Blood sugar tanked.
Replies
-
KnitOrMiss wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »KnitOrMiss wrote: »I know that this is a relatively new perspective, but it could really change the way that even conventional medicine treats some types of diabetes!
https://blog.thediabetessite.com/5-types/
Thanks for this link. I hadn’t seen this yet. I will be discussing this with my doc next time as I think that second cluster sounds more like me wher I just don’t produce enough insulin but not a type 1. My fasting insulin ranges between 3&4 and glucose and fructose metabolism both test well, but can’t get my A1c below 6
@cstehansen - That's so strange! I hope you get some answers... By any chance, has your doctor run the beta cell tests to determine your pancreatic function, etc.? @Sunny_Bunny_ can better explain, as she's been through all that with her daughter. I found it fascinating how many tests there are to tell you what beta cell function capacity you have, as well as if it's autoimmune related, and all of that stuff...
I wonder if you continually overtaxed your pancreas/insulin when you used to do your extended exercise/increased volume eating, leaving it less able to perform as needed in a normal setting.
I know that at my absolute best, my fasting insulin level was around/just under a 6...the 7-9 range is pretty normal for me fasting, doesn't matter 8-12 hours, etc. My A1c has not been over a 5.3 or 5.4%....
Have you used any of the "naturally balancing blood glucose" nutrients or supplements? It seems like these days, nearly everyone puts stupid chromium into vitamins, and it attempts to override my body's existing, developed blood sugar management system.
Vanadium is one of those...alpha lipoic acid (ALA)...etc.
I have not had autoimmune test yet.
I have tried all kinds of natural remedies with little to no effect. The only one that looks like it might be having an effect is gaba which is more designed to get my high cortisol under control.
Oddly, what appears to be working for me a bit right now is eating a higher volume of the more insulinogenic proteins. My theory was that the small amount of carbohydrate in my diet was not stimulating any insulin secretion and that by adding the more insulinogenic proteins into my diet, it may actually overshoot and drive down my BG a bit. Results are looking positive initially.1 -
cstehansen wrote: »KnitOrMiss wrote: »I know that this is a relatively new perspective, but it could really change the way that even conventional medicine treats some types of diabetes!
https://blog.thediabetessite.com/5-types/
Thanks for this link. I hadn’t seen this yet. I will be discussing this with my doc next time as I think that second cluster sounds more like me wher I just don’t produce enough insulin but not a type 1. My fasting insulin ranges between 3&4 and glucose and fructose metabolism both test well, but can’t get my A1c below 6
Have you had a fructosamine test? It's like A1c, but the time frame is much shorter and the confounding factors are different.
I have had this run each of the last three visits. All the results were in line with the A1c where "normal" is under 200, pre-diabetic is 200-250. Mine is consistently in the 225-233 range which lines up pretty well with my A1c that is 6.0-6.1.1 -
I haven't had a chance to listen to all if this yet, but sounds like a similar thing. Shawn Baker is a really fit, middle aged carnivore who has some higher BG readings than expected, usually in the morning. His insulin levels were good too. He might have some insights that could apply to your situation.
https://robbwolf.com/2018/03/13/episode-385-dr-shawn-baker-carnivore-diet-and-dr-bakers-blood-work/cstehansen wrote: »KnitOrMiss wrote: »I know that this is a relatively new perspective, but it could really change the way that even conventional medicine treats some types of diabetes!
https://blog.thediabetessite.com/5-types/
Thanks for this link. I hadn’t seen this yet. I will be discussing this with my doc next time as I think that second cluster sounds more like me wher I just don’t produce enough insulin but not a type 1. My fasting insulin ranges between 3&4 and glucose and fructose metabolism both test well, but can’t get my A1c below 6
Funny that you post this. I had just listened to that podcast and thought, "holy cow, his BG numbers sound just like mine." However, my other numbers seem to be better than his - cholesterol ratios and testosterone.1 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »I’ve heard information before about the fact that red blood cells live longer on keto than SAD. So if that’s the case, that’s part of the explanation to why his A1c is high. His cells have been around for longer than the 3 months the test is using to determine the number. So it’s just inaccurate
I had been thinking about this, but the fructosamine test lining up with the A1c is a confounding factor.
Just not having enough insulin production without actual autoimmune or beta cell death makes a lot of sense for a couple of reasons.
First, my dad has had pre-diabetic BG since the early 90's without any progression and his dad had a similar situation - neither being overweight. So if this is hereditary, that is a strong piece of evidence.
