Re: Good BG Levels and Bad BG Levels

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/2/2005 2:41:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,

whimsy2@... writes:

> Just remember -- it's CONTINUED, LONGTERM high numbers that cause the

> damage. The A1C is a good measure of your average BGs for 3 months, and

> to avoid diabetic related complications, it pays to aim for " non-diabetic "

> numbers.

I agree! That's the goal I have and it's quite possible to have blood glucose

peaks of 180 after meals and still finish up with an A1c in the mid 5s.

Lower is better providing it doesn't result in an unpleasant lifestyle.

I use to strive for peaks around 140, but now that I use a basal insulin to

give a lower fasting BG it's possible to get the " nondiabetic A1c number " that

I'm after even though I may gets peaks of 180 after meals.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/2/2005 2:41:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,

whimsy2@... writes:

> Just remember -- it's CONTINUED, LONGTERM high numbers that cause the

> damage. The A1C is a good measure of your average BGs for 3 months, and

> to avoid diabetic related complications, it pays to aim for " non-diabetic "

> numbers.

I agree! That's the goal I have and it's quite possible to have blood glucose

peaks of 180 after meals and still finish up with an A1c in the mid 5s.

Lower is better providing it doesn't result in an unpleasant lifestyle.

I use to strive for peaks around 140, but now that I use a basal insulin to

give a lower fasting BG it's possible to get the " nondiabetic A1c number " that

I'm after even though I may gets peaks of 180 after meals.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/2/2005 2:41:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,

whimsy2@... writes:

> Just remember -- it's CONTINUED, LONGTERM high numbers that cause the

> damage. The A1C is a good measure of your average BGs for 3 months, and

> to avoid diabetic related complications, it pays to aim for " non-diabetic "

> numbers.

I agree! That's the goal I have and it's quite possible to have blood glucose

peaks of 180 after meals and still finish up with an A1c in the mid 5s.

Lower is better providing it doesn't result in an unpleasant lifestyle.

I use to strive for peaks around 140, but now that I use a basal insulin to

give a lower fasting BG it's possible to get the " nondiabetic A1c number " that

I'm after even though I may gets peaks of 180 after meals.

[Guest guest]

, when did the doctor instruct you to test?

Many people can handle numbers in the 70s with no problems, after they

have established control.

If you test two hours after the first bite of food, you should be no

higher than 120, at one hour no higher than 140.

OTOH, as time goes on and you find your knowledge increasing, you may

want to try for numbers lower than these PP numbers. My own personal

goal is as close to 100 or below into the 90s as I can get.

YMMV.

As I frequently have problems with fbgs, keeping the other numbers down

is important to me.

Helen

[Guest guest]

I understand your confusion, ...and no wonder, I don't think there

are " official " numbers. Doctors tend to err on the side of

conservatism, especially with insulin users, because they're afraid of

hypos. And you can drive yourself nuts trying to keep within such a

narrow parameter as " between 72 and 120.

I do think the recommendation that you should be no higher than 120 at 2

hours is correct...but being at 140 occasionally isn't going to cause

permanent damage either. And I believe the recommended level for the low

end is 65, though I've heard some people say 60 and others quote 70.

Just remember -- it's CONTINUED, LONGTERM high numbers that cause the

damage. The A1C is a good measure of your average BGs for 3 months, and

to avoid diabetic related complications, it pays to aim for

" non-diabetic " numbers. This differs from lab to lab because

unfortunately there are no standards for this number. The best thing you

can do is get copies of your lab reports and at the top it should give

the interpretation of the different numbers. Whatever your lab uses as

" non-diabetic, " that's the A1C number you should aim for. With my lab,

it's 6. And keeping your A1Cs at that number, whatever it is,you should

be able to avoid diabetes-related complications.

Vicki, LADA type 1 who has had A1Cs consistently under 6 for 7+ years

and no diabetic complications - and plans to keep it that way.

Good BG Levels and Bad BG Levels

>

>

> I have heard so many different numbers about good BG levels and bad.

> This is very confusing to a newbie like me. I get one set of numbers

> from the doctor, another from the dietician, and yet another from the

> web.

>

> I called my dietician the other day because I was concerned about the

> confusing numbers. I told her I was low after an almost all protein

> breakfast but that adding a slice of whole wheat bread made the BG go

> too high. She told me that 150 was not too high after a meal. Also,

> that 72 wasn't too low. But the doctor said nothing below 80 and

> nothing above 140.

