Prediabetes diagnosis

[Bluetit1802]

OK. Will give 1 hour a go. After 2 hours, isn't 6.3 a little high?

No. It's brilliant.

 

[Lynn1]

No. It's brilliant.

Phew! Getting in a tizz. Keep reading about 4's and 5's on this site. Presumably, those people are on medication? Sorry to keep on - it's that Monday morning feeling!

 

[Bluetit1802]

Lynn, never ever compare yourself to others. Everyone on here is at different stages, with different degrees of insulin resistance, different medications, and different metabolisms. None of us is the same. 4's and 5's after eating are very unusual.

This is what some doctors currently believe to be non-diabetic readings (but nothing is set in stone):

Fasting BS under 5.5
1hr after meals under 7.8
2hrs after meals under 6.6
http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14045524.php

 

[Gardengnome]

It'll be better than white bread, possibly. Sadly, there are few clear cut rules on this, as we do all react differently to our dietary elements.

Are there any foods you feel almost addicted to, or feel you would struggle to live without?

There are a couple of tests which could have led to this diagnosis; one requires fasting, and the other does not require fasting, so it's not clear cut. If you know the actual numerical test result, it might help.

What are your next steps? Have you been advised to take any action, as a result of the diagnosis?

I think @Brunneria is responding to @Alice233 's disbelief in pre-diabetes as a diagnosis, rather than specifically to you. But, I'm sure she'll pop in at some point and clarify.

Yes, I think you should call the surgery and ask if you can drop by and pick up your test results. The print out will clarify once and for all. For completeness, if you had a Fasting Blood Glucose test, the name says it all. If you had an HbA1c test, that is not a fasting test. The HbA1c test isn't a snapshot of your bloods at the time of the test, it looks at the amount of glucose "attached" to your red blood cells, which gives an indication of your longer term blood glucose levels. This page explains the test and its implications in more detail: http://www.diabetes.co.uk/what-is-hba1c.html

I agree. You need to settle your mind, so that you can move forward and deal with it. How you feel is really very usual, so don't be concerned.

AndBreathe,
please can I ask why you have a T2 diagnosis? I understand that an A1c of 8.8 or in fact anything over 6.4% is a diagnosis but as your numbers have fallen so dramatically with diet and no meds how can it be? I don't understand.
My two A1c's were 5.9 taken roughly a year apart and as I'd lost weight and exercised yet still had the same number the dr said I was prediabetic and to come back for another test in a year. that year is almost up now and I await my test with trepidation!

 

[AndBreathe]

AndBreathe,
please can I ask why you have a T2 diagnosis? I understand that an A1c of 8.8 or in fact anything over 6.4% is a diagnosis but as your numbers have fallen so dramatically with diet and no meds how can it be? I don't understand.
My two A1c's were 5.9 taken roughly a year apart and as I'd lost weight and exercised yet still had the same number the dr said I was prediabetic and to come back for another test in a year. that year is almost up now and I await my test with trepidation!

Quite simply at the point of diagnosis my blood scores were in the diabetic range. It's that simple.

 

[Gardengnome]

Quite simply at the point of diagnosis my blood scores were in the diabetic range. It's that simple.

So do I understand you correctly - just one initial high A1c is enough to give you a diagnosis: seems rather final! There is absolutely no possibility of reversing it even at that stage? What about the OGTT, did you have one of those too?

I understand with T2 the onset of full blown diabetes can be fairly gradual which I understood was because not all the beta cells are destroyed - unlike T1 which comes on rapidly. Or is it that by the time one has reached an A1c of 48 most of the beta cells are shot anyway? If that is the case then how can one manage just with diet alone [and achieve such good results] and all without medication?

PS I should apologise for all the questions, there is so much to learn and the more I learn the more I realise how little I know!

 

[Brunneria]

So do I understand you correctly - just one initial high A1c is enough to give you a diagnosis: seems rather final! There is absolutely no possibility of reversing it even at that stage? What about the OGTT, did you have one of those too?

