 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / June 2010Anyone using a blood sugar meter with low carb?
After reading these two articles, I've been kinda convinced that using a blood sugar meter is a good idea when going low carb, since you can test to see how various foods effect you. It seems like a quicker/easier method than just waiting a week or so to see how your weight loss is going. Any thoughts? http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/rerun-to-let-low-carb- right-you-must.html http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/04/08/blood-sugar-ups- and-downs/ > After reading these two articles, I've been kinda convinced that > using a blood sugar meter is a good idea when going low carb, since [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/04/08/blood-sugar-ups- > and-downs/ It makes no sense unless you're already diabetic. That's because until you lose some pancreatic beta cell mass, you're going to produce enough insulin to keep you in a very narrow glucose range. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Susan The vast majority of people here over the years have found counting carbs to be sufficient and work. If you do that and limit anything questionable, eg products containing sugar alcohols, to a couple times a week and limited amounts, you should do fine without making it harder than it needs to be. And if you're just starting out, I recommend Atkins and doing induction by the book to get started. That should work, unless there is something unique about your situation. >> After reading these two articles, I've been kinda convinced that >> using a blood sugar meter is a good idea when going low carb, since [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It makes no sense unless you're already diabetic. How about the folks who are pre-diabetic, hypoglycemic and various other words for carb issues? Just checking when you think the meter starts being useful. A meter is definitely useful in figuring out if you're diabetic and not yet diagnosed. > How about the folks who are pre-diabetic, hypoglycemic and various other > words for carb issues? Just checking when you think the meter starts > being useful. The problem is that if you're NONE of those things, you'll think everything is fine. And often, symptoms of hypos or hyper show up when bg is still reading normal at the moment you test due to the speed of changes, not the amount/number. > A meter is definitely useful in figuring out if you're diabetic and not > yet diagnosed. Yes, that's how I was diagnosed. And I don't believe in "pre diabetes or IGT." Look it up: many folks with those conditions develop diabetic complications like kidney damage, peripheral neuropathy, retinopathy, etc. I define the disorder by the damage it's doing, not by bogus ranges. Most type 2 diabetics have lost an average of 50% of pancreatic beta cell mass prior to diagnosis. PRE my a.s. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Susan If you took readings at 1 hour and 2 hours after eating, wouldn't that give you a good idea of just how fast these changes were happening? It seems as though if your 1 hour BG was over 200, I'd really worried. So far none of my 1 hr tests have ever gone over 136, so I feel pretty good about it. My understanding that damage occurs over 140, especially at prolonged periods. My main reason for getting the meter, which was surprisingly cheap, was to help evaluate various foods on how they spiked my blood sugar. Right now I'm eating roughly 55-60 grams of carbs a day and staying in ketosis, so now I have some wiggle room. It seems like a fairly direct way of testing to see if a certain food was going to be a problem. I know the traditional way is to go by weight, but I honestly feel that is almost close to trying to read chicken bones. Theres too many reasons why I may not lose weight for a week or two and then start again. Never had a real plateau longer than 2 weeks, thankfully. Being able to test for "pre-diabetes" was an additional reason, although not the primary reason. But after talking to diabetics about how some seemingly safe foods will send their BG through the roof and other "dangerous" foods barely do anything, I got the idea. The one example that had me really looking into it was when someone said that after ingesting whey protein isolate, that their BG would spike very high. Yet if they ate pasta, there was little effect. I'm not surprised that Whey isolate would have that affect, but it got me thinking. I tested my fasting BG, and that was higher than I was comfortable with it being. I'm sure before I started losing weight and low carbing, I was pre-diabetic, at least by some standards. Plus, it allows me to really zero in my diet, allowing me to get a good idea of what the foods I'm eating are doing to my BG and make some quick adjustments. Although, I do know that most people, including most people who low carb, probably will think its crazy. I can see the benefits. > If you took readings at 1 hour and 2 hours after eating, wouldn't > that give you a good idea of just how fast these changes were > happening? Not necessarily. Many folks see their bg peak at 45 minutes post meal. If their first phase insulin response is intact (it's the first to degrade in DM progression, years before fasting or two hour rise), they'd never see the peak in glucose production because insulin covered it. If they *did* have a rise and subsequent insulin response, they'd miss it. For folks who want to know if they're having any spikes, testing every 15 minutes would probably catch them. But then they'd have to do that a lot for different foods, since individual responses vary so much. > It seems as though if your 1 hour BG was over 200, I'd > really worried. sh.t, yeah, but that's a DM. We were talking about people who don't have diabetes using meters, too. They could be hyperinsulinemic and preventing spikes while still accumulating damage. > So far none of my 1 hr tests have ever gone over > 136, so I feel pretty good about it. My understanding that damage > occurs