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.

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.

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.

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.

Hazard 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).

We 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.