Re: Continued issues with fasting.

[Guest guest]

Those are really pretty reasonable FBG numbers, Jacky...Since you've tried

everything else, the only thing left is insulin, which can (once you get the

dosing correct) give you perfect FBGs. For instance, my FBGs are always

within 20 points of my bedtime BG and are often at just around 100. But I'm

type 1 and use two kinds of insulin - UL basal (background) and Humalog

matched to carbs for meals.

I don't think you need to worry about FBG perfection at this point. You're

doing quite nicely - congratulations! Vicki

<<

While my fasting numbers are slowly coming down, they are still on

average between 6.3 and 7.1 (113-127.8). >>

[Guest guest]

Those are really pretty reasonable FBG numbers, Jacky...Since you've tried

everything else, the only thing left is insulin, which can (once you get the

dosing correct) give you perfect FBGs. For instance, my FBGs are always

within 20 points of my bedtime BG and are often at just around 100. But I'm

type 1 and use two kinds of insulin - UL basal (background) and Humalog

matched to carbs for meals.

I don't think you need to worry about FBG perfection at this point. You're

doing quite nicely - congratulations! Vicki

<<

While my fasting numbers are slowly coming down, they are still on

average between 6.3 and 7.1 (113-127.8). >>

[Guest guest]

Those are really pretty reasonable FBG numbers, Jacky...Since you've tried

everything else, the only thing left is insulin, which can (once you get the

dosing correct) give you perfect FBGs. For instance, my FBGs are always

within 20 points of my bedtime BG and are often at just around 100. But I'm

type 1 and use two kinds of insulin - UL basal (background) and Humalog

matched to carbs for meals.

I don't think you need to worry about FBG perfection at this point. You're

doing quite nicely - congratulations! Vicki

<<

While my fasting numbers are slowly coming down, they are still on

average between 6.3 and 7.1 (113-127.8). >>

[Guest guest]

Well, in that case, maybe you'd like to start it pre-pregnancy to get those

FBGs down. Vicki

<<

I know that I will use insulin to ensure that my baby is healthy and

safe while I am pregnant.

>>

[Guest guest]

Well, in that case, maybe you'd like to start it pre-pregnancy to get those

FBGs down. Vicki

<<

I know that I will use insulin to ensure that my baby is healthy and

safe while I am pregnant.

>>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/02 1:55:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,

RainbowFarm@... writes:

>

> Marc, some believe that complications can start as low as 126 (6 and a

> bit),

> however I'm not sure there is actual proof of this anywhere. I aim to keep

> my bg's as close to 100 (5) as possible. Others believe complication

> chances start above 140. Maybe someone knows of a study??

> Barb in all honesty :-)

>

> > Being between 5 and 7 is considered good. No?

Ron Sebol has distilled some data from the " Diabetes Complications & Control

Trial " a 9 year study concluded in 1993. This data shows that there is an

increased risk at 6.0 (not very much but some), and it increases at an

accelerating rate the higher it goes. One chart of this data is on page 61 of

Gretchen Becker's book " The First Year-Type 2 Diabetes. "

This chart is related to retinopathy which is a microvascular complication,

and I believe that the same thing applies to the other microvascular problems

such as kidneys and peripheral neuropathy, but the numbers may be somewhat

different.

I would suggest reading Grethen's book about " complications, " and also what

Dr Bernstein has to say on the issue.

There is even some evidence now that the low-end of the " normal range "

(4.5-6.0) results in less macrovascular problems, particularly heart disease,

and that seems to be true even in non-diabetics. I can't put my hand on where

I got that, but it has been in the last few weeks. Vicki, was that something

also from Ron? I can't remember.

, T2

Oregon

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/02 1:55:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,

RainbowFarm@... writes:

>

> Marc, some believe that complications can start as low as 126 (6 and a

> bit),

> however I'm not sure there is actual proof of this anywhere. I aim to keep

> my bg's as close to 100 (5) as possible. Others believe complication

> chances start above 140. Maybe someone knows of a study??