>

> What is the consensus here? I thought BG numbers were supposed to

> stay

> between 70 and 120 all day long in order to have good control. Is

> this

> correct? Even after a meal BG's shouldn't be over 120. Yes, I'm

> confused but trying to fix my diet to comply with the best BG's I can

> get all day.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

; do you want to listen to the so called " experts " ie medicos

trained in the outdated ADA way of thinking or do you want to keep your

bg's as low as non-diabetics as possible iin order to prevent future

complications? That is the choice & I don't see what confusions there

shd be. The experts use those vastly higher numbers because they have

not been exposed to many people (like this group) who WANT to keep lower

& have done so successfully.

cappie

Greater Boston Area

T-2 10/02 1/05 A1c: 5.4 = 115 mean glu

50-100 carb diet, walking, Metformin

ALA/EPO, Coq10, B12, ALC, Vit C

Cal/mag, low dose Biotin, full spectrum E,

Chromium P, Policosanol, fish oil cap,

fresh flax seed, multi vitamin,

Lovastatin 20 mg, Enalapril 10 mg

3/05:140 lbs (highest weight 309),

5' tall /age 67,

cappie@...

[Guest guest]

; do you want to listen to the so called " experts " ie medicos

trained in the outdated ADA way of thinking or do you want to keep your

bg's as low as non-diabetics as possible iin order to prevent future

complications? That is the choice & I don't see what confusions there

shd be. The experts use those vastly higher numbers because they have

not been exposed to many people (like this group) who WANT to keep lower

& have done so successfully.

cappie

Greater Boston Area

T-2 10/02 1/05 A1c: 5.4 = 115 mean glu

50-100 carb diet, walking, Metformin

ALA/EPO, Coq10, B12, ALC, Vit C

Cal/mag, low dose Biotin, full spectrum E,

Chromium P, Policosanol, fish oil cap,

fresh flax seed, multi vitamin,

Lovastatin 20 mg, Enalapril 10 mg

3/05:140 lbs (highest weight 309),

5' tall /age 67,

cappie@...

[Guest guest]

; do you want to listen to the so called " experts " ie medicos

trained in the outdated ADA way of thinking or do you want to keep your

bg's as low as non-diabetics as possible iin order to prevent future

complications? That is the choice & I don't see what confusions there

shd be. The experts use those vastly higher numbers because they have

not been exposed to many people (like this group) who WANT to keep lower

& have done so successfully.

cappie

Greater Boston Area

T-2 10/02 1/05 A1c: 5.4 = 115 mean glu

50-100 carb diet, walking, Metformin

ALA/EPO, Coq10, B12, ALC, Vit C

Cal/mag, low dose Biotin, full spectrum E,

Chromium P, Policosanol, fish oil cap,

fresh flax seed, multi vitamin,

Lovastatin 20 mg, Enalapril 10 mg

3/05:140 lbs (highest weight 309),

5' tall /age 67,

cappie@...

[Guest guest]

>

> I have heard so many different numbers about good BG levels

and bad. This is very confusing to a newbie like me. I get one set of

numbers from the doctor, another from the dietician, and yet another

from the web.

Hi

Your dietitian is not a doctor. Neither are we.

First, on low numbers. You got a lot of replies on that last week. If

I remember correctly, the general consensus here appeared to be that

72(4) was only to be worried about if you also had symptoms like

shakes or dizziness. Without the symptoms at that level you don't need

to panic and eat to raise your level. However, it is an opportunity

for a snack if you've been tempted by something. That's when I allow

myself a small dessert:-)

Go back and read all the replies you had then for lows.

On high numbers, read the Joslin web-site, then read 's advice

to newbies.

From Joslin:

http://joslin.org/education/library/wbggoal.shtml

The following chart outlines the usual blood glucose ranges for a

person who does and does not have diabetes. Use this as a guide to

work with your physician and your health care team to determine what

your target goals should be, and to develop a program of regular blood

glucose monitoring to manage your condition.