Second, up until just a couple years ago, the doctor only did FBG and not A1c and I was always told it was "higher than I would like to see, but not pre-diabetic" when in reality looking back, those FBG numbers from my early 30's are the same as I have now (110-115), so likely had my A1c been done then, I would have been diagnosed as pre-diabetic 15 years ago. With no real change in time over that period other than a brief spike up to 6.6 just prior to going low carb, this consistency makes me think I may have been this way for a long time, especially since my first physical post high school was in my 30's.2 -
I'm type 2 and have had a few low blood sugar levels in the morning, mostly. Sometimes, just moderately low, like 60-80. I have been doing this WOE since October, but have done low carb before. The blood sugar levels that are low scare me. I no longer take diabetes medicine except for a few spikes. I tried 20 carbs a day, but it was just too low.I usually eat 30-80, and sometimes 100. I turned 50 early this year. I've lost about 15 pounds, but it goes up and down.I also have lymphedema. Finding the right carb limit seems to be hard for me.
I would not be concerned about the number regardless of how low UNLESS you are symptomatic. There are multiple studies from back before the ethics boards would have allowed them showing that if someone is fully ketogenic, getting BG down below 20 caused no symptoms or harm.
In this podcast - http://www.ketohackingmd.com/4-7-day-water-fasting-hack-experiment-results-part-1/ - they are discussing both ketone and BG readings over the course of a 7 day fast where the doctor actually got down around 30 for a BG.
Now, both of these people have been keto for many years and there bodies have fully adapted. Since you are still relatively new, I doubt you would get that low. It takes time, but it is normal for the BG to trend down. As long as you are eating smart and not taking medication to lower your BG, it shouldn't drop too fast.
Having lymphedema means it is almost 100% that you have insulin resistance. As others can on here can attest, being overweight does not mean you are always insulin resistant. And as I can attest, being insulin sensitive does not always mean your BG is optimal.
The reason it is important is the more insulin resistant you are, the more strict you have to be on your carb count. If you are symptomatic at the lower BG levels, the best way to combat that is to be more consistent in carb count (at a lower level) which will give you more consistent BG readings. The absolute number is not the issue when it comes to symptoms. It is rather the range and speed of the drop. Going from 80 to 60 may not cause any symptoms, but going from 250 down to 150 could cause someone to have hypoglycemic symptoms.4 -
I could have written this headline earlier today. Been a super long time since my BS tanked aka went this low. When something woke me up at 345AM, as soon as I stood up I was like whoa something is not right here. It had gone to 45 good grief it should never be that low.
I am a T2D, and the goal for morning BS is under 120. I personally have been working on it to get it more between 95-105 as that seems to be my sweet spot.
And I know exactly what caused it on Sunday. Not my normal walking.
But for all the people who snicker and state housework is not exercise. We have wood floors. So I first used murphy soap and washed the floors. And moved the furniture around as well. Then I used the wood floor outshine to make them all look pretty. 6 rooms, 3 hallways later they looked great. About 90 minutes straight, I was soaking wet with sweat when done.
And I take my long lasting lantus at night. Been taking 40 units, use to be 70. I take Trulicity once a week as well. Note to self, if besides your long walk, you do anything to point of sweating buckets adjust the Lantus down next time. It use to be more medications but I have decreased both number of medications and amount I still take since starting LC in May 2018.
It took me eating something twice in 40 minutes to get the numbers above 80. When I got up for the days hours later it was at 110 which shows I had way too much insulin floating around.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »120 right after eating something is good.
If you are 120 while fasting, it is too high. If you normally run 200's and 300's, you really need to get to 120 (and even lower) RIGHT NOW!!!
Staying in the 200's and 300's all the time is what ruins your health.
Pretty much this.
I tend to now run a fasted of 85-87 and PP of 110-115 (have had it as low as 90 if I run a 20-30 minute cycling session before eating) and have never felt better. A1c now tends to hover around 4.6-4.8.
Admittedly though, it took me some years to get to this point. I don’t even see a 140 PP reading after eating 100g (dry weight) of white rice anymore.3 -
I'm type two and just started low carbing again and in just two days my bg numbers are down like from 10. morning fasting to 7.5 this morning. So low carbing works. Thank you all for the great info.3
-
lcharpentier2 wrote: »I'm type two and just started low carbing again and in just two days my bg numbers are down like from 10. morning fasting to 7.5 this morning. So low carbing works. Thank you all for the great info.
