Stormmee > wrote:
>debate is not benifitted by negativity, facts are neither positive or
>negative, the manner in which they are presented/offered is .

The facts I present are historical and based on common sense. If human beings
could survive on zero carbs, they would, and they do whenever necessary. Low-
carb diets naturally arise in cold, nomadic climates where most foods can't
grow.

The second fact is that people don't always eat what's good for them. In fact,
many people eat entirely based on factors such as availability, affordability
and pleasure, without giving a thought to nutrition.

The third fact is that a low-carb diet is not the only solution for proper
blood glucose maintenance. If a low-carb diet were the only possible solution,
diabetics would be dying in huge numbers, which they aren't.

The fourth fact is that any diabetic hoping to control blood glucose levels has
to either test constantly, hope medication takes care of it or eat low-carb.
Eating low-carb tends to obviate the need for constant testing and medication,
but it isn't always desirable for everyone, which is why these tradeoffs exist.
It is entirely logical that when the pancreas stops working, fewer carbs
eliminate the need for extra insulin and control hyperinsulinism. There's no
debate about that. The debate is about what real people do when they want to
eat for reasons other than pure nutrition.

This boils down to a difference in perspective. People like Susan believe
they've figured out how they need to eat to survive diabetes, lose weight and
stay healthy. Others are willing to trade more health complications for more
pleasure in food, which may include carbs. To the pure nutritionist, pleasure
doesn't factor as a variable; we're supposed to eat what our bodies need and
nothing more.

Orlando

>there is talking equipment that is relatively easy to use, Lee

As of now, my blood glucose levels are not so high or fluctuating that I need to test. When or if things become more problematic, I'll start testing. I hate pricking myself with needles and don't want to deal with that right now because I know the answers anyway. Carbs make blood glucose rise. I'm already eating mostly low-carb anyway. Testing would only confirm that I have to cut back further, which I'm thinking of doing anyway.

Orlando

Stormmee > wrote:
>everyone has relapses on some level that is no reason for wayne to NOT try,
>Lee

Sweetheart, Wayne is not struggling with his own relapses; he's trying to get
his diabetic partner David to care more about what he eats and expand his diet
beyond high-carb foods.

Orlando

In article >,
Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote:

> Stormmee > wrote:
> >debate is not benifitted by negativity, facts are neither positive or
> >negative, the manner in which they are presented/offered is .
>
> The facts I present are historical and based on common sense. If human beings
> could survive on zero carbs, they would, and they do whenever necessary. Low-
> carb diets naturally arise in cold, nomadic climates where most foods can't
> grow.
>
> The second fact is that people don't always eat what's good for them. In
> fact,
> many people eat entirely based on factors such as availability, affordability
> and pleasure, without giving a thought to nutrition.
>
> The third fact is that a low-carb diet is not the only solution for proper
> blood glucose maintenance. If a low-carb diet were the only possible
> solution,
> diabetics would be dying in huge numbers, which they aren't.
>
> The fourth fact is that any diabetic hoping to control blood glucose levels
> has
> to either test constantly, hope medication takes care of it or eat low-carb.
> Eating low-carb tends to obviate the need for constant testing and
> medication,
> but it isn't always desirable for everyone, which is why these tradeoffs
> exist.
> It is entirely logical that when the pancreas stops working, fewer carbs
> eliminate the need for extra insulin and control hyperinsulinism. There's no
> debate about that. The debate is about what real people do when they want to
> eat for reasons other than pure nutrition.
>
> This boils down to a difference in perspective. People like Susan believe
> they've figured out how they need to eat to survive diabetes, lose weight and
> stay healthy. Others are willing to trade more health complications for more
> pleasure in food, which may include carbs. To the pure nutritionist, pleasure
> doesn't factor as a variable; we're supposed to eat what our bodies need and
> nothing more.
>
> Orlando

For a guy that claims to be blind you seem to write well. Some sort of
special software or do you live under a bridge?

--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden
globalvoicesonline.org

Bill who putters > wrote:
> For a guy that claims to be blind you seem to write well. Some sort of
>special software or do you live under a bridge?


