Can unnoticed high sugar levels cause non reversible damage to organs?

[Kaha]

From the posts from experienced forum members it appears to me that it is really impossible to capture all super high BS levels throughout the day because of limitations of home BS monitoring practice in place Also, I understand such high readings may not last for long (may be couple of hours in one go) . My question is for expert members whether existence of these unnoticed /missing high numbers can be felt by the person ,if not is there any severe consequence causing irreversible damage to organs ? Any advice how to overcome such situation?

 

[noblehead]

Long term high bg levels undoubtedly does damage to the organs, as to whether organ damage is reversible is dependant on the damage done I suppose, for myself high bg levels means I get tired easy and lose concentration easy, plus the inevitable trips to the low

Best to avoid highs wherever possible to limit the chances of complications in the long-term.

 

[sanguine]

From the posts from experienced forum members it appears to me that it is really impossible to capture all super high BS levels throughout the day because of limitations of home BS monitoring practice in place Also, I understand such high readings may not last for long (may be couple of hours in one go) . My question is for expert members whether existence of these unnoticed /missing high numbers can be felt by the person ,if not is there any severe consequence causing irreversible damage to organs ? Any advice how to overcome such situation?

From the point of view of a T2 with a meter, you shouldn't be having "super high" BS levels if you have tested various foods and meals so that you can limit the rise to 2 mmol/l or less. Sustained high BGs is definitely to be avoided.

 

[douglas99]

It's a hard question to answer, if there is a high, fast spike, and it's not noticed, it would be impossible to apportion blame for any diabetic complications later.
Then there is the question of hat is high, and what period you are high for.
I know I have tested non diabetics, as have others on this forum, and figures in high single numbers have been seen, so that would suggest it's not as unusual, whereas it is more obvious longer high periods do cause damage to us.

 

[Kaha]

How to define the long term Noblehead ? Can you be specific?

 

[noblehead]

How to define the long term Noblehead ? Can you be specific?

I can't give a figure Kaha, long-term is just a term and could mean 5 or 25 years down the road, if your having difficulties with your bg spiking then you need to speak with your HCP's or ask for advice on here.

 

[Randburg]

From the posts from experienced forum members it appears to me that it is really impossible to capture all super high BS levels throughout the day because of limitations of home BS monitoring practice in place Also, I understand such high readings may not last for long (may be couple of hours in one go) . My question is for expert members whether existence of these unnoticed /missing high numbers can be felt by the person ,if not is there any severe consequence causing irreversible damage to organs ? Any advice how to overcome such situation?

Hi,
Is this not the reason that we have a HbA1c test every 3 or 6 months.
This would quickly show what your average Blood Glucose over the last about 120 days, ,
If High, then you know you are getting higher readings than your testing indicates, and you need to fins where this is happening

 

[Kaha]

Yes, Randburg, it makes sense to me . But, in case we know that there were high readings, but can not know when and for how long those lasted and whether the period these high readings lasted for had any impact on our organs .

 

[sanguine]

Do you have a meter?

 

[Dillinger]

Here are some links to show that blood sugars above 7.8 mmol/l start to cause damage.

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

Unnoticed highs could therefore cause damage; it would be worth investing in a glucose meter to make sure this isn't happening to you. If it is cut back on the foods that cause the highs.

Kind regards

Dillinger

 

[Diamattic]

Here are some links to show that blood sugars above 7.8 mmol/l start to cause damage.

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

Unnoticed highs could therefore cause damage; it would be worth investing in a glucose meter to make sure this isn't happening to you. If it is cut back on the foods that cause the highs.

Kind regards

Dillinger

That links talks about a paper, but doesn't provide a link (That i could see) it also mentions other papers which it does link to, its something i would really like to read. That website doesn't really even do a good job summarizing the scientific bits it just does a short and blunt statement :/

IMO short spikes following meals that last 1 or 2 hours that never go over 14 shouldn't be of concern as long as thats all they are - spikes. Meaning they slowly travel up to, lets say 10mmol/L and then fall right back down, and are up and back to normal (5-6) within 2 hours. I can't imagine how those could do significant damage, but i am not a doctor... i know there are lots of people who have lived 30 + years with Type 1 and have likely had those spikes everyday and have no signs of damage.

I am fairly certain that high sugars (anything over 7 or 8) for long periods, like days or longer, will certainly shorten the life of your organs.. but by how much? no one knows..

Its like the case of the smoker who smokes his whole life, to die at 85 from a stroke.. his lungs were damaged, and their life span was almost certainly cut short, but clearly the body had other plans. For all anyone knew the life span of this lungs went from 95 years to 90 years, but he never made it that far lol

 

[Kaha]

Thanks Diamattic , You spoke exactly what I think. The discussion under this thread can raise a couple of common questions like yours,such as
1) How to determine /quantify long periods those are responsible for damage to organs?
2) Can high BS readings above 7-8 those cause damage to organs last for days without change ( reduced) in a persons blood?
3) If some foods give rise to BS levels beyond 7-8 or even 10s and last only for couple of hours ,are these readings dangerous anyway and can cause significant damage?
4) If somebody can maintain good control of BS levels within reasonable levels (5-6s) for the reminder of the period (except the spike times) , can such situation with good BS readings somehow compensate the possible damage through internal repair of damage ?
Just wondering whether these questions have some logical answers?