..............................non-diabetic diabetic

Before Breakfast (fasting).... < 110.......90 - 130

Before lunch, supper and snack < 110.......90 - 130

Two hours after meals......... < 140 .......< 160

Bedtime....................... < 120.......110 - 150

A1C........................... < 6%..........< 7%

's brilliant advice for newbies is at

http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/NewlyDiagnosed.htm

On targets, she advises:

" Here's my opinion on what numbers to aim for, they are non-diabetic

numbers.

FBG under 110

One hour after meals under 140

Two hours after meals under 120

or for those in the mmol parts of the world:

Fasting Under 6

One hour after meals Under 8

Two hours after meals Under 6.5 "

You'll notice she adds 1 hr test numbers; I found them to be the most

useful for me.

Remember - they are numbers to aim for. Don't stress if you miss; just

use those numbers to learn what is happening to you and adjust your

diet, exercise or lifestyle accordingly in consultation with your doc,

who may also adjust meds.

But don't get stressed - stress raises BGs:-)

Cheers Alan, T2, Australia.

--

dx May 2002 , A1C 8.2=>5.7, wt 117kg(257)=>95kg(209),

Diet and not enough exercise.

I have no medical qualifications beyond my own experience.

Choose your advisers carefully, because experience can be

an expensive teacher.

Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

[Guest guest]

>

> I have heard so many different numbers about good BG levels

and bad. This is very confusing to a newbie like me. I get one set of

numbers from the doctor, another from the dietician, and yet another

from the web.

Hi

Your dietitian is not a doctor. Neither are we.

First, on low numbers. You got a lot of replies on that last week. If

I remember correctly, the general consensus here appeared to be that

72(4) was only to be worried about if you also had symptoms like

shakes or dizziness. Without the symptoms at that level you don't need

to panic and eat to raise your level. However, it is an opportunity

for a snack if you've been tempted by something. That's when I allow

myself a small dessert:-)

Go back and read all the replies you had then for lows.

On high numbers, read the Joslin web-site, then read 's advice

to newbies.

From Joslin:

http://joslin.org/education/library/wbggoal.shtml

The following chart outlines the usual blood glucose ranges for a

person who does and does not have diabetes. Use this as a guide to

work with your physician and your health care team to determine what

your target goals should be, and to develop a program of regular blood

glucose monitoring to manage your condition.

..............................non-diabetic diabetic

Before Breakfast (fasting).... < 110.......90 - 130

Before lunch, supper and snack < 110.......90 - 130

Two hours after meals......... < 140 .......< 160

Bedtime....................... < 120.......110 - 150

A1C........................... < 6%..........< 7%

's brilliant advice for newbies is at

http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/NewlyDiagnosed.htm

On targets, she advises:

" Here's my opinion on what numbers to aim for, they are non-diabetic

numbers.

FBG under 110

One hour after meals under 140

Two hours after meals under 120

or for those in the mmol parts of the world:

Fasting Under 6

One hour after meals Under 8

Two hours after meals Under 6.5 "

You'll notice she adds 1 hr test numbers; I found them to be the most

useful for me.

Remember - they are numbers to aim for. Don't stress if you miss; just

use those numbers to learn what is happening to you and adjust your

diet, exercise or lifestyle accordingly in consultation with your doc,

who may also adjust meds.

But don't get stressed - stress raises BGs:-)

Cheers Alan, T2, Australia.

--

dx May 2002 , A1C 8.2=>5.7, wt 117kg(257)=>95kg(209),

Diet and not enough exercise.

I have no medical qualifications beyond my own experience.

Choose your advisers carefully, because experience can be

an expensive teacher.

Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

[Guest guest]

>

> I have heard so many different numbers about good BG levels

and bad. This is very confusing to a newbie like me. I get one set of

numbers from the doctor, another from the dietician, and yet another

from the web.

Hi

Your dietitian is not a doctor. Neither are we.

First, on low numbers. You got a lot of replies on that last week. If

I remember correctly, the general consensus here appeared to be that

72(4) was only to be worried about if you also had symptoms like

shakes or dizziness. Without the symptoms at that level you don't need

to panic and eat to raise your level. However, it is an opportunity

for a snack if you've been tempted by something. That's when I allow

myself a small dessert:-)

Go back and read all the replies you had then for lows.

On high numbers, read the Joslin web-site, then read 's advice

to newbies.

From Joslin:

http://joslin.org/education/library/wbggoal.shtml

The following chart outlines the usual blood glucose ranges for a

person who does and does not have diabetes. Use this as a guide to

work with your physician and your health care team to determine what

your target goals should be, and to develop a program of regular blood

glucose monitoring to manage your condition.