Of course, it's the bridge, dude. I can't possibly write well because I think
well. *grin* Yes, I use Window-eyes as a screen reader, but type on a normal
keyboard. I'm also doing a Ph.D. in music theory at Penn, which keeps me on my
rhetorical toes.

Especially on the other group, I notice that people really struggle with
diabetes maintenance and overcomplicate things in an effort to get those
numbers within normal range. This is the first time my fasting blood glucose
has been over 100, so I'm not panicking yet. And even if panic is warranted,
all I have to do is eat fewer carbs. Sure, I can get into the minutia of simple
versus complex carbs at different times of the day and in combination with
other foods, but the truth is absurdly simple. If I continue to eat more carbs
than my body can process, I'll need insulin or medication to help my body
process. The problem with many diabetics is that they don't want to accept what
their bodies tell them about their diet. I'm so sensitive to how different
foods affect me that I automatically feel when my body is not reacting well to
carbs or fat. When I observe my body's signs, I cut back. But, I refuse to get
artificially alarmed just because someone on usenet says I should be.

Orlando

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> >there is talking equipment that is relatively easy to use, Lee
>
> As of now, my blood glucose levels are not so high or fluctuating that I
> need to test. When or if things become more problematic, I'll start
> testing. I hate pricking myself with needles and don't want to deal with
> that right now because I know the answers anyway. Carbs make blood glucose
> rise. I'm already eating mostly low-carb anyway. Testing would only
> confirm that I have to cut back further, which I'm thinking of doing
> anyway.

If you're not testing... How do you know?

In article >,
Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote:

> Bill who putters > wrote:
> > For a guy that claims to be blind you seem to write well. Some sort of
> >special software or do you live under a bridge?
>
>
> Of course, it's the bridge, dude. I can't possibly write well because I think
> well. *grin* Yes, I use Window-eyes as a screen reader, but type on a normal
> keyboard. I'm also doing a Ph.D. in music theory at Penn, which keeps me on
> my
> rhetorical toes.
>
> Especially on the other group, I notice that people really struggle with
> diabetes maintenance and overcomplicate things in an effort to get those
> numbers within normal range. This is the first time my fasting blood glucose
> has been over 100, so I'm not panicking yet. And even if panic is warranted,
> all I have to do is eat fewer carbs. Sure, I can get into the minutia of
> simple
> versus complex carbs at different times of the day and in combination with
> other foods, but the truth is absurdly simple. If I continue to eat more
> carbs
> than my body can process, I'll need insulin or medication to help my body
> process. The problem with many diabetics is that they don't want to accept
> what
> their bodies tell them about their diet. I'm so sensitive to how different
> foods affect me that I automatically feel when my body is not reacting well
> to
> carbs or fat. When I observe my body's signs, I cut back. But, I refuse to
> get
> artificially alarmed just because someone on usenet says I should be.
>
> Orlando

2005 you wrote



Orlando Fiol
wrote: >I would like to be the "support
system" person to the man i love. >The proverbial "behind every great
man" sort of woman. As long as he returned >the love and affection.
>Unfortunately circumstances have not allowed that sort of setup very
much, but >i can still wish, can't i? :-) I've fortunately found a
partner who wants to be my super support. Granted, she's a tender
twenty years old and might change her mind in the future. but for now,
I'm enjoying more clearly defined gender roles than I had in the past.
Orlando
Jan 30 2005, 4:11 am




Orlando Fiol
View profile
More options Jan 30 2005, 4:11 am

wrote:
>Actually, what I think most guys like me want in a woman is
>fairly simple -- a faithful companion, a/k/a a partner, who...
>1. Shares a few of our interests or pretends to (such as sex).

Although common interests can only go so far.

>2. Lets us do our own thing (like watch "the game").

I'm totally blind, so I wouldn't be demanding game time.

>3. Has a mind of her own and sensible (esp. w/money).

Sometimes, a mind of her own is code for her partner of the month being
replaceable when that mind prefers to try something else.

