Guest guest Posted November 11, 2000 Report Share Posted November 11, 2000 In Australia, between 4 (72) and 8 (144) are considered within normal range. anne I believe that friends are quiet angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly. Kid's BG? > My daughter is going to be 6 next month and she's daddy's big helper > by helping to prick his fingers or set up the meters and write down > the levels. She's been curious about what it felt like to be pricked > and wanted to have her own test done, so we did it. Her reading was > 131. Is this normal?? Or is this high for a child? > > Tonya > > > > Public website for Diabetes International: > http://www.msteri.com/diabetes-info/diabetes_int > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2000 Report Share Posted November 13, 2000 Tonya, this is definitely the upper range of normal. However, there are a number of factors that you may look at... Were her fingers clean when the test was done? Was there enough blood on the strip (sometimes meters give false readings if not enough blood is applied). Try it again. If it's still high, you should take her to the doctor and have her checked out. Type I is a possibility, however Type II is being diagnosed in children more and more often. If she is already on the upper end of the range, this could be the beginning of diabetes, and the sooner it gets dealt with, the better it is for her! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2000 Report Share Posted November 13, 2000 Tonya wrote: << Her reading was 131. Is this normal?? Or is this high for a child? >> It depends on how long it had been since she had eaten. If that was a fasting reading, such as one in the morning before breakfast, that reading plus a subsequent fasting reading at/above 126 is sufficient for a diabetes diagnosis. If she had eaten, that reading is pretty normal. But since type 2 runs in families, you are prudent to check all family members regularly. Susie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2000 Report Share Posted November 13, 2000 Susie - Are you sure that 131 could be " normal " ? My doctor has told me that in a person without diabetes, blood glucose levels are regulated by the endocrine system such that even right after eating they will generally be within 70-110. He said that this is true even right after Thanksgiving dinner. Based on what I have been told and what I've read in medical literature, a reading of 131 is very unlikely to be normal. However, kids hands get all sorts of stuff on them, and the test should be repeated under more controlled circumstances, making absolutely sure they've been washed, dried, etc. It doesn't take much to get a false high reading. Anne " Susie M. " wrote: > > Tonya wrote: > > << Her reading was 131. Is this normal?? Or is this high for a child? >> > > It depends on how long it had been since she had eaten. If that was a > fasting reading, such as one in the morning before breakfast, that reading > plus a subsequent fasting reading at/above 126 is sufficient for a diabetes > diagnosis. If she had eaten, that reading is pretty normal. But since type 2 > runs in families, you are prudent to check all family members regularly. > > Susie > > > Public website for Diabetes International: > http://www.msteri.com/diabetes-info/diabetes_int Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2000 Report Share Posted November 13, 2000 Anne F. wrote: << Are you sure that 131 could be " normal " ? >> It depends on what we call normal, I guess. We learned that 85 percent of modern humans are born with a " genetic variant " that gives us trouble handling a high-carbohydrate diet. A study of healthy young adults (none diagnosed diabetic, of course) showed that three-fourths of them had less-than-optimal glucose reaction to carbohydrate ingestion. Since only about a tenth of us are deemed diabetic, there's a wide range of people falling in that grey area. At many labs, the upper end of Normal Range for HbA1c is 6.5, and yet many of us diabetics, realizing that we occasionally spike, are still coming in beneath 6.0. Many early-stage type 2's actually register somewhat hypoglycemic in their fasting state. Susie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2000 Report Share Posted November 13, 2000 That's why I like the term IGT, it fits much better than 1/2 diabetic, or pre-diabetic. " Susie M. " wrote: > > Anne F. wrote: > > << Are you sure that 131 could be " normal " ? >> > > It depends on what we call normal, I guess. We learned that 85 percent of > modern humans are born with a " genetic variant " that gives us trouble > handling a high-carbohydrate diet. A study of healthy young adults (none > diagnosed diabetic, of course) showed that three-fourths of them had > less-than-optimal glucose reaction to carbohydrate ingestion. Since only > about a tenth of us are deemed diabetic, there's a wide range of people > falling in that grey area. At many labs, the upper end of Normal Range for > HbA1c is 6.5, and yet many of us diabetics, realizing that we occasionally > spike, are still coming in beneath 6.0. Many early-stage type 2's actually > register somewhat hypoglycemic in their fasting state. > > Susie > > > Public website for Diabetes International: > http://www.msteri.com/diabetes-info/diabetes_int -- Dave -- Monday, November 13, 2000 t2 8/98 Glucophage ICQ 10312009 «» DavOr's daily aphorism: Fight Crime: Shoot Back! -- Visit my photo page @ http://www.dorcutt.homepage.