10 to 7.5 representing what?0 -
maureenkhilde wrote: »lcharpentier2 wrote: »I'm type two and just started low carbing again and in just two days my bg numbers are down like from 10. morning fasting to 7.5 this morning. So low carbing works. Thank you all for the great info.
10 to 7.5 representing what?
Probably fasting blood glucose, measured in mmol/l.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »120 right after eating something is good.
If you are 120 while fasting, it is too high. If you normally run 200's and 300's, you really need to get to 120 (and even lower) RIGHT NOW!!!
Staying in the 200's and 300's all the time is what ruins your health.
Pretty much this.
I tend to now run a fasted of 85-87 and PP of 110-115 (have had it as low as 90 if I run a 20-30 minute cycling session before eating) and have never felt better. A1c now tends to hover around 4.6-4.8.
Admittedly though, it took me some years to get to this point. I don’t even see a 140 PP reading after eating 100g (dry weight) of white rice anymore.
Fasting blood sugar of 120 for a T2D is not considered as too high. It could be someone's opinion but this statement is not supported anywhere that I have seen.
From the 2017 American Diabetes Association Standards of Care, the following chart shows current targets for blood sugars for nonpregnant adult patients with diabetes:
Summary of Glycemic Recommendations for Adults with Diabetes
A1C <7.0% (53 mmol/mol)
Preprandial capillary plasma glucose 80–130 mg/dL* (4.4–7.2 mmol/L)
Peak postprandial capillary plasma glucose† <180 mg/dL* (10.0 mmol/L)
*More or less stringent glycemic goals may be appropriate for individual patients. Goals should be individualized
**based on duration of diabetes, age/life expectancy, comorbid conditions, known CVD or advancedmicrovascular complications, hypoglycemia unawareness, and individual patient considerations.†Postprandial glucose may be targeted
Blood sugar target levels for nonpregnant adults with diabetes coincide with A1C less than 7
I do agree that my goal is to be less than 120, which I now run 105-110 on average, and have a goal to get lower. Being a diabetic I understand that the numbers I am given to try and achieve may not be the same as someone else who also is a diabetic. It most certainly is not a situation of where everyone is given the same numbers to hit. So it is not a good statement when someone makes a statement about a given number stating it is too high.0 -
maureenkhilde wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »120 right after eating something is good.
If you are 120 while fasting, it is too high. If you normally run 200's and 300's, you really need to get to 120 (and even lower) RIGHT NOW!!!
Staying in the 200's and 300's all the time is what ruins your health.
Pretty much this.
I tend to now run a fasted of 85-87 and PP of 110-115 (have had it as low as 90 if I run a 20-30 minute cycling session before eating) and have never felt better. A1c now tends to hover around 4.6-4.8.
Admittedly though, it took me some years to get to this point. I don’t even see a 140 PP reading after eating 100g (dry weight) of white rice anymore.
Fasting blood sugar of 120 for a T2D is not considered as too high. It could be someone's opinion but this statement is not supported anywhere that I have seen.
From the 2017 American Diabetes Association Standards of Care, the following chart shows current targets for blood sugars for nonpregnant adult patients with diabetes:
Summary of Glycemic Recommendations for Adults with Diabetes
A1C <7.0% (53 mmol/mol)
Preprandial capillary plasma glucose 80–130 mg/dL* (4.4–7.2 mmol/L)
Peak postprandial capillary plasma glucose† <180 mg/dL* (10.0 mmol/L)
*More or less stringent glycemic goals may be appropriate for individual patients. Goals should be individualized
**based on duration of diabetes, age/life expectancy, comorbid conditions, known CVD or advancedmicrovascular complications, hypoglycemia unawareness, and individual patient considerations.†Postprandial glucose may be targeted
Blood sugar target levels for nonpregnant adults with diabetes coincide with A1C less than 7
I do agree that my goal is to be less than 120, which I now run 105-110 on average, and have a goal to get lower. Being a diabetic I understand that the numbers I am given to try and achieve may not be the same as someone else who also is a diabetic. It most certainly is not a situation of where everyone is given the same numbers to hit. So it is not a good statement when someone makes a statement about a given number stating it is too high.
The ADA also has a history of recommending high carb diets, which we know cause elevated PP BG's and poor glycemic control in diabetics.
There is plenty of evidence that a fasting BG of 120 mg/dl is harmful. For example:
-"a very strong increase in the risk of cancer" was found in participants in a study when their fasting BG was >110 mg/dl or if their PP (2 hrs. after GTT) was >160 mg/dl.