I understand with T2 the onset of full blown diabetes can be fairly gradual which I understood was because not all the beta cells are destroyed - unlike T1 which comes on rapidly. Or is it that by the time one has reached an A1c of 48 most of the beta cells are shot anyway? If that is the case then how can one manage just with diet alone [and achieve such good results] and all without medication?

Type 2 is more a disease of insulin resistance than dying beta cells. Although if blood glucose levels are too high, for too long, the beta cells do die, over time.

There are many different reasons for developing type 2 diabetes, with a number of contributing factors that can increase or decrease the risk.

If you have a read up on the Newcastle Diet and fatty livers, you will see that reversing type 2 is now considered a possibility for some.

Personally, I think that reversing would be better described as 'removing the cause of the symptoms'.
It is far to early to claim a 'cure' in my opinion.

And yes, a single high hba1c is enough for a diagnosis.

 

[cold ethyl]

I was told by time of diagnosis that up to 50% of beta cells were lost and that that it had probably taken about ten years or so to go from prediabetic range to diabetic BS levels. I think of my low carb diet and weight reduction as preserving my remaining cells and reducing strain on pancreas by helping with insulin resistance . Like @Brunneria, I'm not sure about reversal .. I think studies into the long term effects of the Newcastle diet are needed before we can safely say it's a permanent reversal as opposed to just slowing down the disease.

 

[Gardengnome]

Type 2 is more a disease of insulin resistance than dying beta cells. Although if blood glucose levels are too high, for too long, the beta cells do die, over time.

There are many different reasons for developing type 2 diabetes, with a number of contributing factors that can increase or decrease the risk.

If you have a read up on the Newcastle Diet and fatty livers, you will see that reversing type 2 is now considered a possibility for some.

Personally, I think that reversing would be better described as 'removing the cause of the symptoms'.
It is far to early to claim a 'cure' in my opinion.

And yes, a single high hba1c is enough for a diagnosis.

Type 2 is more a disease of insulin resistance than dying beta cells. Although if blood glucose levels are too high, for too long, the beta cells do die, over time.

There are many different reasons for developing type 2 diabetes, with a number of contributing factors that can increase or decrease the risk.

If you have a read up on the Newcastle Diet and fatty livers, you will see that reversing type 2 is now considered a possibility for some.

Personally, I think that reversing would be better described as 'removing the cause of the symptoms'.
It is far to early to claim a 'cure' in my opinion.

And yes, a single high hba1c is enough for a diagnosis.

So if a single high is sufficient for a diagnosis then it must indicate the beta cells are shot, or at least partly shot and can't produce sufficient insulin without help? I did read up about the Newcastle diet but it sounded so drastic that I didn't think it would be sustainable. If a diagnosis is given then it would seem that that is that - it can be controlled but not cured/reversed - is that right? If one does all the right things [or thinks one does all the right things] is not overweight and takes plenty of exercise and STILL develops diabetes then it's just bad luck I suppose.

I have to go for another A1c just after Christmas so will see if my hard work has worked or not. I'd like to prove the dr wrong, he is convinced my numbers will rise, why would he say that I wonder.!

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

So if a single high is sufficient for a diagnosis then it must indicate the beta cells are shot, or at least partly shot and can't produce sufficient insulin without help? I did read up about the Newcastle diet but it sounded so drastic that I didn't think it would be sustainable. If a diagnosis is given then it would seem that that is that - it can be controlled but not cured/reversed - is that right? If one does all the right things [or thinks one does all the right things] is not overweight and takes plenty of exercise and STILL develops diabetes then it's just bad luck I suppose.

I have to go for another A1c just after Christmas so will see if my hard work has worked or not. I'd like to prove the dr wrong, he is convinced my numbers will rise, why would he say that I wonder.!

I think one can develop insulin resistance without beta cell problems, although beta cell destruction is the eventual outcome of type 2 progression. The Newcastle diet is certainly drastic as it mimics gastric band surgery. However, losing weigh more slowly should have a similar result with respect to insulin resistance, according to the authors of the Newcastle diet study.

