Re: Test Result 8 weeks after dx

[Guest guest]

Nice progress, . Keep after those spikes, as you know, they are

dangerous.

Barb

> I have lost 12 lbs.

> My A1C went from 9.6 to 6.9 still spiking to high 200's after meals on BS

> My triglycerides when from 504 to 179

> My liver function went from a 93 to a 54

[Guest guest]

Hi Barb!

>>......Keep after those spikes, as you know, they are dangerous.<<

I know it's not your responsibility to educate my husband and me, but we are

so hungry to learn more about diabetes. Would you mind explaining what you

mean by spikes are dangerous? How are they dangerous?

I have ordered Dr. Bernstein's book, so maybe we will understand more soon.

I am amazed (not really!) at the lack of information available from the

medical community. Of course, my husband is not taking the medicine

prescribed, so maybe that has something to do with it.

Have any of you found that if you use a natural alternative like my husband

instead of drugs, the doctors are less open with information? On my

husband's visit last week, his doctor just looked at his book where he keeps

a record of his blood sugar levels and said, " You're doing great. " That's

it! He didn't learn anything.

We're learning more from our naturopath doctor than from anyone. I am also

learning a lot from the diabetes lists and I really appreciate all the

information.

Hope ya'll are having a good week so far.

http://www.millerventures.com

[Guest guest]

My doctor tried to tell me yesterday that spikes up to 200 are ok because my

morning and bedtime numbers are good.

[Guest guest]

> but we are

> so hungry to learn more about diabetes. Would you mind explaining what

you

> mean by spikes are dangerous? How are they dangerous?

***Bernstein's book will help alot in this area. I just know what I read

here, and don't have much time to read (or remember the reference) the

wonderful reports and information that is out there. Others here are great

at that, and maybe they will pitch in. I've read that complications can

begin to occur at a bs of over 126 - others say 140. Again, I don't know

the mechanics, but higher bs numbers damage the body in ways that can cause

the dm complications we hear about: neuropathy, blindness, amputations,

heart disease.

>

> I have ordered Dr. Bernstein's book, so maybe we will understand more

soon.

***Yes, it's very informative.

> I am amazed (not really!) at the lack of information available from the

> medical community. Of course, my husband is not taking the medicine

> prescribed, so maybe that has something to do with it.

****Maybe, maybe not. Most folks report that there docs give them a dx, a

script in some cases, and don't get into anything else.

>

> Have any of you found that if you use a natural alternative like my

husband

> instead of drugs, the doctors are less open with information? On my

> husband's visit last week, his doctor just looked at his book where he

keeps

> a record of his blood sugar levels and said, " You're doing great. " That's

> it! He didn't learn anything.

***This seems to be pretty normal. Most docs are more tolerant of higher bs

numbers. My idea of good control is an A1c of less than 6.0, with spikes

consistently less than 140, and lower if I can manage it. Every one is

different, but I have to choose lower glycemic carbs to do this.

http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm Rick Mendosa has other great information

on this website, mendosa.com, as well.

As always, eat and test and keep good notes. In defense of some docs, I

think they see so many totally unmotivated dm patients that they are truly

suprised to see one trying to achieve control. For now, you might get an

A1c every 3 months to use as a measurement of how his control is.

Barb

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 01-07-24 11:24:02 EDT, you write:

<<

My doctor tried to tell me yesterday that spikes up to 200 are ok because my

morning and bedtime numbers are good.

>>

This is a good example of a doctor who isn't up to date on latest diabetes

care. Spikes of up to 200 are NOT okay and he is just plain wrong.

Have you read Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solutions yet? If not, run, don't

walk, to your nearest source. If you can' get it from your library or local

bookstore, Amazon has it. And Dr. Bernstein has a website with excerpts from

the book, URL link at our website, URL below. Vicki

Vicki

[Guest guest]

Hi Barb,

Thanks for your resposne. I really appreciate your helpfulness. You used a

few abbreviations that I don't understand. Would you mind defining the

following:

A1c

dx

dm

I did figure out bs must be blood sugar! SORRY if this is repetitious for

some of you.... I'm learning here!