> Barb in all honesty :-)

>

> > Being between 5 and 7 is considered good. No?

Ron Sebol has distilled some data from the " Diabetes Complications & Control

Trial " a 9 year study concluded in 1993. This data shows that there is an

increased risk at 6.0 (not very much but some), and it increases at an

accelerating rate the higher it goes. One chart of this data is on page 61 of

Gretchen Becker's book " The First Year-Type 2 Diabetes. "

This chart is related to retinopathy which is a microvascular complication,

and I believe that the same thing applies to the other microvascular problems

such as kidneys and peripheral neuropathy, but the numbers may be somewhat

different.

I would suggest reading Grethen's book about " complications, " and also what

Dr Bernstein has to say on the issue.

There is even some evidence now that the low-end of the " normal range "

(4.5-6.0) results in less macrovascular problems, particularly heart disease,

and that seems to be true even in non-diabetics. I can't put my hand on where

I got that, but it has been in the last few weeks. Vicki, was that something

also from Ron? I can't remember.

, T2

Oregon

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/02 1:55:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,

RainbowFarm@... writes:

>

> Marc, some believe that complications can start as low as 126 (6 and a

> bit),

> however I'm not sure there is actual proof of this anywhere. I aim to keep

> my bg's as close to 100 (5) as possible. Others believe complication

> chances start above 140. Maybe someone knows of a study??

> Barb in all honesty :-)

>

> > Being between 5 and 7 is considered good. No?

Ron Sebol has distilled some data from the " Diabetes Complications & Control

Trial " a 9 year study concluded in 1993. This data shows that there is an

increased risk at 6.0 (not very much but some), and it increases at an

accelerating rate the higher it goes. One chart of this data is on page 61 of

Gretchen Becker's book " The First Year-Type 2 Diabetes. "

This chart is related to retinopathy which is a microvascular complication,

and I believe that the same thing applies to the other microvascular problems

such as kidneys and peripheral neuropathy, but the numbers may be somewhat

different.

I would suggest reading Grethen's book about " complications, " and also what

Dr Bernstein has to say on the issue.

There is even some evidence now that the low-end of the " normal range "

(4.5-6.0) results in less macrovascular problems, particularly heart disease,

and that seems to be true even in non-diabetics. I can't put my hand on where

I got that, but it has been in the last few weeks. Vicki, was that something

also from Ron? I can't remember.

, T2

Oregon

[Guest guest]

It is bad, too me, because I want to have another child and tight

control is a priority before conception. As far as I am concerned I

MUST be at non diabetic numbers before I attempt to conceive. Since I

am 32, I am anxious to get the ball rolling. My goal is a fasting of

4.4, my bg at the time of my first prenatal appointment with my son..

I know that I will use insulin to ensure that my baby is healthy and

safe while I am pregnant.

Jacky, who is also a bit of a control freak.

> > While my fasting numbers are slowly coming down, they are still on

> > average between 6.3 and 7.1 (113-127.8).

>

> And that's bad because? Being between 5 and 7 is considered

> good. No?

>

> Marc

[Guest guest]

It is bad, too me, because I want to have another child and tight

control is a priority before conception. As far as I am concerned I

MUST be at non diabetic numbers before I attempt to conceive. Since I

am 32, I am anxious to get the ball rolling. My goal is a fasting of

4.4, my bg at the time of my first prenatal appointment with my son..

I know that I will use insulin to ensure that my baby is healthy and

safe while I am pregnant.

Jacky, who is also a bit of a control freak.

> > While my fasting numbers are slowly coming down, they are still on

> > average between 6.3 and 7.1 (113-127.8).

>

> And that's bad because? Being between 5 and 7 is considered

> good. No?

