Re: Still diabetic or not

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/22/2005 4:44:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

smellyfrog69@... writes:

If you're not taking any meds,

and you're controlling your BG through diet

and you still eat the things you like from time to time (potatos,

rice, chocolate... I know some members have just fainted)

then.. and here's the doosie...

are you technically not diabetic any more???

Some people, even doctors, say you no longer have diabetes, others say that

you do, but have it under control. I think it is up to the individual to

believe what they want to.

My last A1c was 5.08. The previous year it was 5.22. Once in a " blue moon "

I may get a fasting reading of 102, but most of the time it is anywhere from

72-95. No meds, no supplements other than green tea and cinnamon in my

oatmeal and I eat what I want. I'm not putting down anyone for taking

supplements. I just don't need them. A couple months ago, a friend was

telling me

about a supplement that she and her husband was taking and it gave them lots

of energy. Told her I did not need that. If I had more energy, I probably

would never go to sleep. As it is, I very seldom get tired.

I owe my control to Faith in God, Positive Attitude, lot of exercising and

sensible eating. My diabetes was caused by steroids I took in 1995. I have

no complaints about having diabetes. It has made me a healthy person and I

have more energy than I did when I was in my 40's. I am now 62 years old and

feel 35.

Do I still have diabetes? I tell myself I do to keep me on the right road

to a long and healthy life so that I can continue to enjoy my hobby of bargain

shopping. (hi Gail, found some great bargains today.)

hugs

Eunice

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/22/2005 11:22:36 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

smellyfrog69@... writes:

This isn't a precise numbers

game and being happy about our BG is half the battle.

Hi ,

I get high numbers occasionally, but they don't bother me. I would get

concerned if I got high readings several times in a row. People without

diabetes

get high numbers sometimes. Several years ago, my hubby went in for a

physical. They did not tell him to fast, so he had Japanese food for lunch

prior

to his check-up. His bg's were 163. The doctor told him to come in the next

morning fasting. He checked bg's before going to the doctor's office. When

he got there, he told the nurse that he had checked at home and got a

reading of 68. When the nurse told the doctor, they told him blood work wasn't

needed. Since then he always gets good readings.

hugs

Eunice

[Guest guest]

Hi Eunice,

Fabulous readings, perfectly normal by all accounts

One things that is clear from all the discussions is that there

isn't a 'perfect' number for BG. The goal range is very wide... upto

110 (for a non-diabetic) for a reason. This isn't a precise numbers

game and being happy about our BG is half the battle. I for one

don't need the added stress of someone telling me that my fasting

reading of 101 is 1 point too high! arghhh!

But here's a funny one... and I kid you not, don't know if anyone

else's experience is the same, but... by blood is perceivably

runnier now that I've got my BG's under control. I know, sounds

crazy, but that's how it seems. It's even tricky sometimes to do a

testing as I try and stop the blood spot prematurely running off my

finger

LOL!

> My last A1c was 5.08. The previous year it was 5.22. Once in

a " blue moon "

> I may get a fasting reading of 102, but most of the time it is

anywhere from

> 72-95. No meds, no supplements other than green tea and

cinnamon in my

> oatmeal and I eat what I want. I'm not putting down anyone for

taking

> supplements.

[Guest guest]

Well, the new wonder drug here is, diet and exercise! Lots of people

making a great profit on that! ROFL!

When you get differing information about something, that doesn't mean it is

hokum, that means you need to take a closer look to learn what is going on.

When I tried to document the notion that there is such a thing as

borderlined diabetes and that peopel who have it only need to test once a

month, I learned that medical views of diabetes have actually cycled over

time.

In the fifties, it was a good thing to take it seriously.

In the seventies, it was an extremely bad thing to take diabetes seriously.

Very poor medical practice indeed. All kinds of people were getting told

they had diabetes whose bodies were only PRETENDING to have diabetes! I kid

you not.

Now things have come around again.

We are talking about the medical mind, mind you. I think just a little bit

more of the general medical community than you do. Not criminals, just

willfully stupid, arrogant, with little attention to actually being right,

and afflicted by the same prejudices other people have far worse.

