Viewing the message boards in:
Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Do you have pre-diabetes? Simple online test to see if you do...

2

Replies

  • Posts: 8,171 Member
    I scored 4/10, low risk but I am diabetic. My only risk factor is my age (over 60). How was I diagnosed? I had blood work done to help determine why I was so out of breath and weak. Blood glucose was high so they also did an A1C which was 7.3. My problem was severe anemia and the T2Dm diagnosis was incidental to the medical issue.
  • Posts: 12,019 Member
    I scored 3/10 - low risk. I put in my old stats, the stats I had when I was diagnosed with Type 2 (not prediabetes, actual diabetes)

    How was I actually diagnosed? My gp thought I had an issue with my thyroid and because I was over 40 also checked my blood glucose.

    I think they should have a disclaimer saying 'You've clicked on here to see if you're at risk - go see your doctor'.

    I did not think to put in my old stats from when I was diagnosed. I would have been a 0/10. LOL
  • Posts: 1,075 Member
    I am prediabet according to my doc and my blood work. This test gave me a 2/10
  • Posts: 396 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »

    Hey - how about common senses?
    I'm all for common sense, but I am also for backing up baseless claims with something resembling proof, something you can't seem to ever do. And when you do its usually misinterpreted.
    I eat meat and BG does not spike. I eat refined and ultra processed foods (that is carb based) and my BG rises. You are actually arguing against that? Do you have a peer reviewed study to say that is wrong? Common sense here.
    Do you ever get tired of moving the goalposts so much? Please point out where you made this exact claim and where I questioned it. Seriously, anyone can scroll upthread and see what your exact claims were.
    I haven't even mentioned keto. I mentioned carbs for the first time just now. Read a little closer before arguing. An anti-keto argument is out of place here.
    How about you read a little closer also. I never claimed you mentioned keto, I was wondering exactly where you came up with some of your still unsupported claims. Considering your history on here of pushing the keto party dogma it wouldn't be out of line to assume you may have read some of your unsupported claims on a keto website. Again, please point out exactly where I'm making an anti-keto argument.

    My argument is coming from someone with insulin resistance, who can successfully treat the issue with food choices alone, and not from a "keto propaganda website".
    This is an n=1 anecdote which doesn't prove anything. You haven't lost weight/maintain healthy weight since you've been diagnosed with IR? You don't exercise?

    So, I'm guessing you can't support any of your claims?
  • Posts: 6,840 Member
    I scored 2/10. I don't have prediabetes. I have full fledged diabetes.

    It takes five seconds and a finger stick to learn your fasting blood glucose, skip breakfast before visiting your doctor and get it done.
  • Well, the biggest factor is my age. After I lose two more pounds, my weight won't be a factor. As for the blood pressure, I have no idea what mine is.
  • Posts: 4,080 Member
    Lol at this test.

    If I input my statistics from when my first A1C test returned a worrying some number, my risk level is low (3/10) - I was at a BMI of 40 at that time... I get tested every year because both my grandmothers had type 2, several of my aunts have it and two of my cousins started developing it in their 30s (including one who's physically active and not overweight - but in her case gestational diabetes might have had a hand in it).

    Thankfully, my numbers were easily corrected by losing 35kg and getting active. It doesn't mean I'm safe from that particular disease since it seems to run in my family's genes.
  • Posts: 322 Member
    edited October 2017
    2/10... LOL yeah right. I DO have pre-diabetes (she said for type2). Was recently diagnosed. Ironically I'm a young adult, active, a size 0-2, low cholesterol, low triglycerides, and eat healthy. What's the point anymore :|
  • Posts: 3,025 Member
    7/10 no surprise
  • Posts: 12,019 Member
    2/10... LOL yeah right. I DO have pre-diabetes (she said for type2). Was recently diagnosed. Ironically I'm a young adult, active, a size 0-2, low cholesterol, low triglycerides, and eat healthy. What's the point anymore :|