>

> Marc

[Guest guest]

<< Vicki, was that something

also from Ron? I can't remember. >>

Sorry, I don't remember either, smile. V.

[Guest guest]

Jacky, you might try 300 mg. sustained release Alpha Lipoic Acid from

www.iherb.com is the best price. This might just do the trick. It has

helped other insulin resistant people. Start taking one at bedtime, and

move up to one before dinner, breakfast, etc., if it helps. This is a

powerful antioxidant, among other things, so if it doesn't turn out to be

helpful for your fbg, it's really good for you anyway.

btw, I think you're doing a great job, Jacky.

Barb

[Guest guest]

Jacky, you might try 300 mg. sustained release Alpha Lipoic Acid from

www.iherb.com is the best price. This might just do the trick. It has

helped other insulin resistant people. Start taking one at bedtime, and

move up to one before dinner, breakfast, etc., if it helps. This is a

powerful antioxidant, among other things, so if it doesn't turn out to be

helpful for your fbg, it's really good for you anyway.

btw, I think you're doing a great job, Jacky.

Barb

[Guest guest]

Jacky, you might try 300 mg. sustained release Alpha Lipoic Acid from

www.iherb.com is the best price. This might just do the trick. It has

helped other insulin resistant people. Start taking one at bedtime, and

move up to one before dinner, breakfast, etc., if it helps. This is a

powerful antioxidant, among other things, so if it doesn't turn out to be

helpful for your fbg, it's really good for you anyway.

btw, I think you're doing a great job, Jacky.

Barb

[Guest guest]

Marc, some believe that complications can start as low as 126 (6 and a bit),

however I'm not sure there is actual proof of this anywhere. I aim to keep

my bg's as close to 100 (5) as possible. Others believe complication

chances start above 140. Maybe someone knows of a study??

Barb in all honesty :-)

> Being between 5 and 7 is considered good. No?

[Guest guest]

Marc, some believe that complications can start as low as 126 (6 and a bit),

however I'm not sure there is actual proof of this anywhere. I aim to keep

my bg's as close to 100 (5) as possible. Others believe complication

chances start above 140. Maybe someone knows of a study??

Barb in all honesty :-)

> Being between 5 and 7 is considered good. No?

[Guest guest]

>Jacky, who is also a bit of a control freak.

***This is a good disease for control freaks and other compulsive folks :-)

Barb

[Guest guest]

>Jacky, who is also a bit of a control freak.

***This is a good disease for control freaks and other compulsive folks :-)

Barb

[Guest guest]

>Jacky, who is also a bit of a control freak.

***This is a good disease for control freaks and other compulsive folks :-)

Barb

[Guest guest]

> Continued issues with fasting.

>

>

> Hi all,

>

> While my fasting numbers are slowly coming down, they are still on

> average between 6.3 and 7.1 (113-127.8).

And that's bad because? Being between 5 and 7 is considered good. No?

Marc

[Guest guest]

> Continued issues with fasting.

>

>

> Hi all,

>

> While my fasting numbers are slowly coming down, they are still on

> average between 6.3 and 7.1 (113-127.8).

And that's bad because? Being between 5 and 7 is considered good. No?

Marc

[Guest guest]

> Continued issues with fasting.

>

>

> Hi all,

>

> While my fasting numbers are slowly coming down, they are still on

> average between 6.3 and 7.1 (113-127.8).

And that's bad because? Being between 5 and 7 is considered good. No?

Marc

[Guest guest]

Thanks Barb, I appreciate your encouragement and will never forget your

kindness.

Jacky.

btw, I think you're doing a great job, Jacky.

> Barb

[Guest guest]

Thanks Barb, I appreciate your encouragement and will never forget your

kindness.

Jacky.

btw, I think you're doing a great job, Jacky.

> Barb

[Guest guest]

Thanks Barb, I appreciate your encouragement and will never forget your

kindness.

Jacky.

btw, I think you're doing a great job, Jacky.

> Barb