-Beta cells die off in people whose fasting BG is over 110 mg/dl. Deceased patients who were known to have fasting BG's between 110 mg/dl and 125 mg/dl within 2 years of their deaths had lost, on average, 40% of their insulin producing beta cells.
-"Risk of developing chronic kidney disease rises significantly in a straight-line fashion as A1c rises above 6.0%."
-"Subjects who developed retinopathy over a 9 year period had an average fasting blood sugar of 130 mg/dl and an average A1c of 6.4%. Those who did not develop retinopathy over this period had an average fasting blood sugar of 108 mg/dl and an average A1c of 5.7%."4 -
Latest studies mentioned in Peter Attia's newest blog suggest even lower numbers are needed to prevent NAFLD and at the present time extrapolated from the study numbers of almost 10,000 people, only 12.2% of Americans are not in the danger zone for metabolic disease. Just got the email in my in-box. Scary thought.
Sorry, my bad, not Peter Attia's blog, Tommy Wood MD, PhD at NourishBalanceThrive.com has the link. It was online from Nov 27 pre-publication.3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »maureenkhilde wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »120 right after eating something is good.
If you are 120 while fasting, it is too high. If you normally run 200's and 300's, you really need to get to 120 (and even lower) RIGHT NOW!!!
Staying in the 200's and 300's all the time is what ruins your health.
Pretty much this.
I tend to now run a fasted of 85-87 and PP of 110-115 (have had it as low as 90 if I run a 20-30 minute cycling session before eating) and have never felt better. A1c now tends to hover around 4.6-4.8.
Admittedly though, it took me some years to get to this point. I don’t even see a 140 PP reading after eating 100g (dry weight) of white rice anymore.
Fasting blood sugar of 120 for a T2D is not considered as too high. It could be someone's opinion but this statement is not supported anywhere that I have seen.
From the 2017 American Diabetes Association Standards of Care, the following chart shows current targets for blood sugars for nonpregnant adult patients with diabetes:
Summary of Glycemic Recommendations for Adults with Diabetes
A1C <7.0% (53 mmol/mol)
Preprandial capillary plasma glucose 80–130 mg/dL* (4.4–7.2 mmol/L)
Peak postprandial capillary plasma glucose† <180 mg/dL* (10.0 mmol/L)
*More or less stringent glycemic goals may be appropriate for individual patients. Goals should be individualized
**based on duration of diabetes, age/life expectancy, comorbid conditions, known CVD or advancedmicrovascular complications, hypoglycemia unawareness, and individual patient considerations.†Postprandial glucose may be targeted
Blood sugar target levels for nonpregnant adults with diabetes coincide with A1C less than 7
I do agree that my goal is to be less than 120, which I now run 105-110 on average, and have a goal to get lower. Being a diabetic I understand that the numbers I am given to try and achieve may not be the same as someone else who also is a diabetic. It most certainly is not a situation of where everyone is given the same numbers to hit. So it is not a good statement when someone makes a statement about a given number stating it is too high.
The ADA also has a history of recommending high carb diets, which we know cause elevated PP BG's and poor glycemic control in diabetics.
There is plenty of evidence that a fasting BG of 120 mg/dl is harmful. For example:
-"a very strong increase in the risk of cancer" was found in participants in a study when their fasting BG was >110 mg/dl or if their PP (2 hrs. after GTT) was >160 mg/dl.
-Beta cells die off in people whose fasting BG is over 110 mg/dl. Deceased patients who were known to have fasting BG's between 110 mg/dl and 125 mg/dl within 2 years of their deaths had lost, on average, 40% of their insulin producing beta cells.
-"Risk of developing chronic kidney disease rises significantly in a straight-line fashion as A1c rises above 6.0%."
-"Subjects who developed retinopathy over a 9 year period had an average fasting blood sugar of 130 mg/dl and an average A1c of 6.4%. Those who did not develop retinopathy over this period had an average fasting blood sugar of 108 mg/dl and an average A1c of 5.7%."
Exactly this. I wasn’t saying that a T2D should be gunning for my numbers out of the gate, but that they should be something of a long term goal.
Interesting thing I found out this week: after just two days of being forced to sit on my *kitten* for snow removal, my fasting BG went from 85-87, to 103-107. Within a day of being back to my normal training and activity levels, it’s back to 94.
So yeah, just a little more n=1 evidence supporting the study where well trained individuals were made prediabetic just be being made sedentary for two weeks.5 -
Diabetics deserve non diabetic blood sugars. The ADA guidelines are not good enough to prevent complications.
Someone doesn’t need to settle for just ok blood sugars simply because they’re diabetic.
