We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Wow - never realized how sensitive I am to moderately high blood sugar (NSV, sort of)
neohdiver
Posts: 738 Member
Someone called to my attention the other day a sudden change in affect that I hadn't noticed. Having it called to my attention made me realize how suddenly exhausted I was. I tested my blood glucose - it was 2 hours after a new meal I was testing - and it was mid 130s.
I realized today (after I thought I was out of the danger period for a spike following a new food) that I was suddenly exhausted. I tested - and sure enough - it was 130.
Prior to switching to a low carb diet, I would not have said I could detect when my blood sugar was high (or low, or in between). I have noticed a significant decrease in brain fog since starting to eat a low carb diet - but I am still surprised at how dramatic the impact is of just a moderately high BG reading.
I realized today (after I thought I was out of the danger period for a spike following a new food) that I was suddenly exhausted. I tested - and sure enough - it was 130.
Prior to switching to a low carb diet, I would not have said I could detect when my blood sugar was high (or low, or in between). I have noticed a significant decrease in brain fog since starting to eat a low carb diet - but I am still surprised at how dramatic the impact is of just a moderately high BG reading.
0
Replies
-
That was great you were able to pick up on that. From what I read blood glucose over 100 (USA) will wreck our health long term.0
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »That was great you were able to pick up on that. From what I read blood glucose over 100 (USA) will wreck our health long term.
I believe the danger point - at which damage begins - is sustained blood sugar above 140 (Here are links to a number of studies: http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14045678.php).
Normal blood glucose levels are between 72 & 108, with temporary spikes to 140 following eating. Diabetics spike much higher and the American Diabetes Association suggests keeping their blood sugar between 100 & 140 - and returning to below 180 after an eating spike. (The latter advice seems insane to me.)
My goal is to stay below 140, but closer to 120, after I eat - except when I am testing new foods (so I know how to limit my consumption of them). In other words, my target is the normal, non-diabetic, range. Given how strongly I react, I may lower that to a target of below 130. I am grateful to the person who was watching me when it happened last time, since I doubt I would have picked up on it - I wasn't aware of anything beyond the swings in alertness I've gotten used to over the years until she questioned me about whether anything was wrong.
0 -
It is a great NSV to be able to notice an alteration of your normal BG. So happy for you!
::flowerforyou::0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »That was great you were able to pick up on that. From what I read blood glucose over 100 (USA) will wreck our health long term.
I believe the danger point - at which damage begins - is sustained blood sugar above 140 (Here are links to a number of studies: http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14045678.php).
Normal blood glucose levels are between 72 & 108, with temporary spikes to 140 following eating. Diabetics spike much higher and the American Diabetes Association suggests keeping their blood sugar between 100 & 140 - and returning to below 180 after an eating spike. (The latter advice seems insane to me.)
My goal is to stay below 140, but closer to 120, after I eat - except when I am testing new foods (so I know how to limit my consumption of them). In other words, my target is the normal, non-diabetic, range. Given how strongly I react, I may lower that to a target of below 130. I am grateful to the person who was watching me when it happened last time, since I doubt I would have picked up on it - I wasn't aware of anything beyond the swings in alertness I've gotten used to over the years until she questioned me about whether anything was wrong.
@neohdiver based on the research below 140 levels and less may be leading to serious tissue damage of heart, eyes, etc. The cancer risk
Below the link I will list some of the research titles in the link below. Please read some of them if interested.
phlaunt.com/diabetes/14045678.php
Research Connecting Organ Damage with Blood Sugar Level
Beta Cell Destruction Begins at 2-hr OGTT Test Readings Over 100 mg/dl (5.6 mmol/L)
Beta Cells Die Off in People Whose Fasting Blood Sugar is Over 110 mg/dl (6.1 mmol/L)
Blood Sugars Over 150 mg/dl (8.3 mmol/L) Kill Transplanted Beta Cells in Mice
Prolonged Exposure to Blood Sugars Over 140 mg/dl (7.8 mmol/L) Kills Human Beta Cells
One Hour OGTT Result over 155 mg/dl(8.6 mmol/L) Correlates with Markers for Cardiovascular Disease
Heart Disease, A1c, and Post-Meal Blood Sugars Correlate Tightly
Diabetic Retinopathy Develops at "Prediabetic" Blood Sugar Levels
The steepest increase in retinopathy prevalence occurs among individuals with A1C equal to or greater than 5.5% and FPG equal to or greater than 5.8 mmol/l [104 mg/dl]. A1C discriminates prevalence of retinopathy better than FPG.