Thanks for your patience!

http://www.millerventures.com

[Guest guest]

wrote,

> My doctor tried to tell me yesterday that spikes up to 200 are ok

because my morning and bedtime numbers are good.

>

,

Traditionally, spikes between 150 and 200 or so have been regarded

as " Impaired Glucose Tolerance (IGT) " not diabetes. They have been

regarded as warning symptoms that a person is at risk of diabetes,

but not dangerous in themselves. Because of this tradition, when a

diabetic improves to the IGT level, that's been regarded as good.

But this list is actually AHEAD of the thinking of most doctors on

diabetes because we're in touch with the latest research and

knowledge.

This recent knowledge came in a discovery about 10 years ago that

people with IGT are at increased risk of heart disease even if they

are not officially diabetic. The diagnosis for people with IGT who

have increased risk of heart disease is called " Sydrome

X, " " Metabolic Syndome " or " Insulin Resistance Syndrome. "

You are especially at risk if you have other symptoms of Metabolic

Syndrome including hypertension, high cholesterol, low HDL and/or

especially high triglycerides.

Because of the above, the state-of-the-art among leading

endocrinologists now is to go for " tight bg control. " My information

is a little different from Barb's, though...as far as I know spikes

between 150 and 200 or so are regarded as putting you at risk of

various forms of heart disease, but not necessarily at significantly

stronger risk of things like neuropathy, blindness, etc. It may be

that spikes put you at risk of these things, but I don't believe

there's any official data on that yet.

Here is a long article I saved for the list of a dialogue among

leading diabetes specialists where they are talking about

recommending much tighter postprandial control. Unfortunately, they

place too much focus on drugs treatments, but they do recommend

tighter control.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/diabetes_int/files/

T

[Guest guest]

Thanks, . I try to always point out that I'm not a technical person,

and only say what I remember with an impaired memory. So, I'm always

delighted to be corrected - seriously.

Barb

> Because of the above, the state-of-the-art among leading

> endocrinologists now is to go for " tight bg control. " My information

> is a little different from Barb's, though...as far as I know spikes

> between 150 and 200 or so are regarded as putting you at risk of

> various forms of heart disease, but not necessarily at significantly

> stronger risk of things like neuropathy, blindness, etc. It may be

> that spikes put you at risk of these things, but I don't believe

> there's any official data on that yet.

[Guest guest]

Barb wrote

> Thanks, . I try to always point out that I'm not a technical

person,

> and only say what I remember with an impaired memory. So, I'm

always

> delighted to be corrected - seriously.

>

Barb, you may well be right...didn't mean to " correct " you. I just

haven't seen studies yet. Either they haven't been done or I just

haven't seen them. If anyone else has, I hope they let us know.

T

[Guest guest]

Actually, I like to believe that anything over 126 is damaging, because it's

inspiring for me and keeps me out of trouble most of the time!

Barb

> I just

> haven't seen studies yet. Either they haven't been done or I just

> haven't seen them. If anyone else has, I hope they let us know.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 07/24/2001 11:58:23 AM Central Daylight Time,

linda@... writes:

> SORRY if this is repetitious for

> some of you.... I'm learning here!

>

me too linda!

i appericiate your questions, and everyones answers!

lizz

[Guest guest]

>My doctor told me to keep my BSL under 175 and that may be too liberal

>acording what what I read on the diabetes lists.

,

If it's not too personal, how old are you? The actual " hold to " value

is largely a function of age.

--

Geoff Beneze

Tempe, AZ

BEAST Enterprises

Gunsmithing, target stands

http://www.beast-enterprises.com

NRA life Member

IDPA A00981

[Guest guest]

My doctor told me to keep my BSL under 175 and that may be too liberal

acording what what I read on the diabetes lists.

Best Regards, Ratliff

icq 1495914

aim mtncurr22

msn Ratliff

paltalk TennRascal

SE Tenn.

Must have utilities: www.copernic.com www.paltalk.com www.ghisler.com

Test Result 8 weeks after dx

Today I got all my labs back. My first check since being dx 8 weeks ago. I

have not changed my diet except to lower the portions. I did start walking

every night.

I have lost 12 lbs.