Sometimes with T2, diet alone is enough to get there. Sometimes meds are still necessary in addition to lifestyle changes but there is no reason to settle for just good enough.8 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Diabetics deserve non diabetic blood sugars. The ADA guidelines are not good enough to prevent complications.
Someone doesn’t need to settle for just ok blood sugars simply because they’re diabetic.
Sometimes with T2, diet alone is enough to get there. Sometimes meds are still necessary in addition to lifestyle changes but there is no reason to settle for just good enough.
I could not agree with you more!
I get so frustrated with my mom's doctor (my mom is 81 and has been a type 2 diabetic for many years) because she told my mom that she can stop checking her blood sugar because it's been stable for a while. However, with meds, it has been stable at a level that is always over an A1c of 6.0%.
My mom has numerous serious health conditions, and in my opinion, not checking her blood sugar is simply not okay. My mom has been obese most of her life and has put on more weight lately, which worries me. She was raised not to question doctors; it's really hard to get her to understand that doctors do not always know what is best.
Rant over!4 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Diabetics deserve non diabetic blood sugars. The ADA guidelines are not good enough to prevent complications.
Someone doesn’t need to settle for just ok blood sugars simply because they’re diabetic.
Sometimes with T2, diet alone is enough to get there. Sometimes meds are still necessary in addition to lifestyle changes but there is no reason to settle for just good enough.
I could not agree with you more!
I get so frustrated with my mom's doctor (my mom is 81 and has been a type 2 diabetic for many years) because she told my mom that she can stop checking her blood sugar because it's been stable for a while. However, with meds, it has been stable at a level that is always over an A1c of 6.0%.
My mom has numerous serious health conditions, and in my opinion, not checking her blood sugar is simply not okay. My mom has been obese most of her life and has put on more weight lately, which worries me. She was raised not to question doctors; it's really hard to get her to understand that doctors do not always know what is best.
Rant over!
@bametels
I know we've had this discussion before (shared misery about our parents), but I don't know my mom's numbers, nor do I think I'd want to, but I've literally watched her and my stepdad (both T2D) inject insulin, then proceed to binge on candy. I could not live nearby and watch this all of the time...it breaks my heart!3 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Diabetics deserve non diabetic blood sugars. The ADA guidelines are not good enough to prevent complications.
Someone doesn’t need to settle for just ok blood sugars simply because they’re diabetic.
Sometimes with T2, diet alone is enough to get there. Sometimes meds are still necessary in addition to lifestyle changes but there is no reason to settle for just good enough.
Well, to be fair, once a T2D has normal blood sugar levels, they’re no longer T2D. It’s not the progressive disease it’s been made out to be, and we’ve seen it reversed time and again by weightloss and activity increases.
I’m a pretty good example. When I was 250+ lbs. and lived in front of my PC, fasting was well over 130 on the few times I bothered to use my mom’s monitor to check it. As stated in my previous post, I’m a long way from there now, and eat over 500g carbs per day when trying to gain weight.0 -
KnitOrMiss wrote: »
@bametels
I know we've had this discussion before (shared misery about our parents), but I don't know my mom's numbers, nor do I think I'd want to, but I've literally watched her and my stepdad (both T2D) inject insulin, then proceed to binge on candy. I could not live nearby and watch this all of the time...it breaks my heart!
Yes, @KnitOrMiss, we have commiserated about our parents. It is painful to watch the deterioration of people you love.
While I don't know that not checking her blood sugar has contributed to her most recent diagnosis (failing kidneys), it certainly could not have helped. I get so frustrated when more and more scientific studies demonstrate the value of low carb/keto diets in preventing/controlling/reversing T2 diabetes that the mainstream medical community is still pushing meds and promoting the ADA guidelines. When I see what I believe is misinformation being shared, I feel the need to speak up (rant) in the hope that others might avoid, delay, minimize the damage of T2 diabetes.
3 -
KnitOrMiss wrote: »
@bametels
I know we've had this discussion before (shared misery about our parents), but I don't know my mom's numbers, nor do I think I'd want to, but I've literally watched her and my stepdad (both T2D) inject insulin, then proceed to binge on candy. I could not live nearby and watch this all of the time...it breaks my heart!
Yes, @KnitOrMiss, we have commiserated about our parents. It is painful to watch the deterioration of people you love.