>4. Does not insist that we /communicate/ too often.

Actually, I like clear communication rather than mere sympathetic
listening. Granted, as a supportive partner, I can often listen
sympathetically without giving advice, but that doesn't make me
comfortable as a long-term strategy.

>5. Never insists on [death by] opera or the ballet.

No ballet for me, that's for sure. Opera's golden age has long passed.
Orlando

Forward








Orlando Fiol
View profile
More options Jan 30 2005, 4:11 am
Your question sparks the realization that what has changed in today's
society is that marriage is more of a luxury item than a necessity.
Sure, people need sex and varying degrees of love, friendship and
companionship. but, they don't practically need each other as they used
to. let's face it, today's educated women don't need men to support
them because they can do it just fine by themselves. If their men
disappoint them by being unfaithful, uncommunicative or plain
uninteresting, they can just end relationships, whether they're
cohabitation arrangements or marriages. In days of yore, men and women
truly depended upon each other, and that bond of interdependence
partially kept them together. Most women needed men as bread winners
and romantic partners, while men genuinely needed women to keep house,
be romantic and affectionate, offer regular sex and domestic stability.

Granted, outmoded gender roles play a part in most marriages' demise,
but I think this shift from interdependence to self sufficiency has left
many relationships floundering.

.......

Window-eyes is new.

--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden
globalvoicesonline.org

Susan > wrote:
>If *only* diabetics weren't dying in huge numbers.

Diabetics die as a result of eating whatever they want for years without fear
of what the disease can do. It's that simple. No self respecting doctor sees a
diabetic in the preliminary stages, says there's nothing to do be done, advises
them to eat whatever they want and wait to die.

Orlando

Julie Bove > wrote:
>If you're not testing... How do you know?

I don't test now, but when I was married to a diabetic, I used to test with her
for kicks. My blood sugar never rose above 120 or went below 90.

Orlando

Bill who putters > wrote:
>Window-eyes is new.

Absolutely not! I've used Window-eyes since version 2.0 in 1997. Gwmicro is up
to version 7.2 now. Check your facts before accusing me of faking blindness.

Orlando

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> Julie Bove > wrote:
>>If you're not testing... How do you know?
>
> I don't test now, but when I was married to a diabetic, I used to test
> with her
> for kicks. My blood sugar never rose above 120 or went below 90.

That was then. This is now.

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> Susan > wrote:
>>If *only* diabetics weren't dying in huge numbers.
>
> Diabetics die as a result of eating whatever they want for years without
> fear
> of what the disease can do. It's that simple. No self respecting doctor
> sees a
> diabetic in the preliminary stages, says there's nothing to do be done,
> advises
> them to eat whatever they want and wait to die.

But Drs. *do* tell us we don't have diabetes. That happened to me and
repeatedly. Only when the symptoms of the damage it caused brought me to
the ER did a Dr. finally tell me that yes indeed I did have it.

i am NOT your sweetheart and would appreciate you refrain from such
patronizing terms in future if you wish to continue conversation.

you evidentally have a bit of a conprehesion problem i did not state that
wayne was /has had relapses, if you are able to read from context you would
realize i meant David might have relapses and that it was no reason for
wayne to not try, are you this lacking in ability to read or are you trying
on purpose to be obtuse, Lee
"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> Stormmee > wrote:
>>everyone has relapses on some level that is no reason for wayne to NOT
>>try,
>>Lee
>
> Sweetheart, Wayne is not struggling with his own relapses; he's trying to
> get
> his diabetic partner David to care more about what he eats and expand his
> diet
> beyond high-carb foods.
>
> Orlando

