Maybe I'm NOT after four years actually getting to grips with this.

My Diabetic Dietician AND Diabetic Nurse, BOTH told me to keep my numbers
below 12, because thats when damage starts to happen.
I was told below 10 was a good target.

Reading through some of the posts, I get the distinct impression I've been
given false information and that I've been working all this time on
nonsense.

I'd appreciate feedback.
Thanks.

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:32:29 +0100, "See Hear"
> wrote:

>Maybe I'm NOT after four years actually getting to grips with this.
>
>My Diabetic Dietician AND Diabetic Nurse, BOTH told me to keep my numbers
>below 12, because thats when damage starts to happen.
>I was told below 10 was a good target.
>
>Reading through some of the posts, I get the distinct impression I've been
>given false information and that I've been working all this time on
>nonsense.
>
>I'd appreciate feedback.
>Thanks.
>
>

To say that you've been misinformed by both parties is
rather an understatement.

The three most quoted US authorities publish these numbers:

pre-meal 2hrPP A1c
ADA 90-130 <180 <7%
Joslin 90-130 <160 <7%
AACE <110 <140 <6.5%

The mmol/L equivalents (rounded to the nearest 0.5) a

pre-meal 2hrPP A1c
ADA 5-7 <10 <7%
Joslin 5-7 <9 <7%
AACE <6 <8 <6.5%

If you want to see the references for that, read
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...4e7db32?&hl=en

I see no reason to disagree with the AACE recommendations.
This link http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14045678.php
gives some good references to support keeping your numbers
under 140(8) if at all possible.

Personally, I try for the tighter target of staying under
8(140) at my peak post-prandial time, which is about one
hour after eating, not two hours.

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 2x500mg
--
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

See Hear wrote:

> Maybe I'm NOT after four years actually getting to grips with this.
>
> My Diabetic Dietician AND Diabetic Nurse, BOTH told me to keep my numbers
> below 12, because thats when damage starts to happen.
> I was told below 10 was a good target.
>
> Reading through some of the posts, I get the distinct impression I've been
> given false information and that I've been working all this time on
> nonsense.
>
> I'd appreciate feedback.
> Thanks.


Welcome to this corner of the net and to the confusing and frustrating
world of
diabetes.

The thing with target glucose numbers is, you have to decide how much of a
gambler you are.

Right now, the best studies say that the closer we get and stay at
non-diabetic
numbers the better chance we have of avoiding really nasty diabetic
complications. (I'm sure you've been told what they are, and if you
search the
web you can see highly motivating photos of gangrenous feet and toes, oh and
then there's blindness, kidney failure and dialysis, stroke and death! Fun
huh?)

So, many folks here use the non-diabetic numbers as their limits. (I'm
talking
non-insulin using T2s).

140 (8) at one hour post meals and 120 (6.5) at two hours post meals are
the goals we use.

Knowing exactly when damage happens, is not an exact science. I have
found no studies that have locked in a specific number, so I go with the
odds, just like Vegas. Your odds are best if you aim for non-diabetic
numbers.

It is your choice though. Read all you can and make a determination for
yourself.

Jennifer

What is making this now VERY complicated for me,
After a recent Cardiac "All-Day" Clinic, I was sent to the Cardio-Dietician,
who told me I had reduced my total daily input to such a level, my
metabolism was now just "ticking over"

Advice was in strictest terms to increase calorific input by at LEAST 800
Kcals/Day and to take more exercise to kick-start the Metabolism into
working again.

I THOUGHT I had managed to work out a decent diet.
Male, 55, Obese, sedentary. One heart attack already and with unstable
angina.
Meds -
2 Grams Metformin daily.
Atorvastatin
Asprin
Atenolol
Isosorbide Mononitrate
Amlodipine
Frusemide
Various painkillers - Brufen, Dihydrocodeine, Co-Dydramol, Naproxen,
Voltarol, et bloody cetera.