My A1C went from 9.6 to 6.9 still spiking to high 200's after meals on BS

My triglycerides when from 504 to 179

My liver function went from a 93 to a 54

Website for Diabetes International:

http://www.msteri.com/diabetes-info/diabetes_int

Post message: diabetes_int

Subscribe: diabetes_int-subscribe

Unsubscribe: diabetes_int-unsubscribe

List owner: diabetes_int-owner /

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/diabetes_int or try:

http://www.yahoo.com > Join A Group > diabetes_int > Join This Group

[Guest guest]

Geoff, welcome to the list.

Could you site reference for this statement, and/or explain it, please? It

doesn't make sense to me that an upper limit bs number would have anything

to do with age.

Thanks,

Barb

> If it's not too personal, how old are you? The actual " hold to " value

> is largely a function of age.

[Guest guest]

61

Please explain age with bsl's.

Best Regards, Ratliff

icq 1495914

aim mtncurr22

msn Ratliff

paltalk TennRascal

SE Tenn.

Must have utilities: www.copernic.com www.paltalk.com www.ghisler.com

RE: Test Result 8 weeks after dx

>My doctor told me to keep my BSL under 175 and that may be too liberal

>acording what what I read on the diabetes lists.

,

If it's not too personal, how old are you? The actual " hold to " value

is largely a function of age.

--

Geoff Beneze

Tempe, AZ

BEAST Enterprises

Gunsmithing, target stands

http://www.beast-enterprises.com

NRA life Member

IDPA A00981

Website for Diabetes International:

http://www.msteri.com/diabetes-info/diabetes_int

Post message: diabetes_int

Subscribe: diabetes_int-subscribe

Unsubscribe: diabetes_int-unsubscribe

List owner: diabetes_int-owner /

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/diabetes_int or try:

http://www.yahoo.com > Join A Group > diabetes_int > Join This Group

[Guest guest]

Well, i was diagnosed type 1 at age 60...63 now and my mother is 97...so I

want to continue to live to the end of my natural life and NOT die of

diabetes, smile...so I'll continue on with tight control. Vicki

In a message dated 01-07-26 15:56:43 EDT, you write:

<< unction of age. " -- referring to goal for one's maximum blood sugar level:

The only reason I have found in the medical literature I have read for

lessening the suggested level of blood sugar control (i.e., increasing the

" allowed " BS level) with age is that older people are going to die sooner.

So either doctors don't want to burden them with the regime required for

strict control, or they figure there is going to be a shorter time for

damage to accumulate, or both.

>>

[Guest guest]

Regarding the statement that " The actual " hold to " value is largely a

function of age. " -- referring to goal for one's maximum blood sugar level:

The only reason I have found in the medical literature I have read for

lessening the suggested level of blood sugar control (i.e., increasing the

" allowed " BS level) with age is that older people are going to die sooner.

So either doctors don't want to burden them with the regime required for

strict control, or they figure there is going to be a shorter time for

damage to accumulate, or both.

If I say any more, I'll probably regret it.

Tom the Actuary

[Guest guest]

Thank you.

Best Regards, Ratliff

icq 1495914

msn ROBERT RATLIFF

aim mtncurr22

http://www.copernic.com

seatrch engine

http://www.ghisler.com>

windows commander

http://www.paltalk.com>

voice/text chat

RE: Test Result 8 weeks after dx

Regarding the statement that " The actual " hold to " value is largely a

function of age. " -- referring to goal for one's maximum blood sugar level:

The only reason I have found in the medical literature I have read for

lessening the suggested level of blood sugar control (i.e., increasing the

" allowed " BS level) with age is that older people are going to die sooner.

So either doctors don't want to burden them with the regime required for

strict control, or they figure there is going to be a shorter time for

damage to accumulate, or both.

If I say any more, I'll probably regret it.

Tom the Actuary

Website for Diabetes International:

http://www.msteri.com/diabetes-info/diabetes_int

Post message: diabetes_int

Subscribe: diabetes_int-subscribe

Unsubscribe: diabetes_int-unsubscribe

List owner: diabetes_int-owner /

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/diabetes_int or try:

http://www.yahoo.com > Join A Group > diabetes_int > Join This Group