..............................non-diabetic diabetic

Before Breakfast (fasting).... < 110.......90 - 130

Before lunch, supper and snack < 110.......90 - 130

Two hours after meals......... < 140 .......< 160

Bedtime....................... < 120.......110 - 150

A1C........................... < 6%..........< 7%

's brilliant advice for newbies is at

http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/NewlyDiagnosed.htm

On targets, she advises:

" Here's my opinion on what numbers to aim for, they are non-diabetic

numbers.

FBG under 110

One hour after meals under 140

Two hours after meals under 120

or for those in the mmol parts of the world:

Fasting Under 6

One hour after meals Under 8

Two hours after meals Under 6.5 "

You'll notice she adds 1 hr test numbers; I found them to be the most

useful for me.

Remember - they are numbers to aim for. Don't stress if you miss; just

use those numbers to learn what is happening to you and adjust your

diet, exercise or lifestyle accordingly in consultation with your doc,

who may also adjust meds.

But don't get stressed - stress raises BGs:-)

Cheers Alan, T2, Australia.

--

dx May 2002 , A1C 8.2=>5.7, wt 117kg(257)=>95kg(209),

Diet and not enough exercise.

I have no medical qualifications beyond my own experience.

Choose your advisers carefully, because experience can be

an expensive teacher.

Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

[Guest guest]

I think it is the way most of us have been taught and that is that " medical "

people know

it all and have the last word, etc. They mean well but we are lucky to have the

experience of people who have done very well and kept the lower numbers, etc.

And they

are proof of what can be done.

ml

cappie@... wrote:

>

> ; do you want to listen to the so called " experts " ie medicos

> trained in the outdated ADA way of thinking or do you want to keep your

> bg's as low as non-diabetics as possible iin order to prevent future

> complications? That is the choice & I don't see what confusions there

> shd be. The experts use those vastly higher numbers because they have

> not been exposed to many people (like this group) who WANT to keep lower

> & have done so successfully.

>

> cappie

> Greater Boston Area

>

[Guest guest]

I think it is the way most of us have been taught and that is that " medical "

people know

it all and have the last word, etc. They mean well but we are lucky to have the

experience of people who have done very well and kept the lower numbers, etc.

And they

are proof of what can be done.

ml

cappie@... wrote:

>

> ; do you want to listen to the so called " experts " ie medicos

> trained in the outdated ADA way of thinking or do you want to keep your

> bg's as low as non-diabetics as possible iin order to prevent future

> complications? That is the choice & I don't see what confusions there

> shd be. The experts use those vastly higher numbers because they have

> not been exposed to many people (like this group) who WANT to keep lower

> & have done so successfully.

>

> cappie

> Greater Boston Area

>

[Guest guest]

,

The " goal " is to have numbers of a " normal non-diabetic "

" Normal non-diabetics " have fasting bg's in the 70-110mg/dl range, with

occasional post-prandial's up to 120mg/dl, and almost never as high as 140mg/dl.

The truly non-diabetic body is very good at maintaining bg's in this narrow

range.

That said, the HbA1c, not individual bg readings, is the best indicator we

have at present for the risk of the onset of diabetic complications.

" Normal non-diabetics " have HbA1c's 6.0% or less, and most run nearer 5.0%

than 6.0%.

So, again, " our " goal should be that of the " normal non-diabetic.

You'll hear that Drs, Nurses ( & Joslin) & others say that up to 7.0% is OK

(some have lowered to 6.5% recently), and they state this for all diabetics.

WHY?

In a seminar featuring a nationally known Endo, I listened to her for over

an hour describe all the reasons to keep HbA1c less than 6.0%, then at the very

end, she listed her recommendations, stating HbA1c of <7.0%. I was floored!

During the question session, I asked " WHY " and, paraphrasing what she said:

" Most diabetics control is not good enough to avoid having hypoglycemic

episodes if they are trying for A1c in the 6.0% range or less " . She acknowledged

the increased risks above 6.0% but felt that was the better choice versus the

risk for hypos which can be very dangerous, very quickly.

