Re: < 130 Good Enough ?


"Chris Malcolm" <cam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5cnk1tF31ok7dU2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Freckles <Freckles1507@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Susan" <nevermind@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5cja7rF30d7lpU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Loretta Eisenberg wrote:

We would like to know what your two hour post prandial numbers are.
Some test one hour after. Good numbers are under 140 after an hour and
under 120 after two hours. I always test from the end of the meal.
others test from the beginning. whatever method you choose, be
consistent. I prefer after since I have lower numbers

Susan, I didnt know that damage was done over 100. Can you send me a
link about that . thanks

Jenny posted this many times, here's a link to it on her excellent,
informative web site. Scroll down for an article on damage at 100, and
at
110 fbg:

http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14045678.php

Sure, being able to achieve consistent 110 and lower BG readings would be
desirable, but just how many of us do you seriously think could achieve
such
results. Very, very few I'm sure.

But I do enjoy reading about people who can do the things I do, but
very much better. In fact that's why I buy most of the mags I buy --
they're written by people much better at whatever it is than I
am. That's how I learn stuff, and sometimes get a bit better myself at
it.

There is such a thing as quality of life too you know.
My BG's, like I think most on this newsgroup, ranges from 140 and below
with
an occasional spike.

Same here.

I like all of us want to fight this disease, but I also intend to enjoy
my
life. If an occasional forbidden small piece of pie or a dish of pudding
will keep me from achieving that consistent <110, so be it.

Same here.

But what I don't understand is your objection to reading about how
folk who do much better manage it. I've got dozens of technical and
sporting interests in which I'm only a very mediocre performer, but I
still love to read about how the champions do it. And the same goes
for managing my BGs.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

You have just recently been diagnosed as a diabetic. Your doctor has put you
on medicines and had a dietician talk to you about the foods you should
avoid and those that are O.K. for a diabetic to eat.

Someone has most likely explained to you about testing and how you should
have BG readings of 140 or below one hour after a meal and 120 or below two
hours after meals. They also told you what your fasting blood sugar should
be and hopefully many other details about how to handle your disease.

Like many of the newbie's to this newsgroup, your fasting blood sugar had
probably been over 200 or even over 300 on the morning of diagnosis.

You are feeling bewildered, depressed and lonely. So you decide to see what
newsgroups you can find where you might get some advice and help.

So you click onto alt.support.diabetes and lo and behold you read that
according to some report if you don't keep your blood sugar at <=110 you
will be doing more damage to your body.

Just what you needed to read when you are doing all you can do at this point
to maintain the numbers given to you by your medical team.

Talk about the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back!

Those of us that have had diabeties for some time have learned to take care
of ourselves and reading about such a report isn't all that daunting, but to
a newbie it could be enough for them to just throw up their hands and give
up.

I have my diabeties under pretty good control, but I doubt I will ever be
able to achieve consistent <=110 readings, and what's more, I don't even
intend to starve myself enough to try.

As I have mentioned earlier, the quality of life is just as important to me
as the quantity of life.

Now, that is why I object to reading such reports in a diabetes support
group that many newbies turn to for help and support.

That preliminary report may turn out to be true, then again, maybe not.







.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: < 130 Good Enough ?
    ... I didnt know that damage was done over 100. ... But what I don't understand is your objection to reading about how ... I have my diabeties under pretty good control, but I doubt I will ever be ... able to achieve consistent <=110 readings, and what's more, I don't even ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: New
    ... >dizzy spells and a blood sugar reading or 582. ... >a chance they insulin is needed also? ... Most newly-diagnosed folks suffer from "Glucose Toxicity" because of ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: FOMC Minutes
    ... Steve Liesman and Rick Santelli. ... Sure, reading the report in detail later is wise, but to depend on ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
  • Re: Good results taking two CCBs
    ... In case this might ever apply to anyone else, I wanted to report the ... I've had problems controlling my BP because meds I've tried either ... The average reading, versus diltiazem alone, ... Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ, ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: OT:Noted sea level expert claims UNs IPCC panel falsifying data
    ... report that confirms Global Worming exists another report pops up ... You could try just _reading_ the details of reports from both sides. ... I realize the current popular myth ... the Arctic ice all moved to Iowa. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)