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2000 Report Share Posted November 13, 2000 Anne asked (Message #21053): > Are you sure that 131 could be " normal " ? Anne, you can't take a single BG reading and quote it without saying how it stands in relation to the previous meal if you want a sensible answer. > My doctor has told me that in a person without diabetes, > blood glucose levels are regulated by the endocrine > system such that even right after eating they will > generally be within 70-110. He said that this is true > even right after Thanksgiving dinner. We laid this spook to rest a few weeks back, Anne. I feel sure that he didn't say that this was regardless of what was eaten. And I hope you won't mind if I look at the words closely. What did he mean by " generally " ? Will it be or won't it? Why did he say " right after eating " instead of 1 hour after? " Right after " eating a meal my BG is in that range, too. It takes about 20 minutes to 1 hour to reach a maximum, depending on how glycemic the meal was. What is so special about a Thanksgiving dinner to justify the word " even " ? A mixed meal like a Thanksgiving dinner is likely to be far less glycemic than a slice of white bread. Did he say that the blood glucose concentration of a normoglycemic person remains within that range 30-90 minutes after eating a slice of white bread, too? I doubt it very much. What he said is true if you consider it in the same way that all regulation systems operate. There is a reference value (the glucose concentration needed by the brain) and a detector of the actual value with a comparator for the two (the pancreas), a control element (the liver) and control signals (insulin to correct downwards, glucagon to correct upwards). The system has a certain dynamic characteristic – it takes time to regulate a change completely back down to the reference value (between about 1 and 4 hours after a meal). If you take the regulation time out of the equation, then you can say that the blood glucose concentration is maintained " constant " . Naturally, during the time that the actual regulation is taking place you will measure values that depart from the target value. That is the same principle for diabetics and non-diabetics alike and, in fact, for all regulation systems. The BG measurement taken 2 hours after a meal starts is a measure of the dynamic performance of the regulation system. If you measure before the change (before a meal) and well after the regulation has been completed (3-5 hours for a non-diabetic and also for a well- adjusted diabetic) you will measure a value that is " constant " within the reference range. (For an untreated diabetic or a diabetic who is not properly adjusted, you will read all kinds of deviant values, of course). Our big problem, and the one that is at the root of the controversy about carbohydrate intake, is to know what damage is done by wide departures from the reference value that occur during the regulation time. If you believe that little or no damage is done during the regulation time then you set your carbohydrate intake to the value recommended for protecting you against some of the other damage that a carbohydrate deficiency can cause (e.g. premature aging, cancer). If you believe that a lot of damage is done by the excursions during the regulation time then you trade off the negative effects of a carbohydrate deficiency (e.g. damage caused to the kidneys by a high protein intake, damage to the cardio-vascular system caused by a high fat intake) against the perceived benefits of limiting the blood glucose excursions during the regulation time (possibility of relative freedom from diabetic complications caused by AGEs). Unfortunately, the " damage " takes many years, even decades, to show so you will never know for sure who is right until it is too late. That is why I claim that the decision is an act of faith but I haven't had any support from anybody on this list for that approach yet. But I would suggest that you do not adopt the " it works for me " approach (it just cannot show so quickly) but rather try to learn the physiology (as I am trying to do in my spare time) and draw your own conclusions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2000 Report Share Posted November 13, 2000 - I'm sure I did not quote my doctor verbatim. He did tell me that in a non-diabetic person or someone without impaired glucose tolerance or hypoglycemia