OK---What I took away from that was that I wanted to keep MY bg's in that

normal range & HbA1c less than 6.0% to minimize risks. It only reenforced my

determination to maintain " tight-control " , minimizing bg swings to allow

achieving that " normal " A1c without the risk for hypo's.

The other factor is that, if you're not taking a medication like a

" sulf-class " oral (glyburide, etc), or insulin, then there is minimal hypo risk

anyway, so using the higher 7.0% goal serves no productive purpose at all.

Another facet to consider---My understanding is that " glycation " of blood

cells, which is what the A1c measures starts happening at somewhere around

140-150mg/dl (not an exact number & YMMV). So, high-spikes can start the

process.

The saving grace is that, if the bg's are back down to " normal " within the

next 24 hours, the glycation isn't permanent. This supports the hypothesis

that the occasional " spike " is not a problem, but only if the bg's are good the

rest of the time.

All this is my understanding of how all the pieces of this puzzle fit

together, but hopefully will be helpful.

My basic rule is that " lower is better " (unless hypo), no matter if you're

talking about bg's or A1c.

, T2, dx'ed 4/98, controlling with LC & Supplements

Average fasting bg 100mg/dl, last HbA1c 5.6%

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I have heard so many different numbers about good BG levels and bad.

This is very confusing to a newbie like me. I get one set of numbers

from the doctor, another from the dietician, and yet another from the

web.

I called my dietician the other day because I was concerned about the

confusing numbers. I told her I was low after an almost all protein

breakfast but that adding a slice of whole wheat bread made the BG go

too high. She told me that 150 was not too high after a meal. Also,

that 72 wasn't too low. But the doctor said nothing below 80 and

nothing above 140.

What is the consensus here? I thought BG numbers were supposed to stay

between 70 and 120 all day long in order to have good control. Is this

correct? Even after a meal BG's shouldn't be over 120. Yes, I'm

confused but trying to fix my diet to comply with the best BG's I can

get all day.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/3/2005 9:58:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,

rogerhlmn@... writes:

> That said, the HbA1c, not individual bg readings, is the best indicator we

>

> have at present for the risk of the onset of diabetic complications.

> " Normal non-diabetics " have HbA1c's 6.0% or less, and most run nearer 5.0%

> than 6.0%. So, again, " our " goal should be that of the " normal non-diabetic.

>

>

, you presented an excellent summary of the need to control A1c and why

it can be difficult. Your informative post should be very helpful for

" newbies. "

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/3/2005 9:58:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,

rogerhlmn@... writes:

> That said, the HbA1c, not individual bg readings, is the best indicator we

>

> have at present for the risk of the onset of diabetic complications.

> " Normal non-diabetics " have HbA1c's 6.0% or less, and most run nearer 5.0%

> than 6.0%. So, again, " our " goal should be that of the " normal non-diabetic.

>

>

, you presented an excellent summary of the need to control A1c and why

it can be difficult. Your informative post should be very helpful for

" newbies. "

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/3/2005 9:58:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,

rogerhlmn@... writes:

> That said, the HbA1c, not individual bg readings, is the best indicator we

>

> have at present for the risk of the onset of diabetic complications.

> " Normal non-diabetics " have HbA1c's 6.0% or less, and most run nearer 5.0%

> than 6.0%. So, again, " our " goal should be that of the " normal non-diabetic.

>

>

, you presented an excellent summary of the need to control A1c and why

it can be difficult. Your informative post should be very helpful for

" newbies. "

[Guest guest]

,

Thank you so much for the information you posted. The numbers make

more sense now to me and I have a clearer understanding of what to

aim for. I also realize now that the one person I need to pay most

attention to is me and my personal goals. The doctors, dieticians

and ADA can only make recommendations but it is what I want to

achieve that is most important. After all, it is my body that is

being affected, not theirs.

I printed your post and will keep it handy in my record book.

Once again, thank you.

> The " goal " is to have numbers of a " normal non-diabetic "

> " Normal non-diabetics " have fasting bg's in the 70-110mg/dl range,

with

> occasional post-prandial's up to 120mg/dl, and almost never as high

as 140mg/dl.

[Guest guest]

,

Thank you so much for the information you posted. The numbers make

more sense now to me and I have a clearer understanding of what to

aim for. I also realize now that the one person I need to pay most

attention to is me and my personal goals. The doctors, dieticians

and ADA can only make recommendations but it is what I want to

achieve that is most important. After all, it is my body that is

being affected, not theirs.