i have used window-eyes since 1998 and that was ver 3.1 its now 7.2 Lee
ps what is confusing is that he has figured out how to bottom post and i,
perhaps MY limitations can't get it to work consistently for me, nobody else
i know who is totally blind and uses we can, Lee
"Bill who putters" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote:
>
>> Bill who putters > wrote:
>> > For a guy that claims to be blind you seem to write well. Some sort of
>> >special software or do you live under a bridge?
>>
>>
>> Of course, it's the bridge, dude. I can't possibly write well because I
>> think
>> well. *grin* Yes, I use Window-eyes as a screen reader, but type on a
>> normal
>> keyboard. I'm also doing a Ph.D. in music theory at Penn, which keeps me
>> on
>> my
>> rhetorical toes.
>>
>> Especially on the other group, I notice that people really struggle with
>> diabetes maintenance and overcomplicate things in an effort to get those
>> numbers within normal range. This is the first time my fasting blood
>> glucose
>> has been over 100, so I'm not panicking yet. And even if panic is
>> warranted,
>> all I have to do is eat fewer carbs. Sure, I can get into the minutia of
>> simple
>> versus complex carbs at different times of the day and in combination
>> with
>> other foods, but the truth is absurdly simple. If I continue to eat more
>> carbs
>> than my body can process, I'll need insulin or medication to help my body
>> process. The problem with many diabetics is that they don't want to
>> accept
>> what
>> their bodies tell them about their diet. I'm so sensitive to how
>> different
>> foods affect me that I automatically feel when my body is not reacting
>> well
>> to
>> carbs or fat. When I observe my body's signs, I cut back. But, I refuse
>> to
>> get
>> artificially alarmed just because someone on usenet says I should be.
>>
>> Orlando
>
> 2005 you wrote
>
>
>
> Orlando Fiol
> wrote: >I would like to be the "support
> system" person to the man i love. >The proverbial "behind every great
> man" sort of woman. As long as he returned >the love and affection.
>>Unfortunately circumstances have not allowed that sort of setup very
> much, but >i can still wish, can't i? :-) I've fortunately found a
> partner who wants to be my super support. Granted, she's a tender
> twenty years old and might change her mind in the future. but for now,
> I'm enjoying more clearly defined gender roles than I had in the past.
> Orlando
> Jan 30 2005, 4:11 am
>
>
>
>
> Orlando Fiol
> View profile
> More options Jan 30 2005, 4:11 am
>
> wrote:
>>Actually, what I think most guys like me want in a woman is
>>fairly simple -- a faithful companion, a/k/a a partner, who...
>>1. Shares a few of our interests or pretends to (such as sex).
>
> Although common interests can only go so far.
>
>>2. Lets us do our own thing (like watch "the game").
>
> I'm totally blind, so I wouldn't be demanding game time.
>
>>3. Has a mind of her own and sensible (esp. w/money).
>
> Sometimes, a mind of her own is code for her partner of the month being
> replaceable when that mind prefers to try something else.
>
>>4. Does not insist that we /communicate/ too often.
>
> Actually, I like clear communication rather than mere sympathetic
> listening. Granted, as a supportive partner, I can often listen
> sympathetically without giving advice, but that doesn't make me
> comfortable as a long-term strategy.
>
>>5. Never insists on [death by] opera or the ballet.
>
> No ballet for me, that's for sure. Opera's golden age has long passed.
> Orlando
>
> Forward
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Orlando Fiol
> View profile
> More options Jan 30 2005, 4:11 am
> Your question sparks the realization that what has changed in today's
> society is that marriage is more of a luxury item than a necessity.
> Sure, people need sex and varying degrees of love, friendship and
> companionship. but, they don't practically need each other as they used
> to. let's face it, today's educated women don't need men to support
> them because they can do it just fine by themselves. If their men
> disappoint them by being unfaithful, uncommunicative or plain
> uninteresting, they can just end relationships, whether they're
> cohabitation arrangements or marriages. In days of yore, men and women
> truly depended upon each other, and that bond of interdependence
> partially kept them together. Most women needed men as bread winners
> and romantic partners, while men genuinely needed women to keep house,
> be romantic and affectionate, offer regular sex and domestic stability.
>
> Granted, outmoded gender roles play a part in most marriages' demise,
> but I think this shift from interdependence to self sufficiency has left
> many relationships floundering.
>
> .......
>
> Window-eyes is new.
>
> --
> Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden
> globalvoicesonline.org
>
>

Julie Bove > wrote:
>But Drs. *do* tell us we don't have diabetes. That happened to me and
>repeatedly. Only when the symptoms of the damage it caused brought me to
>the ER did a Dr. finally tell me that yes indeed I did have it.