While I don't know that not checking her blood sugar has contributed to her most recent diagnosis (failing kidneys), it certainly could not have helped. I get so frustrated when more and more scientific studies demonstrate the value of low carb/keto diets in preventing/controlling/reversing T2 diabetes that the mainstream medical community is still pushing meds and promoting the ADA guidelines. When I see what I believe is misinformation being shared, I feel the need to speak up (rant) in the hope that others might avoid, delay, minimize the damage of T2 diabetes.
I know the feeling. T2D is rampant in my mother’s side of the family, and all of them blame it on “sugar genes”. It’s patently absurd, and none of them want to accept that it’s their obesity that’s the primary culprit.
An unfortunate (but recent and relevant) example is my grandmother. She’s been on insulin and had awful BG for decades. However, since she developed lung cancer and lost a bunch of weight, her BG levels came down and she was able to come off of insulin with no forced changes to diet.
Obviously, getting cancer isn’t preferable to diabetes (both suck), but I’m hoping it will finally hammer into my mom’s face that it’s more about her jeans than her genes. It’s a painful way to learn, but if it can save her from the same fate as her mother, I’ll call it an even trade.6 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »maureenkhilde wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »120 right after eating something is good.
If you are 120 while fasting, it is too high. If you normally run 200's and 300's, you really need to get to 120 (and even lower) RIGHT NOW!!!
Staying in the 200's and 300's all the time is what ruins your health.
Pretty much this.
I tend to now run a fasted of 85-87 and PP of 110-115 (have had it as low as 90 if I run a 20-30 minute cycling session before eating) and have never felt better. A1c now tends to hover around 4.6-4.8.
Admittedly though, it took me some years to get to this point. I don’t even see a 140 PP reading after eating 100g (dry weight) of white rice anymore.
Fasting blood sugar of 120 for a T2D is not considered as too high. It could be someone's opinion but this statement is not supported anywhere that I have seen.
From the 2017 American Diabetes Association Standards of Care, the following chart shows current targets for blood sugars for nonpregnant adult patients with diabetes:
Summary of Glycemic Recommendations for Adults with Diabetes
A1C <7.0% (53 mmol/mol)
Preprandial capillary plasma glucose 80–130 mg/dL* (4.4–7.2 mmol/L)
Peak postprandial capillary plasma glucose† <180 mg/dL* (10.0 mmol/L)
*More or less stringent glycemic goals may be appropriate for individual patients. Goals should be individualized
**based on duration of diabetes, age/life expectancy, comorbid conditions, known CVD or advancedmicrovascular complications, hypoglycemia unawareness, and individual patient considerations.†Postprandial glucose may be targeted
Blood sugar target levels for nonpregnant adults with diabetes coincide with A1C less than 7
I do agree that my goal is to be less than 120, which I now run 105-110 on average, and have a goal to get lower. Being a diabetic I understand that the numbers I am given to try and achieve may not be the same as someone else who also is a diabetic. It most certainly is not a situation of where everyone is given the same numbers to hit. So it is not a good statement when someone makes a statement about a given number stating it is too high.
The ADA also has a history of recommending high carb diets, which we know cause elevated PP BG's and poor glycemic control in diabetics.
There is plenty of evidence that a fasting BG of 120 mg/dl is harmful. For example:
-"a very strong increase in the risk of cancer" was found in participants in a study when their fasting BG was >110 mg/dl or if their PP (2 hrs. after GTT) was >160 mg/dl.
-Beta cells die off in people whose fasting BG is over 110 mg/dl. Deceased patients who were known to have fasting BG's between 110 mg/dl and 125 mg/dl within 2 years of their deaths had lost, on average, 40% of their insulin producing beta cells.
-"Risk of developing chronic kidney disease rises significantly in a straight-line fashion as A1c rises above 6.0%."
-"Subjects who developed retinopathy over a 9 year period had an average fasting blood sugar of 130 mg/dl and an average A1c of 6.4%. Those who did not develop retinopathy over this period had an average fasting blood sugar of 108 mg/dl and an average A1c of 5.7%."
Can you tell me exactly where your information came from? I would like to read the article. I have never read before that having diabetes leads to cancer. I am totally aware of the kidney, heart, eye issues it can lead to. As well as the amputations etc. But leading to cancer is not something I have read anywhere.
I have no issues with people having goals to get T2D under control as much as they can. I am on that journey right now. Down to two medications from being on five medications. Just got another AC1 back and now am at 6, my goal is to get as close to 5 as I can. I also agree that any/all of the America medical associations move at the rate of a snail to embrace anything or make a change. I think one of the biggest short falls is they will make the statement to lose 5 or 10% of your body weight. And most Dr's do not suggest an education plan, or even a dietican and we have seen that with no help and just telling people to lose some weight. As a whole it does not work. Perfect example is eating on a lower carb way. I made the change and informed my endocrinologist that is what I was doing. Based on the success I am having they asked me, to share exactly what I am doing. In the hope they can get other patients to see the light.
