Guest guest Posted January 15, 2002 Report Share Posted January 15, 2002 wrote: > great thanks Rick You're welcome. I was was hoping it wasn't TMI (too much info)! > > so, all this time, like yesterday when my readings were 112, 114, 90, > 140 (fasting; before lunch; before dinner: before bed)were all HIGHER> > lovely. You have to keep in mind that these numbers are not " Horrible " 112 (125), 114 (128), 90 (101), 140 (157). There is room for improvement, but you can't ignore the improvement that you have already gained. Don't forget that these are not the only numbers that are higher than you thought...your starting numbers were higher also, so by way of comparison, you have still improved just as much as you thought you had - in a linear sort of way - in other words, you still ran " just as many miles, in just as good a time " but you starting and ending point are slightly different than you thought. DON'T FORGET THE MILES YOU HAVE RUN!!! That's an order! > so, i basically have been WAY out in left field with my readings and > didnt even know it. Naw, not way out in left field...just a teensy bit ) > those readings btw are the lowest i've ever had. Great! Keep up the good work! > and i thought that was great that, after one day on Jarrows > (jarrow.com) glucose tolerence pills. well. pffttt. > thanks Rick. just dont know why no one inclucing my drs said anything. > and yes they KNEW i had a one touch basic It seems that Docs and others are sometimes so unconcerned with " tight " control that anything under 200 keeps them happy. Not all Docs... just some. Rick 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.