I printed your post and will keep it handy in my record book.

Once again, thank you.

> The " goal " is to have numbers of a " normal non-diabetic "

> " Normal non-diabetics " have fasting bg's in the 70-110mg/dl range,

with

> occasional post-prandial's up to 120mg/dl, and almost never as high

as 140mg/dl.

[Guest guest]

,

Thank you so much for the information you posted. The numbers make

more sense now to me and I have a clearer understanding of what to

aim for. I also realize now that the one person I need to pay most

attention to is me and my personal goals. The doctors, dieticians

and ADA can only make recommendations but it is what I want to

achieve that is most important. After all, it is my body that is

being affected, not theirs.

I printed your post and will keep it handy in my record book.

Once again, thank you.

> The " goal " is to have numbers of a " normal non-diabetic "

> " Normal non-diabetics " have fasting bg's in the 70-110mg/dl range,

with

> occasional post-prandial's up to 120mg/dl, and almost never as high

as 140mg/dl.

[Guest guest]

, you sound like a very wise woman. You have realized that you

have to be the one in charge of your diabetes. If you keep this in

mind, you will do well. Many diabetics never learn this.

Congratulations! Sue

> Thank you so much for the information you posted. The numbers make

> more sense now to me and I have a clearer understanding of what to

> aim for. I also realize now that the one person I need to pay most

> attention to is me and my personal goals. The doctors, dieticians

> and ADA can only make recommendations but it is what I want to

> achieve that is most important. After all, it is my body that is

> being affected, not theirs.

[Guest guest]

, you sound like a very wise woman. You have realized that you

have to be the one in charge of your diabetes. If you keep this in

mind, you will do well. Many diabetics never learn this.

Congratulations! Sue

> Thank you so much for the information you posted. The numbers make

> more sense now to me and I have a clearer understanding of what to

> aim for. I also realize now that the one person I need to pay most

> attention to is me and my personal goals. The doctors, dieticians

> and ADA can only make recommendations but it is what I want to

> achieve that is most important. After all, it is my body that is

> being affected, not theirs.

[Guest guest]

Normal non-diabetics have fasting levelsof 70 to 100 not 110. That

standard was changed & no one seems to remember it.

cappie

Greater Boston Area

T-2 10/02 1/05 A1c: 5.4 = 115 mean glu

50-100 carb diet, walking, Metformin

ALA/EPO, Coq10, B12, ALC, Vit C

Cal/mag, low dose Biotin, full spectrum E,

Chromium P, Policosanol, fish oil cap,

fresh flax seed, multi vitamin,

Lovastatin 20 mg, Enalapril 10 mg

3/05:140 lbs (highest weight 309),

5' tall /age 67,

cappie@...

[Guest guest]

Again-normal non-diabetics A1c runs from 4 to 6 at most labs & is

probably to be found lower than 5 most of the time not just lower than

6.

cappie

Greater Boston Area

T-2 10/02 1/05 A1c: 5.4 = 115 mean glu

50-100 carb diet, walking, Metformin

ALA/EPO, Coq10, B12, ALC, Vit C

Cal/mag, low dose Biotin, full spectrum E,

Chromium P, Policosanol, fish oil cap,

fresh flax seed, multi vitamin,

Lovastatin 20 mg, Enalapril 10 mg

3/05:140 lbs (highest weight 309),

5' tall /age 67,

cappie@...

[Guest guest]

Non diabetics with an A1c in the high fives to low sixes (depending on

the top normal range of the lab) are in danger of developing diabetic

complications, particularly cardiac, in the absence (apparently) of

diabetes.

However, for many of us, attaining an Alc below 5.5 is not possible

without inviting other problems. Many type 2s still have some

pancreatic function - albeit very erratic. Holding numbers tight, even

with insulin, brings on dangers of lows, fast lows. Then there is the

waxing and waning of insulin resistance during the course of a day; one

day you run high, the next low, yet both days are the same! Same food,

same schedule and so on. Not that this is particularly possible, so

then you introduce another factor to contend with.

The best thing is to keep control with diet and exercise as long as

possible. This is closest to nature's way. If caught early enough, a

type 2 can stave off medication for many years, perhaps indefinitely.

However, even going natural can bring on lows. Been there, done that.

Helen