Several years ago, the ADA and NIH and others did a major study, which I

think is still going on. They tracked 3,000 people with blood sugar levels

between normal at 100 and diabetic at 126. Mean blood sugar level in all

three groups was only 106. People who did nothing or very little about

this tended to go on and develop diabetes within a few years. People who

took a diabetes drug lowered their risk by a third, and people who changed

their diets and got excercise and lost weight reduced their risk by two

thirds.

Now, there are alot of doctors and medical associations out there that will

still not diagnose diabetes until one's fasting bg is 140 or 180, and,

apparently, even though I have not been able to document it and would

appreciate hearing from anyone who can prove it, some of these are still

saying there is such a thing as borderlined diabetes!

The 110 vs 100 thing is partly a matter of some not catching up with a

recent change, and partly confusion because healthy people have to maintain

fasting blood glucose under 100 and diabetics are typically allowed to keep

theirs as high as 110. For some reason. Now, I'd feel alot happer if my

mother hadn't been told that she has " not really diabetes " , she only needs

to test once a month, AND her goal is 110.

Now, this list has strict rules about where one can put a link to one's own

web site. If you follow the link below my signature, LOL, you will come to

my diabetes page, and find links that will take you to more information

about that study.

You are aware that being overweight puts you at grave risk for alot of

things of which diabetes is just one possible end product, right?

But if you just want to sit back and say, chill, man, the sun is shining, I

don't need to take this seriously, noone can make you!

Yours,

Dora

Austin, Texas

villandra@...

Re: Still diabetic or not

> Hi Dora,

>

> Call me Mr. Cynical, but tey seem to change ranges and invent new

> conditinos, aka 'prediabetic' when it suits them and when they have

> some new drug that they want to make a quick buck with.

>

> So what's going to be next? 'pre-obese' and how are they going to

> work that one out?

>

>

> According to the Joslin centre, the fasting BG for a non-diabetic

> should be <110. So this 'if it's over 100 then you're pre-diabetic'

> seems to be bunkum.

>

> smile, the sun is shining

>

>

>

>

> >

[Guest guest]

This is where my problem came in. Three years ago I went to the drs and

said I needed to check my sugar. He did a finger test in the office and came

up

with something different than mine. Instead of running tests he said I was

borderline diabetic. Gave me a diet. I have since changed Drs. When I

started seeing her my sugar was good. Oh I thought great I don't have to

follow

this diet anymore. In two years I gained thirty pounds. My boss happened to

check my sugar one day because I was having trouble. It was 229. She told

me to go to the Dr. I did and they did a fast test then I ate and came back.

She said I am a diabetic. Something was 7.3 which is higher than she would

like. She said I am Type two but feels with a diet I may be able to control

it because I did once before. I have to go back in a week. So far so good.

But she also said that even if I control it with a diet I will always be a

diabetic. I will always have to watch what I eat.

Micki

[Guest guest]

Hi Dora,

You do realise that your figures do not tie up with the Joslin

Centre for Diabetes? The 'official' goal numbers are...

Fasting, non-diabetic <110

Fasting, diabetic <130

I'm most definately pre-obese, I could eat loads and put on 30lbs,

I'm also pre-alcoholic, I have the capacity to drink 12 pints an

evening and I'm also pre-bald as one day my hair may fall out.

It's getting crazy. What's the point of having 'normal' ranges if

people then choose to make enrodes into them with these 'fuzzy'

areas.

If we reduce the 'normal' high to 100 and then say that a BG below

70 is 'pre-hypoglycemic' then we've reduced the goal range to 30

mg/dl or lest than 2 full points on an A1c.

People stressing about 1 mg/dl here and there completely defeats the

purpose... " hey, my BG is sopt on the money, but my BP is 140/100! "

> When you get differing information about something, that doesn't

mean it is

> hokum, that means you need to take a closer look to learn what is

going on.

[Guest guest]

:

Actually, that's a surprise to me; I thought Joslin's numbers were right up

to date.

But overall it's not especially surprising.

Some of the endocrinological associations won't diagnose diabetes with a fbg

of under 140.

Joslin just hasn't got its numbers up to date.