At one point in my life, I used to be an aircraft engineer assistant, but
fell out of the back door of a parked aircraft while cleaning it and ruined
my back - hence all the painkillers.
I CANT get very much exercise through disability, but I do have what I
consider a monumental effort once a week on Sundays with an eight mile round
walking trip, that leaves me useless and VERY Crabby afterwards. I only
make that effort because it's Church.

Laugh - I got "Lifted" by the Police one Sunday morning because the
Frusemide made me need a Pee - nowhere to go - I used a litter bin on a
Lamp-post. £150 fine! Terrific - Couldn't afford to pay the phone bill so
got cut off and had another whack to pay to get re-connected, Bollox. Ended
up eating potato dinners for a fortnight because I couldn't afford anything
better.
No wonder I'm going daft.
Or AM Daft.


"Alan S" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:32:29 +0100, "See Hear"
> > wrote:
>
>>Maybe I'm NOT after four years actually getting to grips with this.
>>
>>My Diabetic Dietician AND Diabetic Nurse, BOTH told me to keep my numbers
>>below 12, because thats when damage starts to happen.
>>I was told below 10 was a good target.
>>
>>Reading through some of the posts, I get the distinct impression I've been
>>given false information and that I've been working all this time on
>>nonsense.
>>
>>I'd appreciate feedback.
>>Thanks.
>>
>>
>
> To say that you've been misinformed by both parties is
> rather an understatement.
>
> The three most quoted US authorities publish these numbers:
>
> pre-meal 2hrPP A1c
> ADA 90-130 <180 <7%
> Joslin 90-130 <160 <7%
> AACE <110 <140 <6.5%
>
> The mmol/L equivalents (rounded to the nearest 0.5) a
>
> pre-meal 2hrPP A1c
> ADA 5-7 <10 <7%
> Joslin 5-7 <9 <7%
> AACE <6 <8 <6.5%
>
> If you want to see the references for that, read
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...4e7db32?&hl=en
>
> I see no reason to disagree with the AACE recommendations.
> This link http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14045678.php
> gives some good references to support keeping your numbers
> under 140(8) if at all possible.
>
> Personally, I try for the tighter target of staying under
> 8(140) at my peak post-prandial time, which is about one
> hour after eating, not two hours.
>
> Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
> d&e, metformin 2x500mg
> --
> Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

My endochronoligist says 83-140 (fasting, that's when you wake up) and
an A1C no higher than 5.5


Jennifer wrote:
> See Hear wrote:
>
>> Maybe I'm NOT after four years actually getting to grips with this.
>>
>> My Diabetic Dietician AND Diabetic Nurse, BOTH told me to keep my
>> numbers below 12, because thats when damage starts to happen.
>> I was told below 10 was a good target.
>>
>> Reading through some of the posts, I get the distinct impression I've
>> been given false information and that I've been working all this time
>> on nonsense.
>>
>> I'd appreciate feedback.
>> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Welcome to this corner of the net and to the confusing and frustrating
> world of
> diabetes.
>
> The thing with target glucose numbers is, you have to decide how much of a
> gambler you are.
>
> Right now, the best studies say that the closer we get and stay at
> non-diabetic
> numbers the better chance we have of avoiding really nasty diabetic
> complications. (I'm sure you've been told what they are, and if you
> search the
> web you can see highly motivating photos of gangrenous feet and toes, oh
> and
> then there's blindness, kidney failure and dialysis, stroke and death! Fun
> huh?)
>
> So, many folks here use the non-diabetic numbers as their limits. (I'm
> talking
> non-insulin using T2s).
>
> 140 (8) at one hour post meals and 120 (6.5) at two hours post meals are
> the goals we use.
>
> Knowing exactly when damage happens, is not an exact science. I have
> found no studies that have locked in a specific number, so I go with the
> odds, just like Vegas. Your odds are best if you aim for non-diabetic
> numbers.
>
> It is your choice though. Read all you can and make a determination for
> yourself.
>
> Jennifer
>
>
>

"W. Baker" > wrote in
:

<snip>
>
> My endo wants me lower than 110 for FBG all the time. 130 for the
> FBG is more lkely to contribute to eye damage.
>
> Wendy


Oh great, just what I need on top of my glaucoma. At least I see an
ophth every 3-4 months for pressure checks. He also takes a good look at
my retina and optic nerve so I'm sure any damage starting will be caught
early.