But at the start of my journey, my first goal was to stabilize my morning numbers to within about 10. Once I had that, then the next goal laid out was to drop the morning numbers by 10, stabilize keep within 10. And do again to show I was doing it over and over. And so that my Dr. would agree and drop medications and see progress. So I will still see it as each person needs to work on their plan. And it should be individualized for what is going on with that person. As it is not a one answer fits everyone. Ultimate goal would be to get to normal BS all of the time. And drop the Lantus and Trulicity. 18 years of being a T2D my eyes show no changes so am good there. Other big motivator for me, is improving my kidney function, and have seen some improvement there as well.1 -
maureenkhilde wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »maureenkhilde wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »120 right after eating something is good.
If you are 120 while fasting, it is too high. If you normally run 200's and 300's, you really need to get to 120 (and even lower) RIGHT NOW!!!
Staying in the 200's and 300's all the time is what ruins your health.
Pretty much this.
I tend to now run a fasted of 85-87 and PP of 110-115 (have had it as low as 90 if I run a 20-30 minute cycling session before eating) and have never felt better. A1c now tends to hover around 4.6-4.8.
Admittedly though, it took me some years to get to this point. I don’t even see a 140 PP reading after eating 100g (dry weight) of white rice anymore.
Fasting blood sugar of 120 for a T2D is not considered as too high. It could be someone's opinion but this statement is not supported anywhere that I have seen.
From the 2017 American Diabetes Association Standards of Care, the following chart shows current targets for blood sugars for nonpregnant adult patients with diabetes:
Summary of Glycemic Recommendations for Adults with Diabetes
A1C <7.0% (53 mmol/mol)
Preprandial capillary plasma glucose 80–130 mg/dL* (4.4–7.2 mmol/L)
Peak postprandial capillary plasma glucose† <180 mg/dL* (10.0 mmol/L)
*More or less stringent glycemic goals may be appropriate for individual patients. Goals should be individualized
**based on duration of diabetes, age/life expectancy, comorbid conditions, known CVD or advancedmicrovascular complications, hypoglycemia unawareness, and individual patient considerations.†Postprandial glucose may be targeted
Blood sugar target levels for nonpregnant adults with diabetes coincide with A1C less than 7
I do agree that my goal is to be less than 120, which I now run 105-110 on average, and have a goal to get lower. Being a diabetic I understand that the numbers I am given to try and achieve may not be the same as someone else who also is a diabetic. It most certainly is not a situation of where everyone is given the same numbers to hit. So it is not a good statement when someone makes a statement about a given number stating it is too high.
The ADA also has a history of recommending high carb diets, which we know cause elevated PP BG's and poor glycemic control in diabetics.
There is plenty of evidence that a fasting BG of 120 mg/dl is harmful. For example:
-"a very strong increase in the risk of cancer" was found in participants in a study when their fasting BG was >110 mg/dl or if their PP (2 hrs. after GTT) was >160 mg/dl.
-Beta cells die off in people whose fasting BG is over 110 mg/dl. Deceased patients who were known to have fasting BG's between 110 mg/dl and 125 mg/dl within 2 years of their deaths had lost, on average, 40% of their insulin producing beta cells.
-"Risk of developing chronic kidney disease rises significantly in a straight-line fashion as A1c rises above 6.0%."
-"Subjects who developed retinopathy over a 9 year period had an average fasting blood sugar of 130 mg/dl and an average A1c of 6.4%. Those who did not develop retinopathy over this period had an average fasting blood sugar of 108 mg/dl and an average A1c of 5.7%."
Can you tell me exactly where your information came from? I would like to read the article. I have never read before that having diabetes leads to cancer. I am totally aware of the kidney, heart, eye issues it can lead to. As well as the amputations etc. But leading to cancer is not something I have read anywhere.
I have no issues with people having goals to get T2D under control as much as they can. I am on that journey right now. Down to two medications from being on five medications. Just got another AC1 back and now am at 6, my goal is to get as close to 5 as I can. I also agree that any/all of the America medical associations move at the rate of a snail to embrace anything or make a change. I think one of the biggest short falls is they will make the statement to lose 5 or 10% of your body weight. And most Dr's do not suggest an education plan, or even a dietican and we have seen that with no help and just telling people to lose some weight. As a whole it does not work. Perfect example is eating on a lower carb way. I made the change and informed my endocrinologist that is what I was doing. Based on the success I am having they asked me, to share exactly what I am doing. In the hope they can get other patients to see the light.