Studies linking both post-meal blood sugars and A1c with cardiovascular disease
Multiple Studies Link Heart Failure to Blood Sugars in the so-called "Prediabetic" Range
Fasting Glucose Predicts Heart Failure, Death Rate, MI and Stroke, Independent of Diabetes
Rates of Cancer Rise Significantly with "Mildly" impaired Blood Sugars
A Swedish study that followed 64,597 people for 10 years discovered that there was a very strong increase in the risk of cancer for those participants, no matter what their weight who had fasting blood sugars over 110 mg/dl (6.1 mmol/L) or who scored over 160 mg/dl (8.9 mmol/L) two hours after a glucose tolerance test.
The cancers most responsive to the higher blood sugars appear to those of the pancreas, endometrium, urinary tract, and malignant melanoma.
Blood Sugar Fluctuations Cause More Damage to Kidney Cells than Steady State High Blood Sugar
Risk of Developing Chronic Kidney Disease Rises Significantly in a Straight-Line Fashion as A1c rises above 6.0%
Risk of Death from Stroke Increases 27% with 18 mg/dl Rise in 2-hr GTT Result
Anyone with diabetes interest may want to bookmark this link for future reference since someone pulled a lot of studies together with hype links to boot.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »That was great you were able to pick up on that. From what I read blood glucose over 100 (USA) will wreck our health long term.
I believe the danger point - at which damage begins - is sustained blood sugar above 140 (Here are links to a number of studies: http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14045678.php).
Normal blood glucose levels are between 72 & 108, with temporary spikes to 140 following eating. Diabetics spike much higher and the American Diabetes Association suggests keeping their blood sugar between 100 & 140 - and returning to below 180 after an eating spike. (The latter advice seems insane to me.)
My goal is to stay below 140, but closer to 120, after I eat - except when I am testing new foods (so I know how to limit my consumption of them). In other words, my target is the normal, non-diabetic, range. Given how strongly I react, I may lower that to a target of below 130. I am grateful to the person who was watching me when it happened last time, since I doubt I would have picked up on it - I wasn't aware of anything beyond the swings in alertness I've gotten used to over the years until she questioned me about whether anything was wrong.
@neohdiver based on the research below 140 levels and less may be leading to serious tissue damage of heart, eyes, etc. The cancer risk
Below the link I will list some of the research titles in the link below. Please read some of them if interested.
phlaunt.com/diabetes/14045678.php
That's the same link I gave - we are just reaching different conclusions from the same or similar research.
The items that reference lower ranges are specific to situations in which someone without diabetes tests even lower than 100. For example, a reference to a fasting blood sugar of over 100 being harmful is because someone who is non-diabetic should be under 100 - so going above 100 for a fasting blood sugar is associated with higher overall blood glucose at other times during the day. In other words it isn't the 105 when you wake up that is killing the beta cells, it is that anyone who wakes up with a blood glucose of 105 is in the early stages of diabetes and will have an average blood glucose between 117 and 137 (meaning they are running considerably higher a good bit of the day - and it is those periods of sustained higher glucose (or likely also regularly repeated spikes) that do the damage).
Context is everything when it comes to interpreting whether an individual blood sugar reading is healthy or doing harm!
0 -
@neohdiver it seems most long term damage may start occurring in the 'pre-diabetic' stage long before many people will even be considered diabetic is my take away. If this is the case the pre-diabetic stage may be more dangerous than the diabetic stage due to not being treated the 10 years prior to "becoming" diabetic in medical terms.
https://kidney.org/news/kidneyCare/Summer10/PreDiabetes
"The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates that about one in four U.S. adults aged 20 years or older—or 57 million people—have pre—diabetes.