 

[douglas99]

The other thing I have noticed is I can take a reading, from a finger prick, then do a bit of exercise, just enough to get my blood pumping, and my BG can go down by 2 or 3 points.
So either I am genuinely using that much glucose, or the core blood is actually at a lower level, and the exercise is flushing blood to my skin, and then I am measuring my core blood, which is the figure my organs are seeing.

 

[Dillinger]

That links talks about a paper, but doesn't provide a link (That i could see) it also mentions other papers which it does link to, its something i would really like to read. That website doesn't really even do a good job summarizing the scientific bits it just does a short and blunt statement :/

IMO short spikes following meals that last 1 or 2 hours that never go over 14 shouldn't be of concern as long as thats all they are - spikes. Meaning they slowly travel up to, lets say 10mmol/L and then fall right back down, and are up and back to normal (5-6) within 2 hours. I can't imagine how those could do significant damage, but i am not a doctor... i know there are lots of people who have lived 30 + years with Type 1 and have likely had those spikes everyday and have no signs of damage.

I am fairly certain that high sugars (anything over 7 or 8) for long periods, like days or longer, will certainly shorten the life of your organs.. but by how much? no one knows..

Its like the case of the smoker who smokes his whole life, to die at 85 from a stroke.. his lungs were damaged, and their life span was almost certainly cut short, but clearly the body had other plans. For all anyone knew the life span of this lungs went from 95 years to 90 years, but he never made it that far lol

Well done; there is no objective knowledge.

Each study mentioned has a link to it; most studies as you know are not publically available without paying for them; so the links inevitably are to the summaries of those studies.

I'm very sorry the unpoetic language has unnerved you.

When I was younger I was told by a consultant that "as long as you don't go over 10 for too long then that's fine." That is obviously wrong and as thrilling as your opinions are they are just that.

That whole site 'Blood Sugar 101' is an invaluable source of information and don't see what your problems are with it?

I'm trying to help people understand that high blood sugars are not ok, apologies if I don't have editorial control for the entire internet, but you know; a day at a time...

 

[Brunneria]

That links talks about a paper, but doesn't provide a link (That i could see) it also mentions other papers which it does link to, its something i would really like to read. That website doesn't really even do a good job summarizing the scientific bits it just does a short and blunt statement :/

You need to go back and read the linked web page again. Properly.
Every article mentioned has a clear link to the full study.

Are you reading this forum on a phone app? Previously people have mentioned they have problems with links while doing so.

Using a PC or ipad, I have no such difficulty.

Regarding your comments about what you consider to be safe blood glucose levels... Good luck with that. The problem is, if you are wrong, you won't find out until there may be irreversible damage.

 

[douglas99]

Or you could read those studies and equally valid is the supposition that if you are undiagnosed diabetic, you will have complications.
In fact
'In a second experiment, the same researchers took cells damaged by exposure to high blood sugars and moved them to media that had a lower concentration of blood sugar. They found the cells could survive and recover after being moved to a growth medium containing a much lower concentration of glucose, but only if the switch was made before a certain amount of time had passed. Once the cells had been exposed to glucose for that fatal time period, they could no longer be revived.'

suggests the exact opposite to the hypothesis that spikes are damaging, as cells recover if the duration is short.

But I prefer to control my BG, so I won't claim either way.

 

[douglas99]

It even has a disclaimer in the back of my meters instructions.

' In addition, if you have eaten recently, the blood
glucose level from a finger prick can be up to 3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL)
higher than blood drawn from a vein (venous sample) used for a
lab test'

As to having gone past the organs to get to the test area, it could suggest any duration is less than would be apparent, if the test area remains high, but the core has fallen.

 

[Brunneria]

Now that's an interesting concept! Core blood being lower in glucose than peripheral blood.

Is that even possible?

To get to the peripheral areas the glucose has to have been absorbed through the intestines and into the blood or released from the liver into the blood. Either way, that glucose must have gone past the internal organs before getting to the peripheral areas?

This is the reason why OGTT tests (in my surgery) are double tested. They use finger prick tests alongside the venous blood tests that go to the lab. The fingerprick tests gives them a ballpark figure (is this person's bg in the zone where it is ok to start this test? and is this person's bg in the zone to not have to call an ambulance after it?) but it is the venous blood that gives them an accurate measure they take as gospel.

If you think about it, a drop of blood leaves the heart, goes down the arteries passes through all the tiny capillaries in the organs, muscles and fat, then collects back together, to return to the heart and lungs for re-circulation. the venous blood sample is taken when the blood is returning to the heart and the blood is mixed back together. so it represents a better 'average'. Especially if (as easily happens) the person doesn't have great circulation in the fingers that are used for the finger prick test (cold, bad circulation, complications...)

In addition, blood glucose changes show faster in the capillaries, than they do in the veins. simply because the blood circulation is a one way street, and veins come after capillaries in the route the blood takes.

 

[Kaha]

From the above conversation, does mean that the numbers based on blood tests from fingers are overrated compared to what is in "reality "determined by blood tests with blood taken from veins .

 

[pavlosn]

Hub