But at the start of my journey, my first goal was to stabilize my morning numbers to within about 10. Once I had that, then the next goal laid out was to drop the morning numbers by 10, stabilize keep within 10. And do again to show I was doing it over and over. And so that my Dr. would agree and drop medications and see progress. So I will still see it as each person needs to work on their plan. And it should be individualized for what is going on with that person. As it is not a one answer fits everyone. Ultimate goal would be to get to normal BS all of the time. And drop the Lantus and Trulicity. 18 years of being a T2D my eyes show no changes so am good there. Other big motivator for me, is improving my kidney function, and have seen some improvement there as well.
I am reading Tripping over the Truth; it gets into the metabolic approach to cancer. That cancer may be caused by deranged mitochondrial function, and that the cells become largely dependent on glucose. it discusses the evidence that cancer is more likely to happen when BG is high. Interesting stuff.
Congrats on your success so far.
You are doing a great job! 2 -
maureenkhilde wrote: »
Can you tell me exactly where your information came from? I would like to read the article. I have never read before that having diabetes leads to cancer. I am totally aware of the kidney, heart, eye issues it can lead to. As well as the amputations etc. But leading to cancer is not something I have read anywhere.
Hi @maureenkhilde - here's part 1 of a 3 part blog from Richard David Feinman PhD (Professor of Cell Biology (Biochemistry) at the State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York. Dr. Feinman’s original area of research was in protein chemistry and enzyme mechanism) on cancer and blood sugars vs low carb/ketogenic diets:
https://feinmantheother.com/2016/10/03/ketogenic-diets-for-cancer-what-makes-you-think-that-ketone-bodies-will-help/
Part 2 & 3 continue the thread going into the Warburg Effect.
I think he's a pretty amazing mind, and wish he'd write more but he's also a very busy guy when it comes to working on other projects. I think the blog likely is lower on his priority list at the moment. Too bad.
1 -
@maureenkhilde I would have to go back and find the specific study with the increase at 110 mg/dl, as there are quite a few studies on this topic. Some studies considered specific cancer types while others were more broad.
Here is an example of a study that is extremely broad as it looked at the higher risk of death from all causes and based on fasting glucose >100 mg/dl.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1008862Hazard ratios for death among participants with diabetes, as compared to those without diabetes, after adjustment for baseline age, sex, smoking status, and BMI, were as follows: 1.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.71 to 1.90) for death from any cause, 1.25 (95% CI, 1.19 to 1.31) for death from cancer, 2.32 (95% CI, 2.11 to 2.56) for death from vascular causes, 1.73 (95% CI, 1.62 to 1.85) for death from nonvascular causes not attributed to cancer, and 1.88 (95% CI, 1.62 to 2.18) for deaths of unknown or ill-defined cause (Fig. 1 in the Supplementary Appendix). These hazard ratios were not appreciably reduced after additional adjustment for systolic blood pressure, lipid levels, C-reactive protein levels, fibrinogen levels, alcohol use, estimated glomerular filtration rate, or indicators of socioeconomic status, when such information was available. However, the hazard ratios were reduced considerably after adjustment for fasting glucose or glycated hemoglobin levels (Table 2).
In this study done in Korea, they analyzed by categorizing participants' fasting BG's into various categories and found an increase in cancer risk as fasting BG increased. The reference range was a fasting BG of <90 mg/dl.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/200151We observed linear trends in mortality with increasing fasting serum glucose level for all cancers combined and for cancers of several sites (Table 2). Compared with the reference category (<90 mg/dL), men with a fasting serum glucose level above 140 mg/dL had significantly elevated HRs of death from cancers of the esophagus (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.08-1.93), liver (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.40-1.76), pancreas (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.52-2.41), and colon/rectum (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.03-1.67). Significant associations were also found for bladder cancer and leukemia for those with a fasting serum glucose level of 126 mg/dL or higher. Men with a fasting serum glucose level of 110 to 125 mg/dL had significantly elevated HRs of death from esophageal, stomach, colon/rectal, liver, and pancreatic cancers. Of the total of 20 566 cancer deaths in men, 802 were estimated as attributable to having a fasting serum glucose level of less than 90 mg/dL.
In case you were not aware, Google Scholar can be used to search for peer reviewed journal articles.0
This discussion has been closed.