise and so on. Some days 2h-pp is below 140, some (like >yesterday) not. Harold, the other issue is that a spike to 140 may be damaging, and it doesn't matter whether you're hitting that at one hour or two - see the "Healthy Blood Sugar Targets" on this page: http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/ Nicky. T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid D&E, 100ug thyroxine Last A1c 5.6% BMI 25 >Today my fasting blood glucose was 101, my 2-hour post-prandial number >(after a meal with about 60g carbs) was 156. Wow! Harold, that's not pre-diabetes... I think it's a good job you're pro-active, but it might be time to take a closer look at your diet/exercise patterns, and maybe talking to that doc about metformin... Nicky. T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid D&E, 100ug thyroxine Last A1c 5.6% BMI 25 If i goto 140 my vision blurrs etc...so for ME 156 is a no no and i avoind goign that high as much as possible. So IMO your a type two fully and not pre anything. But that my opinion im not a doctor... KROM >>Today my fasting blood glucose was 101, my 2-hour post-prandial number >>(after a meal with about 60g carbs) was 156. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > D&E, 100ug thyroxine > Last A1c 5.6% BMI 25 > It is only within the last year that the ADA has admitted that the > REASON that they hadn't been advising people to go onto a lowcarb [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > best, but many people can't stick with it." Instead, they said "The > best program is (the third best program)." > This deceptive practice caused a lot of hard feelings, which is only > slowly subsiding. Well said. It not only caused hard feelings, but sometimes caused the feelings in the extremities resulting from peripheral neuropathy :-) > As for my personal data point: I have pre-diabetes (Impaired Fasting > Glucose and Impaired Glucose Tolerance but with numbers below the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > threshold for diagnosis I have managed to keep my situation as > "pre-diabetes". > Today my fasting blood glucose was 101, my 2-hour post-prandial number > (after a meal with about 60g carbs) was 156. I understand that you could be showing figures like that while being under the usual screening diagnostic thresholds. At the time of my disgnosis I was under those thresholds. But I wonder if you would be under the diagnostic threshold in a glucose tolerance test? There is a significant number of T2s who are missed by the usual tests and caught by GTT, which is why the WHO thinks that it shouldn't have been dropped from the general diagnostic armoury. Not that it is of much practical consequence in your case, since you have sensibly recognised the rather arbitrary and unhelpful medical practice of setting the diagnostic thresholds for T2 diabetes at the point in the progression of the disorder when you've become sufficiently damaged that you'll never be able to recover. SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] >I understand that you could be showing figures like that while being >under the usual screening diagnostic thresholds. At the time of my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >by GTT, which is why the WHO thinks that it shouldn't have been >dropped from the general diagnostic armoury. I have had several GTTs over the years - some by doctors, some at home. None have shown me to pass the 200 threshold for diagnosis. And as I mentioned before, at home I didn't just check at 1 hour and 2 hours. I checked every 15 minutes to try to hit the peak. >>I understand that you could be showing figures like that while being >>under the usual screening diagnostic thresholds. At the time of my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>by GTT, which is why the WHO thinks that it shouldn't have been >>dropped from the general diagnostic armoury. > I have had several GTTs over the years - some by doctors, some at > home. None have shown me to pass the 200 threshold for diagnosis. > And as I mentioned before, at home I didn't just check at 1 hour and 2 > hours. I checked every 15 minutes to try to hit the peak. Wonderful! Sounds like you may well manage to stay under the diagnostic criteria, at least until they revise them downwards again :-) SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] quester@infionline.net (Harold Groot) wrote in part: >Today my fasting blood glucose was 101, my 2-hour post-prandial number >(after a meal with about 60g carbs) was 156. As some others have pointed out, this is not necessarily a pre-diabetic reading. The diagnostic criteria usually used indicate diabetes when a *pure* load of *75g* of *glucose* is administered and the blood glucose is at 200 or above at 2 hours. A "meal" with 60g of carbs is not the same as the pure 75g of glucose. It will convert to less than 60g of glucose and the blood glucose rise will be slowed by the fat, fiber, and protein in the meal. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA : On Jan 16, 4:14?pm, "DarkSentinel" : <darkmungesenti...@munge.charter.munge.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] : > RARELY eat my allotted carb allowance. If anything, I do 1/2 to 1/3 what I : > am allowed. So YES, I am eating a low carb diet. : No, I am not a dietician, and unlike some in here, have never : pretended to be. Did you read what I wrote? I said that in "this : newsgroup" you would be considered high carb. : Kurt But not to the extent that he is NOT eating as amny carbs s his dietician recommends! He is actally following a YMMV pattern rather than his dietician's and he is succeding in losing weight and maintaiing his bgs.. This is what happened to many of us. I am not mad at my dietitian. She taught me to count carbs, learn portion control, etc, but just recommended more carbs than I ocould eat without spiking, so I reduced tha number of carbs to where my bg's were at a decent level. This seem sto be exactly what DS is doing, using his dieticians informatin and pattern, but eating fewer ccarbs, which works for him. Wendy > : > > On Jan 16, 3:12?am, "DarkSentinel" > : > > <darkmungesenti...@munge.charter.munge.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > sto be exactly what DS is doing, using his dieticians informatin and > pattern, but eating fewer ccarbs, which works for him. I realize that and good for him. But that's not what I was talking about. The point I keep making, that seems to keep getting purposelly ignored, is that 225 carbs per day would be considered high-carb in this newsgroup. Despite the backpeddaling from some who try and say that it isn't, for this newsgroup that number of carbs would be considered high-carb. It's way more than most people claim to eat in here per day. Not judging the diet or the person, just the number of carbs. Kurt |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message