Re: Good BG Levels and Bad BG Levels

[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

[Guest guest]

- I am new at trying to keep my numbers in tight control. Part of my

problem is that the medication I take is

Glipizide which leaves me a prime candidate for hypos. To complicate matters

I only have 1/2 stomach, 1/2 pancreas, no gall bladder and no duodeum - all

these things contributing to inefficient digestion and elimination. I have

been fairly steady and able to keep my numbers mostly above 70. That being

said, I feel like I am walking a tight rope - so I am wondering if I should

err more on the high side. That seems to be defeating the purpose, but I

don't know how low the numbers can go without getting into real trouble. I

go see the doctor this Tuesday, and he will probably be upset that I am

trying to keep the numbers so low - we shall see what the A1c has to say and

go from there. I do spike to 150 or 160 sometimes, like after pizza for

supper last night - although it was not as bad as I expected. 1 hr pp was

148, 2 hr pp was 150, it just took longer to go down. I also find to

maintain a fairly steady number I have to eat small amounts about every 2

hours - otherwise I go too high or too low. Does anyone else eat that often?

Barb in NH

Re: Good BG Levels and Bad BG Levels

>

>

> ,

> 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.

>

> 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.

>

[Guest guest]

Barb, pizza is known for being the MAJOR problem food for most

diabetics. For some reason, even 1 piece will make BGs go up and up --

and stay there for a long time before coming down.

I find it's just easier to skip it.

Vicki

Re: Good BG Levels and Bad BG Levels

>

>

>>

>>

>> ,

>> 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.

>>

>> 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.

[Guest guest]

Like the Energizer Bunny that keeps on working, glipizide keeps on

working, long after the meal is digested and affecting your BGs.

Prandin works faster and lasts just a few hours and then quits when you

need it to quit. At least that's the way it works for me and the way

it's supposed to work.

I hadn't had a low in the several years that I've been on Prandin until

last night, and that was because of my carelessness. On Saturday night

I usually take my Prandin, then go with my husband to an oriental

restaurant 30 minutes away. Last night, because of the NCAA tournament,

we went to Walmart first and then to eat. Before we left, about three,

I absentmindedly took my Prandin, because I am a creature of habit, I

guess. When we got to the restaurant, I was shaky and in need of carbs.

I over compensated, of course, because that's what we often do when we

have a low.

But that is the only low I've had from Prandin. Why don't you ask your

doctor about it on Tuesday? Sue

>

> - I am new at trying to keep my numbers in tight control. Part

> of my

> problem is that the medication I take is

> Glipizide which leaves me a prime candidate for hypos.

[Guest guest]

Barb: eating small meals to maintain stability is quite common among

tightly controlled diabetics especially in the beginning. & I think we

all feel that we are constantly walking a tightrope--that is what gets

so wearying about diabetes. You are among people who understand.

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]

Helen,

What is the source of the information in your first paragraph?

S Wilkinson

Rome, NY

-----Original Message-----

From: Helen Mueller

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

[Guest guest]

, I don't remember; there might be information in the archives at

DSM. I also did a quick google search and found this page -

http://qualitycounts.com/fpadvanced_glycation_end_products.html

- but just skimmed it. There is probably a lot of stuff at the Life

Extension website.

The basic premise is the higher the A1c, the more glycation there is.

Some people can be more sensitive to AGEs than others. Some glycate

easier. Anything that lowers the A1c lowers AGEs, generally.

Helen