Without patients and their doctors taking action, prediabetes is likely to become type 2 diabetes in 10 years or less. People with prediabetes should know that the long—term damage to their body—especially to the heart, kidneys and blood vessels — may already be happening."
This is why I see the "pre-diabetic" stage may be more dangerous than the full blown diabetic stage. Having damage occurring to one's heart, kidneys and blood vessels thinking they are OK until they are told they are diabetics I think is a little less than factual.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »
This is why I see the "pre-diabetic" stage may be more dangerous than the full blown diabetic stage. Having damage occurring to one's heart, kidneys and blood vessels thinking they are OK until they are told they are diabetics I think is a little less than factual.
I agree that the pre-diabetic stage is likely to do more damage, since generally no one is trying to keep the blood glucose within safe ranges, because it is still considered ok. My quibble was with the assertion that damage begins when your blood glucose level hits 100.
Whether 100 is dangerous depends entirely on context.
In some contexts, 100 is absolutely normal. Not prediabetic, not diabetic, but normal. Virtually everyone's blood glucose goes above 100 after eating a diet that is not carb restricted. No damage is not being done just because the blood glucose is above 100 for the brief period of time it takes for insulin and its receptors to do their magic and transport the glucose to where your body needs it to be. So testing at 120, for example, an hour or so after eating is to be expected, and harmless.
On the other hand, if the test was done on waking, it is a pretty definitive sign (especially if repeated) that you are insulin deficient or resistant. At that point, it still isn't the level -100 -that is doing damage. It is that having a blood glucose reading that high before consuming any food signals that you are almost certainly considerably above that for extended periods during the day - and it is those values above 100 that are harmful (140 is the fairly well documented level at which the level of glucose in your blood does damage).
0 -
I have a lot of work to do to better understand all of this. An hour after eating wild Salmon with only steamed broccoli with water to drink I tested at 91 which is in the range of what I test in the morning fasting. Two weeks ago at an outside lab fasting for 12 hours I hit 107 at 9 am in the morning?0
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »I have a lot of work to do to better understand all of this. An hour after eating wild Salmon with only steamed broccoli with water to drink I tested at 91 which is in the range of what I test in the morning fasting. Two weeks ago at an outside lab fasting for 12 hours I hit 107 at 9 am in the morning?
About 2 months ago I did a quick, intense, study to top off what I know from living with/around more than the average number of people with diabetes my entire life. That got me here (low carb). Still studying - but not as intensely. There aren't many long-term studies of LC diets
What did you test before the salmon and broccoli? That meal would barely raise my BG, so if I was 80-90 ahead of time, that's about where I'd expect to be after (as long as I didn't go overboard on the broccoli). I also occasionally eat a small quantity of nuts or cheese if I am expecting to eat (about an hour later) a meal slightly higher than I like in carbs. The small quantity of nuts or cheese tends to drive my BG down so the carb spike doesn't take it quite so high.
Your 107 in the morning is likely a combination of two things - dawn phenomenon (the liver dumps glucose in the morning to help you wake up), and there's something similar that goes on when you haven't eaten for a while. I'm still occasionally over 100 in the morning (usually when I'm really short on sleep) - but mostly I'm below 90. BUT - I can test a couple of hours later (without eating anything) and be up over 100.
0 -
@neohdiver I decided to do some testing blood glucose levels on myself myself.
10 hour fasting was at 99.
1.5 hours later after only consuming 20 Wobenzym N tables and water it was at 94. Activity wise I did take a hot shower and did some simple range of motion movements for about 10 minutes.
At that time I ate breakfast and tested 1.2 hours later at 79. I was just at the computer since the 94 reading and eating.
The breakfast was my normal WOE. Coconut flakes, almonds, coffee with shilajit, coconut oil, heavy whipping cream, one boiled egg and four long pieces of celery with a cup of green tea.
Now I see where my 107 12 hour fasting reading came from a few weeks ago like you stated above. Dropping 20 points this morning from fasting to 1 hour post breakfast boggles my old mind/education.
Clearly my BG level was lower after eating.0
This discussion has been closed.