    Low carb can help with BG numbers. My prediabetes was not weight related either, and low carb puts me back to really good numbers.
  • Posts: 2,913 Member
    I scored 2/10; my risk factors are age (41) and family history (both parents and a sister all have Type 2 diabetes).
    I found out 4-5 years ago that I had prediabetes. At the time I was still struggling to lose the last 10 lbs of baby weight. I shifted from WW to a lower carb diet, lost 11 lbs and reversed the prediabetes. Blood work has continued to improve over time, thankfully, but it's something I stay mindful of! I had a BMI of 23 when I was diagnosed with prediabetes; my dad and his mom had never been overweight but both had Type 2.
  • Posts: 1,701 Member
    3/10, I assume because I'm 60+.
    Surely only 2 of the factors mentioned are within our control (activity level and weight) and most of it we already know?
  • Posts: 444 Member
    johnwelk wrote: »
    blah blah blah etc..

    You know, for a guy who talks alot, you really don't say much do you. I mean at any point you could have just made your counter argument and backed it up with some factual reference.. but I notice you didn't

  • Unknown
    edited October 2017
    This content has been removed.
  • Posts: 396 Member
    Fyreside wrote: »

    You know, for a guy who talks alot, you really don't say much do you. I mean at any point you could have just made your counter argument and backed it up with some factual reference.. but I notice you didn't

    Excuse me? Exactly what in the world are you taking about? And where was this quote from? Have you heard the statement - that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence? If you had actually read this thread then you would have noticed the poster whom I was replying to supported none of her baseless assertions with science, I pressed her for evidence, she followed up with more baseless assertions. Therefore, no need for me to to supply references.
  • Posts: 444 Member
    johnwelk wrote: »

    Excuse me? Exactly what in the world are you taking about? And where was this quote from? Have you heard the statement - that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence? If you had actually read this thread then you would have noticed the poster whom I was replying to supported none of her baseless assertions with science, I pressed her for evidence, she followed up with more baseless assertions. Therefore, no need for me to to supply references.

    Yeah there is even a word for that. Your just "trolling". Saying alot, but nothing to say. No point to make just want to argue. Good job. you win a whole internet.
  • Posts: 6,840 Member
    earlnabby wrote: »

    You might see it that way but the experts do not.

    Actually, post prandial spikes are a better indication of long term complications than A1c, according to studies (which I am too lazy to look up right now, but you can use Google as well as I can.) The reason A1c has become the standard isn't that it's a better measure, it's that it quickly and cheaply gives a picture of glucose over three months, unlike frequently unreliable patient reporting.

    Plus, diabetic post prandial spikes aren't the same as non diabetic spikes. Non-diabetics have an immediate insulin response which tends to keep blood sugar within range no matter how gratuitous the meal. A non-diabetic will not have a spike over 200 regardless of what they just ate. And blood glucose over 150 is damaging nerves RIGHT THEN. Maybe not much in two hours, but multiply two hours over thousands of meals and you end up with numb feet and sexual dysfunction in ten years.
  • Posts: 1,701 Member

    Actually, post prandial spikes are a better indication of long term complications than A1c, according to studies (which I am too lazy to look up right now, but you can use Google as well as I can.) The reason A1c has become the standard isn't that it's a better measure, it's that it quickly and cheaply gives a picture of glucose over three months, unlike frequently unreliable patient reporting.

    Plus, diabetic post prandial spikes aren't the same as non diabetic spikes. Non-diabetics have an immediate insulin response which tends to keep blood sugar within range no matter how gratuitous the meal. A non-diabetic will not have a spike over 200 regardless of what they just ate. And blood glucose over 150 is damaging nerves RIGHT THEN. Maybe not much in two hours, but multiply two hours over thousands of meals and you end up with numb feet and sexual dysfunction in ten years.

    This confused me initially because, where I come from, post prandial has an entirely different meaning :D
This discussion has been closed.