For my doctor, fasting BG above 120 constitutes diabetes, which means I'm just
on the cusp.

Orlando

Stormmee > wrote:
>i am NOT your sweetheart and would appreciate you refrain from such
>patronizing terms in future if you wish to continue conversation.

Suit yourself. It was a term of endearment.

>you evidentally have a bit of a conprehesion problem i did not state that
>wayne was /has had relapses, if you are able to read from context you would
>realize i meant David might have relapses and that it was no reason for
>wayne to not try, are you this lacking in ability to read or are you trying
>on purpose to be obtuse, Lee

You didn't specify who was theoretically having relapses. Either way, we
shouldn't argue over their situation, especially since we're presumably both
trying to help.

Orlando

Stormmee > wrote:
>ps what is confusing is that he has figured out how to bottom post and i,
>perhaps MY limitations can't get it to work consistently for me, nobody else
>i know who is totally blind and uses we can, Lee

I'm using Gravity as a newsreader. When replying the posts, quoted text appears
with > signs beginning each line. It's therefore not difficult to bottom post.
In fact, I'm surprised people haven't ragged on you for top posting. *grin*

Orlando

Alan S > wrote:
>Your doctor may need a refresher course.
>Pre-diabetes, or IFG, is diagnosed at >100mg/dl; diabetes at >126
>mg/dl.

That makes me pre-diabetic, which I already knew.

>Actually, anyone over 100 consistently is living in a fool's paradise
>if they think they do not have diabetes.

Diabetes has no cure, Alan. Some people manage to control it through mostly
low-carb dieting, while others can avail themselves of medication to help.
Either way, the known solutions to this problem are largely ineffective and
obvious.

Orlando

On 7/08/2010 6:25 PM, atec77 wrote:

> There is a solution undergoing Human trials here in Brisbane atm and
> will be released in less that two years , any person around Brisbane
> should make enquiries as they might make the test group with any luck
> With the break throughs in New Zealand a compete solution is very close
>

More Information please, contacts, or a URL would be great.

(- -)
=m=(_)=m=
RodS T2
Australia

some have/do... but i refuse to engage in that discussion on group and if
the complainer wants to discuss email fine... otherwise i am not offended if
they choose to kf me. Lee
"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> Stormmee > wrote:
>>ps what is confusing is that he has figured out how to bottom post and i,
>>perhaps MY limitations can't get it to work consistently for me, nobody
>>else
>>i know who is totally blind and uses we can, Lee
>
> I'm using Gravity as a newsreader. When replying the posts, quoted text
> appears
> with > signs beginning each line. It's therefore not difficult to bottom
> post.
> In fact, I'm surprised people haven't ragged on you for top posting.
> *grin*
>
> Orlando

yes we are both trying to help, and since i know wayne from other groups and
have a fondness for him and his recipes, being supportive to him, and
therefore david is very important to me, i have read waynes posts for years
and have a great deal of admaration for him,

also, part of helping is being supportive of wayne in his endeavors no
matter the outcome,, or for that matter no matter how david does/does not
become part of the solution, Lee
"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> Stormmee > wrote:
>>i am NOT your sweetheart and would appreciate you refrain from such
>>patronizing terms in future if you wish to continue conversation.
>
> Suit yourself. It was a term of endearment.
>
>>you evidentally have a bit of a conprehesion problem i did not state that
>>wayne was /has had relapses, if you are able to read from context you
>>would
>>realize i meant David might have relapses and that it was no reason for
>>wayne to not try, are you this lacking in ability to read or are you
>>trying
>>on purpose to be obtuse, Lee
>
> You didn't specify who was theoretically having relapses. Either way, we
> shouldn't argue over their situation, especially since we're presumably
> both
> trying to help.
>
> Orlando

Alan S wrote:
>
> I have major problems with 20gms+ for breakfast and lunch, but not at
> dinner.
>
> Trust your meter.
>
So this morning I got up and tested: 88. That's nice.
Since FBG was so low, allowed self to eat 2 slices of l/c toast with an
ounce or so of smoked gouda instead of eggs. Tired of eggs. Total carbs
ostensibly about 12 gms. Also had a couple cups of coffee, fully caffeinated
because we've run out of decaf beans.

