Re: I need proof of why Type 2s need to test test test

"palm" <palm650@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1125335535.816040.196940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


> <Overall, 48.43% subjects tested their blood glucose levels at home >
> or = 1 time per day, 29.63% tested their blood glucose levels > or = 1
> time per week and 7.81% tested their blood glucose levels < 1 time per
> week, whereas 14.06% patients never practiced SMBG.>
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15002260&query_hl=1
> <their frequency of SMBG was 1.36 +/- 0.95 strips per patient per day.
> Postimplementation, 974 of 1,278 persons with diabetes had HbA1c tested
> (HbA1c = 7.86% +/- 1.54%; P= .63 vs baseline); frequency of SMBG
> decreased by 46% to 0.74 +/- 0.50 strips per patient per day (P <
> .0001)>
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12068962&query_hl=1
> What do you think they did with test results? They showed them to their
> docs, and they were changing their treatment according to test results.

You posted these concerns a lot of times

They have all been dealt with a lot of times

Read oldal4865 <oldal4865@xxxxxxxxx> for a very good comment and a lot of
references in : "I need proof of why Type 2s need to test test test"

The problem is: Nobody talks about testing NIDDM patients 8 times a day.
They discuss reductions in HbA1c of 1 point in NIDDM who test once a day as
if once a day represented frequent testing.

The basic problem you face is that you are compliant, you are diligent,
you are interested in not dying in pain while still young but the vast,
vast majority of NIDDM are not willing or not able to match your compliance,
diligence and interest.

NHANES indicates that the average U.S. NIDDM HbA1c is ~7.75 That
correlates with a 24/7 bG of:

24/7 bG = 1.98 x 7.75 - 4.29 = 11.06 ! ! ! !

(That's 24/7, not PP. Unbelievable but that's the way it is)

Read Alan S <loralweightandcarbs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> for a very good comment : "I
need proof of why Type 2s need to test test test"

You are going to find it hard to find proof, because we are
on the cutting edge here. There have been very, very, few if
any studies done on people like us. It's sad, but true. Why,
I don't know, particularly when you consider the benefits
such research would have for test strip sales. I have
personally mailed, emailed and rung companies such as Lilly
and Roche suggesting they fund research - without success.

Read all the responses to Jenny <lottadatacarbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> "Type 2s Poll
Question: How Long in 5% Club?"

Read the responses you got in : "Frequency of blood glucose monitoring in
relation to glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes"

And try to answer them :
rleone@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1122923385.477035.30040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Dear Palm:
> I feel your finger pain -- but you're just going to have to accept
> that a HUGE proportion of frequent posters at asd, compared to the
> "general population" of people with diabetes, are "overachievers." I
> mean, geez, look at the 5% Club! The only population of human research
> subjects I've ever heard of who've gotten their collective3 A1c down to
> 5.9% (+ or - 1.2 for the standard deviation for you statistics fans,
> from a starting A1c of 8.4 with the same SD) is confined to Fukushima
> Prison in Japan! A good many folks here claim to have made that sort of
> A1c number on their own, without guards enforcing medication regimens,
> centrally planned diets or assigned "moderate work" -- and I have no
> reason to doubt them at all.

rich <dummyaddress@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> <<Studies after studies, after studies, after studies prove that
> frequency of blood sugar testing, in Type 2 diabetics, who do not use
> insulin, have no relation to blood glucose control:


Bull


> Study done in Italy,involve two thousand diabetics, over three years.
> Conclusion: "In a large sample of non-insulin-treated Type 2 diabetic
> patients, the performance and frequency of SMBG did not predict better
> metabolic control over 3 years." Published in July of 2005 (sig!)
> http://tinyurl.com/d2aho


Irrelevant study as the testing frequencies seem to have been 1/wk vs.
1/day. Nothing about 8/day with dietary change based on results.


> Study involve 1200 diabetics by VA Northern California Health Care
> System Published in 2002
> Conclusion: "Reduction in self-monitoring of blood glucose in persons
> with type 2 diabetes results in cost savings and no change in glycemic
> control."
> http://tinyurl.com/dzo56


Irrelevant. testing frequency compared was an avg of 1.36 times per day
compare to an average of .74 times per day. Nothing about testing 8 times a
day with dietary change based on results.


> Study done in Lublin, Poland 64 type 1 and type 2 diabetics involved.
> Published in 2002. Conclusion : "The increase in frequency of
> self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 1 diabetes was
> associated with better metabolic control. The ability to adjust insulin

> doses in patients with type 1 diabetes was associated with better
> metabolic control. No association was found between glycaemic control
> and the frequency of self-monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes."


> http://tinyurl.com/bzkkt



Irrelevant. More than half the people tested less than once a day. Nothing
about testing 8 times a day with dietary change based on results.


> Study done by National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney
> Diseases in cooperation with National Institutes of Health, published
> in June of 2001.
> Conclusion : "the frequency of self-monitoring was not related to
> glycemic control"
> http://tinyurl.com/cugcs
> Still want to "test, test, test" and stub your fingers "eight
> times a day" instead of recommended by American Diabetes association
> (and now you know why) once-twice a day or less.>>


Irrelevant. Study compared people testing 1/day with people testing 1/week.
Nothing about testing 8 times a day with dietary change based on results.


> Still want to "test, test, test" and stub your fingers "eight
> times a day" instead of recommended by American Diabetes association
> (and now you know why) once-twice a day or less.>>


None of your studies is remotely on point. Still want to keep putting out
your BS just because you're afraid of a little pinprick?

Rich

Read the responses you got in : "Love your fingers"

And try to answer them

Read the responses you got in : Inventing a bicycle (and doing this wrong)

And try to answer them :

GysdeJongh <jongh711@xxxxxxxxx>
We know that diabetes will cause more fungus infections on your feet , more
fungus infections on your gland penis , more bacteria infections in your mouth
( causing orthodontitis) , slower healing of wounds. This seems to make sense to
me : more sugar more micro organisms will grow. As you see above this is
diabetics BITING THEIR FINGER NAILS Which I don't. But yes there is a greater
change of infection. Will it lead actually often to an infection ???? I poked my
fingers 178 times and did not see an infection. I wash my hands with soap and
dry them with a clean paper tissue. People here are giving still larger numbers.
So yes there is a larger chance but it does not lead to a significant number of
finger injections. We also have a higher chance of the other infections listed
above. So yes , be carefull.

You don't answer anything

You just post the same again

You are confusing "Repetition" with "Discussion"

I got your message

I do not need to read it again

Gys

.