I thought Joslin was an excellent organization and web site - but that does

cause me to suspect more then their numbers. I'll just contact them and ask

what is the matter with them. Someone needs to.

I'm still trying to pin down its roots. I keep asking who's doctors are

still saying there is such a thing as borderline diabetes and for any

medical authority they are basing it on. But there is clearly a strong

medical current of it's wrong to take diabetes as seriously as it needs to

be taken.

Texts I found in the medical libray at UT from the 1970's through the mid

1980's were taking the attitude that it is a bad thing to diagnose diabetes

too easily because it results in unfair discrimination.

I actually picked my words very carefully. This attitude makes the

diagnosis and treatment of diabetes an attitude issue instead of a medical

issue. There are actual doctors and nurses out there who have serious

problems with the entire idea of diagnosing someone as sick! My sister

and mother even have a collection of such people around them, as both their

health care practitioners, and their friends. My sister has such an animal

for a best friend. No, don't ask if my sister has any real friends.

I made a post earlier that didn't show up in my mailbox. Oh-oh!

Roadrunner is bouncing my mail again. I didn't know what happened to it,

so I didn't fix my mistake.

Below in my signature, where the list rules insist such a link must appear

if I want my post to appear - is the actual link to my diabetes page where I

have links to information about the study I mentioned, and I think to the

study itself.

I had forgotten to scroll down to the signature line and stick it in!

The sentence you included from the post you're responding to, LOOKS like it

came from the post I made and didn't get - but I can't be sure.

In case that post didn't make it, the ADA, NIH, and other prominent experts

in the field jointly did a study of 3,000 people, with average fbg levels of

126. They split them into three groups, and followed them for several

years, and I think they're still following them. Notice that the average

fbg level was under 110. The criteria for the study was fbg between 100 and

126, or two hour glucose tolerance test over I think 140 but I could have

that a little off. It might be 145. The group that got told they

should lose weight, tended to go on to get diabetes. The group that was

treated with metformin lowered their risk by 1/3. The group who had

intensive intervention with diet and exercise and lost weight, lowered their

risk by 2/3.

Yours,

Dora

Austin, Texas

villandra@...

http://www.geocities.com/tiggernut24/diabetes.html

Re: Still diabetic or not

>

>

> Hi Dora,

>

> You do realise that your figures do not tie up with the Joslin

> Centre for Diabetes? The 'official' goal numbers are...

>

> Fasting, non-diabetic <110

>

> Fasting, diabetic <130

>

[Guest guest]

Here's the post I made that didn't have my url that I referred to, that

hadn't turned up in my mailbox. I guess got it - but I didn't. My

mail is showing up out of order.

Yours,

Dora

Austin, Texas

villandra@...

Re: Re: Still diabetic or not

>

>

> Well, the new wonder drug here is, diet and exercise! Lots of people

> making a great profit on that! ROFL!

>

> When you get differing information about something, that doesn't mean it

is

> hokum, that means you need to take a closer look to learn what is going

on.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Dora,

You post some really interesting information

The bit about the Glucose Tolerance Test was especially relevant. My

other half just had to have one done, specifically looking for

diabetes because on an arbitrary BMI figure.

The results, well, her BGs were fine, but more interestingly were

the ranges that the test looked for :-

Pre-test (fasting) <100

Glucose drink

After 30mins <200

After 60mins <150

After 120mins <150

As long as the test results were within these limits everything was

OK.

This was only a few weeks ago... interesting numbers eh?

All good stuff... the more information we arm ourselves with the

better

take care

>

> In case that post didn't make it, the ADA, NIH, and other

prominent experts

> in the field jointly did a study of 3,000 people, with average fbg

levels of

> 126. They split them into three groups, and followed them for

several

> years, and I think they're still following them. Notice that

the average

> fbg level was under 110. The criteria for the study was fbg

between 100 and

> 126, or two hour glucose tolerance test over I think 140 but I

could have

> that a little off. It might be 145. The group that got told

they

> should lose weight, tended to go on to get diabetes. The group

that was

> treated with metformin lowered their risk by 1/3. The group who

had

> intensive intervention with diet and exercise and lost weight,

lowered their

> risk by 2/3.