Tested 1 hr later (still drinking coffee): 205!!! Washed hands and retested
to make su 197!!

Maybe it's the caffeine. Either that, or some change in the formuation of
the supplements I take with meals. I've switched to a new bottle of ALA that
must have something different, because the capsules are the same size but
only have 108 mg each so I have to take 2 or 3. I've also started an
anti-inflammatory recommended by second doctor (Zyflamend) in hopes of
helping ongoing pinched nerve-related pain that is quite debilitating at
times.

This is insane. I've been eating something like this for breakfast quite
frequently for months without this kind of number. The only difference is
that I have been unable to get in any significant exercise for a few days,
but still!

I'm back to feeling as if every bite I put in my mouth is poison.

Alan S wrote:
> It's the bread. I know they call it low-carb - but trust your meter,
> not a label.

I know, but this is the same bread I've been eating for months! Maybe a bad
batch?

BTW--I apoogize for posting this thread to the food group, rather than ASD.
Oops!

On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 10:13:59 -0400, "Janet" >
wrote:

>Alan S wrote:
>>
>> I have major problems with 20gms+ for breakfast and lunch, but not at
>> dinner.
>>
>> Trust your meter.
>>
>So this morning I got up and tested: 88. That's nice.
>Since FBG was so low, allowed self to eat 2 slices of l/c toast with an
>ounce or so of smoked gouda instead of eggs. Tired of eggs. Total carbs
>ostensibly about 12 gms. Also had a couple cups of coffee, fully caffeinated
>because we've run out of decaf beans.
>
>Tested 1 hr later (still drinking coffee): 205!!! Washed hands and retested
>to make su 197!!

My carb limit at breakfast is 6g. By suppertime, I can do 40g, if I
feel like it.

My sister has just been diagnosed diabetic; her carb allowance is the
other way up, she happily eats a slice of low-carb bread for
breakfast, but can't have any carb per se at supper. We tend to get
together for lunch, when we're pretty well the same

Maybe you've moved from one camp to the other? Of course, getting
breakfast sorted is crucial, because it sets your baseline for the
rest of the day.

Hope you find the answer soon,

Nicky.
T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid
D&E, 150ug thyroxine
Last A1c 5.2% BMI 26

Janet > wrote:
>Tested 1 hr later (still drinking coffee): 205!!! Washed hands and retested
>to make su 197!!
>Maybe it's the caffeine. Either that, or some change in the formuation of
>the supplements I take with meals.
>This is insane. I've been eating something like this for breakfast quite
>frequently for months without this kind of number. The only difference is
>that I have been unable to get in any significant exercise for a few days,
>but still!
>I'm back to feeling as if every bite I put in my mouth is poison.

Further proof that even the most assiduous efforts at micromanagement don't
always work. While I'm not opposed to people tweaking their diets to lower
their BG numbers, Janet's baffling case confirms that such efforts don't always
work and that some diabetics must evidently resign themselves to high BG values
regardless of what they eat.

Orlando

Alan S > wrote:
>I don't agree with that final comment "the known solutions to this
>problem are largely ineffective and obvious". Is that what you
>intended to write? If so, could you expand please?

Happily. The only hope in hell that a diabetic has of controlling the disease
is through carb monitoring, weight loss and exercise. However, in many cases,
none of these efforts are effective, which may cause some to stop trying. As I
see it, trying something that works much of the time is better than doing
something that never works.

Orlando

Stormmee > wrote:
>having to readings in the high 90s while visiting MIL is what started me
>testing. once back home and in regular routine/food i went to low 80s but it
>was enough of a wake up call to make me get really serious about learning
>more... then when my mother asked sister and i to find better family meal
>choices it really sent me on a journey, Lee

Since you're testing and are assumedly totally blind, do you use a talking
meter?