over 140, especially at prolonged periods. Permanent damage occurs over 140 and meter accuracy varies. I never like to see 136 at any time, but it's not awful. It certainly means you don't have intact pancreatic function. > My main reason for getting the meter, which was surprisingly cheap, > was to help evaluate various foods on how they spiked my blood [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and then start again. Never had a real plateau longer than 2 weeks, > thankfully. Wow, if that's all the carbs you're eating 136 is very worrisome. Clearly diabetic, and well advanced at that. Are you washing your hands with warm water (not soap or alchohol) before testing? Food reside can falsely raise bg test results. > Being able to test for "pre-diabetes" was an additional reason, > although not the primary reason. But after talking to diabetics [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > losing weight and low carbing, I was pre-diabetic, at least by some > standards. Darlin', with 136 *on low carb* you are a well advanced diabetic. If your fbg is risen, well, that only happens after years of diabetes. > Plus, it allows me to really zero in my diet, allowing me to get a > good idea of what the foods I'm eating are doing to my BG and make > some quick adjustments. Yes, because you're diabetic. I've been diabetic many years, at least a couple of decades, and I eat the same carb level you do, and I have high cortisol much of the time. I rarely go up to 136 at one hour on that carb level. > Although, I do know that most people, including most people who low > carb, probably will think its crazy. I can see the benefits. Um, I see the benefits as a DM who tests, and clearly, that's what you are. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > Susan I should have noted that the 136 was an hour after eating a whole grapefruit with a meal of ~29 grams cassein/egg white/whey protein and 25 grams of mixed nuts (no peanuts). I'm not terribly surprised by that 1 hour number. I'm waiting to get some test strips in this week and I'll test with some more foods. I haven't had much of a chance to really test with other foods, yet. But I plan on keeping a close eye on my BG. > I should have noted that the 136 was an hour after eating a whole > grapefruit with a meal of ~29 grams cassein/egg white/whey protein > and 25 grams of mixed nuts (no peanuts). I'm not terribly surprised > by that 1 hour number. If you had intact pancreatic function, that number wouldn't have risen above 105 even if you'd had cake, donuts and soda. I'm waiting to get some test strips in this > week and I'll test with some more foods. I haven't had much of a > chance to really test with other foods, yet. But I plan on keeping > a close eye on my BG. Good idea. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Susan So even though my blood sugar levels are completely normal, I have diabetes? > So even though my blood sugar levels are completely normal, I have > diabetes? The numbers for fasting and post meal you posted are NOT completely normal. Studies have shown, and endos have told me that fassting glucose does not begin to rise from normal (which is more like 85 or so) until post meal insulin production/glucose have been compromised for years. I've been diabetic for many years and I have never yet had a diabetic range fbg, only post meal highs. www.phlaunt.com/diabetes Read the sections on "how glucose control deteriorates" and the one on levels at which organ damage occurs. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Susan Even according to that website, I am not diabetic. 140 is their magic number. > Even according to that website, I am not diabetic. 140 is their > magic number. They're defining it as the threshold for permanent damage. People with intact pancreatic function don't have high fbg or vary much from a range of 85-105, according to Dr. Richard Bernstein. Jennifer calls 140 non diabetic, but I do not. It's the number that diabetics REALLY don't want to reach post meal at all. Susan > In article <84sv91Ft9...@mid.individual.net> > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Even according to that website, I am not diabetic. 140 is their > magic number. There are other "magic numbers" that are lower. Some use the number 126. Even the ultra-conservative Doc I go to points that number above 100 aren't healthy and that the thresholds for what is considered prediabetes and diabetes will likely be lowered in future decades. > In article <84rle8Fur...@mid.individual.net> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > So even though my blood sugar levels are completely normal, I have > diabetes? Those aren't health values. They are common values in an unhealthy population that sits in front of the television, computer, and in the auto all too much. I certainly have been guilty but exercise and a low carb diet helps. Nor am I saying one shouldn't use the meds if they are needed but sometimes they can be avoided or avoided for a span of time with reforms of personal regimens/habits. > x-no-archive: yes >> A meter is definitely useful in figuring out if you're diabetic and not >> yet diagnosed. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Susan So, if one is idling along on low carb maintenance and running fasting blood glucose levels of 100 to 115 for years, as a "pre diabetic", what would you suggest that such an individual do to best preserve their health. In the way of not just going along with the doctor "watching it". I think that in the last 3 years I have had only one fasting blood glucose reading below 100 and that was only something like 99 or 98. Once in a while, I have had the idea that the blood glucose should be better on low carb, but I may have just invented that belief. > So, if one is idling along on low carb maintenance and running fasting > blood glucose levels of 100 to 115 for years, as a "pre diabetic", what > would you suggest that such an individual do to best preserve their > health. I guess the first thing I'd do is ask for urine, saliva and serum testing to see if cortisol is normal, since it's responsible for a.m. glucose elevations even in those with adequate insulin and no IR. And I'd keep eating very low carb. I might have some protein at bedtime to see if the lengthy insulin release that causes might keep fbg lower, since insulin inhibits cortisol. > In the way of not just going along with the doctor "watching > it". I think that in the last 3 years I have had only one fasting blood > glucose reading below 100 and that was only something like 99 or 98. > Once in a while, I have had the idea that the blood glucose should be > better on low carb, but I may have just invented that belief. The blood glucose undoubtedly IS better on low carb, but if your diabetes is well advanced, it might not control fbg or post prandials adequately. If your cortisol is high (it's the cause of some DM as opposed to IR) then it needs to be addressed as to why. Blood glucose is much better on low carb because in type 2, protein doesn't raise bg, it converts to glucose only partially and very slowly. It provokes more insulin release than carbs, but over a longer period, so it helps keep things level without hormone derangement. Susan Thanks. Sounds like I should try to be proactive in this and start with some more basic information on diabetes beyond the standard definitions of just type one and two and simple generalizations. > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Susan > > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Once in a while, I have had the idea that the blood glucose should be > better on low carb, but I may have just invented that belief. No you are not alone in this view. Low carb is tool that helps in the context of prediabetes and diabetes. > After reading these two articles, I've been kinda convinced that > using a blood sugar meter is a good idea when going low carb, since [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > right-you-must.htmlhttp://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/04/08/blood-sugar-ups- > and-downs/ It depends. If you're middle aged and starting into type 2 prediabetes meter reading can be a revelation. Cutting carb both refined carbs and grain carb is a healthy action even for many young still healthy persons. Any weight loss program should have a huge exercise component. And don't listen the press report that it only takes minimal exercise, I say a good solid minimum would be a 12 mile bicycle ride cranked out as fast as the rider can do it. Further don't watch the weight as the primary measure. I'll suggest the belly circumference, waist circumference, and butt circumference are better measures. Exercise builds muscle weight but removes lard deposits. On Jun 1, 2:50 am, "trigonometry1...@gmail.com |" <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > After reading these two articles, I've been kinda convinced that > > using a blood sugar meter is a good idea when going low carb, since [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > bicycle ride cranked out as fast as the rider > can do it. The problem with that is that there have been many credible studies that show far less demanding exercise than what you propose as a minimum does have significant health benefits and if people believe it's of no value unless you do a 12 mile flat out bike ride, they won't do anything at all. > Further don't watch the weight as the primary > measure. I'll suggest the belly circumference, > waist circumference, and butt circumference > are better measures. Exercise builds muscle > weight but removes lard deposits. On Jun 1, 2:49 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> wrote: > On Jun 1, 2:50 am, "trigonometry1...@gmail.com |" > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > are better measures. Exercise builds muscle > > weight but removes lard deposits. I was basing my comments on what it took to make a noticeable difference for this old man fasting blood glucose levels. I was aware of the studies but I think they send a false or at least poor signal. If one needs change one needs real change. And by the looks the population they aren't even doing milder shorter exercise or try it for a little bit and quit. Perhaps the trick to set much higher goals? And not lower and seemingly reasonable ones. Of course people would need to build up to 12 miles and they can start at a "reasonable" level, I suppose. Not something I did. I started out working until I could hardly stand afterwards. I started out digging out some stumps this late winter and spring by hand. Then I did the garden by hand. On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 04:42:26 -0700 (PDT), "trigonometry1972@gmail.com |" <trigonometry1972@gmail.com> wrote: >On Jun 1, 2:49 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >a noticeable difference for this old man fasting >blood glucose levels. You really need to learn to add "YMMV" to your posts that are based entirely on your personal anecdotal experience. You can't make sweeping generalizations about everyone simply because you found that something worked for you. For instance, I had a major stroke 12 years ago and cannot do aerobic exercise. Yet I lost 70 pounds with a controlled-carb way of eating and have maintained for quite a few years now... and my HbA1c is normal with no medications after having been diagnosed as T2 Diabetic six years ago. What works for me may not be the best thing for you, what works for you may not be the best thing for others. While I'm happy to hear that you found something that works for you that includes vigorous exercise, one size does not fit all. --- Peter > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 04:42:26 -0700 (PDT), "trigonometry1...@gmail.com > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > --- > Peter Thanks that was a slip up on my part. Yes I agree the YMMV is nearly always a good comment to make. Thanks. And I have enough old friends to understand one can get boxed in by circumstances. YMMV..........................Trig Trig |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.