I've love to see 130 for FBG!

Sherry

Sherry > wrote:
|| "W. Baker" > wrote in
|| :
||
|| <snip>
|||
||| My endo wants me lower than 110 for FBG all the time. 130
||| for the
||| FBG is more lkely to contribute to eye damage.
|||
||| Wendy
||
||
|| Oh great, just what I need on top of my glaucoma. At least I
|| see an ophth every 3-4 months for pressure checks. He also
|| takes a good look at my retina and optic nerve so I'm sure
|| any damage starting will be caught early.
||
|| I've love to see 130 for FBG!
||
|| Sherry

Maybe you need to change your Meds, Diet, Routine
and/or doctor. I try to keep my FBG between 80 and
95, I will occasionally see a 100+ but I can usually
attribute it to something I did or ate. Don't forget we
also need to deal with that dawn effect thing.

Hope for the Best,
BJ
--
--
Read: http://home.swbell.net/bjtexas/SS/

"If you are planning for one year, grow rice; for 20 years grow
trees; for centuries, grow men" - Chinese Proverb

In article >,
Alan Moorman > wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:59:40 GMT, "BJ in Texas" >
> wrote:
>
> >Sherry > wrote:
> >|| "W. Baker" > wrote in
> >|| :
> >||
> >|| <snip>
> >|||
> >||| My endo wants me lower than 110 for FBG all the time. 130
> >||| for the
> >||| FBG is more lkely to contribute to eye damage.
> >|||
> >||| Wendy
> >||
> >||
> >|| Oh great, just what I need on top of my glaucoma. At least I
> >|| see an ophth every 3-4 months for pressure checks. He also
> >|| takes a good look at my retina and optic nerve so I'm sure
> >|| any damage starting will be caught early.
> >||
> >|| I've love to see 130 for FBG!
> >||
> >|| Sherry
> >
> >Maybe you need to change your Meds, Diet, Routine
> >and/or doctor. I try to keep my FBG between 80 and
> >95, I will occasionally see a 100+ but I can usually
> >attribute it to something I did or ate. Don't forget we
> >also need to deal with that dawn effect thing.
> >
> >Hope for the Best,
> >BJ
> >--
> If I try to get my FBG that low, I would have a low crash during the
> night!!!

You use insulin?

Priscilla

In article >,
Alan Moorman > wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 19:23:00 -0400, Priscilla Ballou
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Alan Moorman > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:59:40 GMT, "BJ in Texas" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Sherry > wrote:
> >> >|| "W. Baker" > wrote in
> >> >|| :
> >> >||
> >> >|| <snip>
> >> >|||
> >> >||| My endo wants me lower than 110 for FBG all the time. 130
> >> >||| for the
> >> >||| FBG is more lkely to contribute to eye damage.
> >> >|||
> >> >||| Wendy
> >> >||
> >> >||
> >> >|| Oh great, just what I need on top of my glaucoma. At least I
> >> >|| see an ophth every 3-4 months for pressure checks. He also
> >> >|| takes a good look at my retina and optic nerve so I'm sure
> >> >|| any damage starting will be caught early.
> >> >||
> >> >|| I've love to see 130 for FBG!
> >> >||
> >> >|| Sherry
> >> >
> >> >Maybe you need to change your Meds, Diet, Routine
> >> >and/or doctor. I try to keep my FBG between 80 and
> >> >95, I will occasionally see a 100+ but I can usually
> >> >attribute it to something I did or ate. Don't forget we
> >> >also need to deal with that dawn effect thing.
> >> >
> >> >Hope for the Best,
> >> >BJ
> >> >--
> >> If I try to get my FBG that low, I would have a low crash during the
> >> night!!!
> >
> >You use insulin?
> >
> >Priscilla
>
> Yup

That's why the advice wouldn't work for you, but it does for those of us
T2s who are not on insulin.

Priscilla, NIDDMer