Orlando

Stormmee > wrote:
>yes we are both trying to help, and since i know wayne from other groups and
>have a fondness for him and his recipes, being supportive to him, and
>therefore david is very important to me, i have read waynes posts for years
>and have a great deal of admaration for him,
>also, part of helping is being supportive of wayne in his endeavors no
>matter the outcome,, or for that matter no matter how david does/does not
>become part of the solution, Lee

I am very supportive of Wayne and David, but part of that support involves
being realistic about David's willingness Acknowledging the possible pitfalls
is not unsupportive.

Orlando.

I'd say the bread but perhaps the Zyflamend is acting like a steroid for
you.

"Janet" > wrote in message
...
> Alan S wrote:
>>
>> I have major problems with 20gms+ for breakfast and lunch, but not at
>> dinner.
>>
>> Trust your meter.
>>
> So this morning I got up and tested: 88. That's nice.
> Since FBG was so low, allowed self to eat 2 slices of l/c toast with an
> ounce or so of smoked gouda instead of eggs. Tired of eggs. Total carbs
> ostensibly about 12 gms. Also had a couple cups of coffee, fully
> caffeinated because we've run out of decaf beans.
>
> Tested 1 hr later (still drinking coffee): 205!!! Washed hands and
> retested to make su 197!!
>
> Maybe it's the caffeine. Either that, or some change in the formuation of
> the supplements I take with meals. I've switched to a new bottle of ALA
> that must have something different, because the capsules are the same size
> but only have 108 mg each so I have to take 2 or 3. I've also started an
> anti-inflammatory recommended by second doctor (Zyflamend) in hopes of
> helping ongoing pinched nerve-related pain that is quite debilitating at
> times.
>
> This is insane. I've been eating something like this for breakfast quite
> frequently for months without this kind of number. The only difference is
> that I have been unable to get in any significant exercise for a few days,
> but still!
>
> I'm back to feeling as if every bite I put in my mouth is poison.
>
>
>

"Janet" > wrote in message
...
> Alan S wrote:
>>
>> I have major problems with 20gms+ for breakfast and lunch, but not at
>> dinner.
>>
>> Trust your meter.
>>
> So this morning I got up and tested: 88. That's nice.
> Since FBG was so low, allowed self to eat 2 slices of l/c toast with an
> ounce or so of smoked gouda instead of eggs. Tired of eggs. Total carbs
> ostensibly about 12 gms. Also had a couple cups of coffee, fully
> caffeinated because we've run out of decaf beans.
>
> Tested 1 hr later (still drinking coffee): 205!!! Washed hands and
> retested to make su 197!!
>
> Maybe it's the caffeine. Either that, or some change in the formuation of
> the supplements I take with meals. I've switched to a new bottle of ALA
> that must have something different, because the capsules are the same size
> but only have 108 mg each so I have to take 2 or 3. I've also started an
> anti-inflammatory recommended by second doctor (Zyflamend) in hopes of
> helping ongoing pinched nerve-related pain that is quite debilitating at
> times.
>
> This is insane. I've been eating something like this for breakfast quite
> frequently for months without this kind of number. The only difference is
> that I have been unable to get in any significant exercise for a few days,
> but still!
>
> I'm back to feeling as if every bite I put in my mouth is poison.

It could be the caffeine. It can raise BG in some people.

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
.. .
> Janet > wrote:
>>Tested 1 hr later (still drinking coffee): 205!!! Washed hands and
>>retested
>>to make su 197!!
>>Maybe it's the caffeine. Either that, or some change in the formuation of
>>the supplements I take with meals.
>>This is insane. I've been eating something like this for breakfast quite
>>frequently for months without this kind of number. The only difference is
>>that I have been unable to get in any significant exercise for a few days,
>>but still!
>>I'm back to feeling as if every bite I put in my mouth is poison.
>
> Further proof that even the most assiduous efforts at micromanagement
> don't
> always work. While I'm not opposed to people tweaking their diets to lower
> their BG numbers, Janet's baffling case confirms that such efforts don't
> always
> work and that some diabetics must evidently resign themselves to high BG
> values
> regardless of what they eat.