that their blood glucose level would be between 70 and 110. His comment about Thanksgiving dinner was because Americans typically overeat at Thanksgiving and eat huge numbers of carbs over a very long dinner. My doctor's point was exactly what you disagree with... that *normal* people's endocrine systems maintain their blood glucose at a very even level. Anne p.s. Over the past few months I've learned what I need to do to keep mine between 80 and 120 with occasional lapses to a 130 2hr pp. Low carb is working for me. Thornton wrote: > > Anne asked (Message #21053): > > > Are you sure that 131 could be " normal " ? > > Anne, you can't take a single BG reading and quote it without > saying how it stands in relation to the previous meal if you want a > sensible answer. > > > My doctor has told me that in a person without diabetes, > > blood glucose levels are regulated by the endocrine > > system such that even right after eating they will > > generally be within 70-110. He said that this is true > > even right after Thanksgiving dinner. > > We laid this spook to rest a few weeks back, Anne. I feel sure that > he didn't say that this was regardless of what was eaten. And I > hope you won't mind if I look at the words closely. What did he > mean by " generally " ? Will it be or won't it? Why did he > say " right after eating " instead of 1 hour after? > > " Right after " eating a meal my BG is in that range, too. It > takes about 20 minutes to 1 hour to reach a maximum, depending > on how glycemic the meal was. What is so special about a > Thanksgiving dinner to justify the word " even " ? A mixed meal > like a Thanksgiving dinner is likely to be far less glycemic > than a slice of white bread. Did he say that the blood glucose > concentration of a normoglycemic person remains within that > range 30-90 minutes after eating a slice of white bread, too? > I doubt it very much. > > What he said is true if you consider it in the same way that all > regulation systems operate. There is a reference value (the glucose > concentration needed by the brain) and a detector of the actual value > with a comparator for the two (the pancreas), a control element (the > liver) and control signals (insulin to correct downwards, glucagon to > correct upwards). The system has a certain dynamic characteristic > – it takes time to regulate a change completely back down to the > reference value (between about 1 and 4 hours after a meal). > > If you take the regulation time out of the equation, then you can > say that the blood glucose concentration is maintained > " constant " . Naturally, during the time that the actual > regulation is taking place you will measure values that depart > from the target value. That is the same principle for diabetics > and non-diabetics alike and, in fact, for all regulation systems. > > The BG measurement taken 2 hours after a meal starts is a measure of > the dynamic performance of the regulation system. If you measure > before the change (before a meal) and well after the regulation has > been completed (3-5 hours for a non-diabetic and also for a well- > adjusted diabetic) you will measure a value that is > " constant " within the reference range. (For an untreated > diabetic or a diabetic who is not properly adjusted, you will > read all kinds of deviant values, of course). > > Our big problem, and the one that is at the root of the controversy > about carbohydrate intake, is to know what damage is done by wide > departures from the reference value that occur during the regulation > time. > > If you believe that little or no damage is done during the regulation > time then you set your carbohydrate intake to the value recommended > for protecting you against some of the other damage that a > carbohydrate deficiency can cause (e.g. premature aging, cancer). > > If you believe that a lot of damage is done by the excursions during > the regulation time then you trade off the negative effects of a > carbohydrate deficiency (e.g. damage caused to the kidneys by a high > protein intake, damage to the cardio-vascular system caused by a high > fat intake) against the perceived benefits of limiting the blood > glucose excursions during the regulation time (possibility of > relative freedom from diabetic complications caused by AGEs). > > Unfortunately, the " damage " takes many years, even decades, > to show so you will never know for sure who is right until it is > too late. That is why I claim that the decision is an act of faith > but I haven't had any support from anybody on this list for that > approach yet. > > But I would suggest that you do not adopt the " it works for me " > approach (it just cannot show so quickly) but rather try to learn > the physiology (as I am trying to do in my spare time) and draw > your own conclusions. > > > > > Public website for Diabetes International: > http://www.msteri.com/diabetes-info/diabetes_int Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.