I seem to be in that group you are talking about.

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> Stormmee > wrote:
>>i am NOT your sweetheart and would appreciate you refrain from such
>>patronizing terms in future if you wish to continue conversation.
>
> Suit yourself. It was a term of endearment.

Hardly!

Cheri

change in formula of bread? reason i say this is because i just went through
a two week stint of "premigraine" and couldn't figure out why...finally dh
started reading labels in the house... they ave added nutrea sweet into my
diet activia... before was only splendia... so no more of that for me, Lee
"Janet" > wrote in message
...
> Alan S wrote:
>> It's the bread. I know they call it low-carb - but trust your meter,
>> not a label.
>
> I know, but this is the same bread I've been eating for months! Maybe a
> bad batch?
>
> BTW--I apoogize for posting this thread to the food group, rather than
> ASD. Oops!
>
>

no because i have not been dx i just went to pharmacy with dh and got some
meter they had... at this point it is not an all the time thing, i have
looked at the talking meters, some very nice ones, and the pita is that some
give you part of the info but if you want the averages/history not all speak
that, if you are going to get a talking meter make sure to do big time
research as they are all about the same in quality/accuracey, most are what
sighted people use with additional software, but many only give you the
reading, not a countdown or even an error... until i am medically requred to
test because i have been dx will i bother with a talking meter, Lee
"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> Stormmee > wrote:
>>having to readings in the high 90s while visiting MIL is what started me
>>testing. once back home and in regular routine/food i went to low 80s but
>>it
>>was enough of a wake up call to make me get really serious about learning
>>more... then when my mother asked sister and i to find better family meal
>>choices it really sent me on a journey, Lee
>
> Since you're testing and are assumedly totally blind, do you use a talking
> meter?
>
> Orlando

that is true, perhaps i just want you to do it in a different wording, Lee
"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> Stormmee > wrote:
>>yes we are both trying to help, and since i know wayne from other groups
>>and
>>have a fondness for him and his recipes, being supportive to him, and
>>therefore david is very important to me, i have read waynes posts for
>>years
>>and have a great deal of admaration for him,
>>also, part of helping is being supportive of wayne in his endeavors no
>>matter the outcome,, or for that matter no matter how david does/does not
>>become part of the solution, Lee
>
> I am very supportive of Wayne and David, but part of that support involves
> being realistic about David's willingness Acknowledging the possible
> pitfalls
> is not unsupportive.
>
> Orlando.

Susan > wrote:
>Even if it were, to be so familiar when there's no basis for it is
>offensive.

Plenty of strangers call each other "sweetheart" or "honey" regardless of
gender, marital status or familiarity. I was just trying to let Lee know that
we're on the same side regarding Wayne's "codependent" struggles with his
partner David.

Orlando

Cheri > wrote:
>Yep, and the person was clearly using the term to speak down to Stormee, as
>if explaining to a child or something.
Nonsense! Lee is blind like me and I instinctively admire her for her bravery
in surviving life rather than giving up.

Orlando

Stormmee > wrote:
>that is true, perhaps i just want you to do it in a different wording, Lee

Okay, choose your wording and I'll follow it.

Orlando

lol, Lee
"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> Stormmee > wrote:
>>that is true, perhaps i just want you to do it in a different wording, Lee
>
> Okay, choose your wording and I'll follow it.
>
> Orlando

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> Susan > wrote:
>>Even if it were, to be so familiar when there's no basis for it is
>>offensive.
>
> Plenty of strangers call each other "sweetheart" or "honey" regardless of
> gender, marital status or familiarity. I was just trying to let Lee know
> that
> we're on the same side regarding Wayne's "codependent" struggles with his
> partner David.
>
> Orlando

Whatever...sweetie-pie.

Cheri