I believe that doctors and nurses almost always see blood glucose increasing in patients over time because of the advice they give them to eat lots of carbs and low fat. :***:

 

[Bluetit1802]

I was told by time of diagnosis that up to 50% of beta cells were lost and that that it had probably taken about ten years or so to go from prediabetic range to diabetic BS levels. .

That is interesting because my Type 2 appeared quickly. Prior to diagnosis my fasting blood glucose levels as taken annually for the previous 4 or 5 years were within the normal range for non-diabetics. They were not even pre-diabetic. The following year it came back as 7.0 with an HbA1c of 53. So I went from non-diabetic to full blown type 2 in 12 months. It all goes to show we are all different.

 

[Brunneria]

That is interesting because my Type 2 appeared quickly. Prior to diagnosis my fasting blood glucose levels as taken annually for the previous 4 or 5 years were within the normal range for non-diabetics. They were not even pre-diabetic. The following year it came back as 7.0 with an HbA1c of 53. So I went from non-diabetic to full blown type 2 in 12 months. It all goes to show we are all different.

From what I have read (on here, on bloodsugar101 and on the net) that is fairly typical. A lot of us stay 'normal' or take years to gently slide into prediabetes, but then the transition into full blown diabetes often only takes a few months, during which blood glucose levels rise (comparatively) dramatically.

It kind of suggests (to me) that intervention (diet and exercise) at that pre diabetic stage could be the most valuable thing the NHS could do to halt the 'Diabetes Epidemic'. but sadly, my experience, and that of many who arrive on the forum, is that the doc shows no interest at all (except a bit of silly high carb eating advice) until your test result hits the magic D Diagnosis. What a waste.

Diane Cress (low carbing diabetic dietician) says that often individuals who later go on to develop diabetes have abnormally low BG levels after eating, for some time (sometimes years) before they develop prediabetes. Unfortunately, the only way to detect this kind of BG abnormality (known as Reactive Hypoglycaemia) is to run a prolongued set of blood tests. Either a 72 hour fasting test (done in a hospital) or an Oral Glucose Tolerance Test lasting at least 4 hours, rather than the usual 2. And of course, that is expensive. Plus, how would you identify these people? They have normal BG, seem to like high carb foods, and may be a wee bit tubby. That describes half the population!

Edited to add, I realise @Bluetit1802 that your situ probably wasn't like I have just described above - cos your Diabetes was probably caused by medication. If I remember correctly?

 

[cold ethyl]

From what I have read (on here, on bloodsugar101 and on the net) that is fairly typical. A lot of us stay 'normal' or take years to gently slide into prediabetes, but then the transition into full blown diabetes often only takes a few months, during which blood glucose levels rise (comparatively) dramatically.

It kind of suggests (to me) that intervention (diet and exercise) at that pre diabetic stage could be the most valuable thing the NHS could do to halt the 'Diabetes Epidemic'. but sadly, my experience, and that of many who arrive on the forum, is that the doc shows no interest at all (except a bit of silly high carb eating advice) until your test result hits the magic D Diagnosis. What a waste.

Diane Cress (low carbing diabetic dietician) says that often individuals who later go on to develop diabetes have abnormally low BG levels after eating, for some time (sometimes years) before they develop prediabetes. Unfortunately, the only way to detect this kind of BG abnormality (known as Reactive Hypoglycaemia) is to run a prolongued set of blood tests. Either a 72 hour fasting test (done in a hospital) or an Oral Glucose Tolerance Test lasting at least 4 hours, rather than the usual 2. And of course, that is expensive. Plus, how would you identify these people? They have normal BG, seem to like high carb foods, and may be a wee bit tubby. That describes half the population!

Edited to add, I realise @Bluetit1802 that your situ probably wasn't like I have just described above - cos your Diabetes was probably caused by medication. If I remember correctly?

I had blood tests done in 2003 which were fine, and again in 2004. I suspect but have no proof that a particularly stressful three years followed by a resurgence of panic disorder tipped me into full blown diabetes. I piled the weight on in that time, going from fat to obese, largely from massive carb consumption. Looking back I'd say that your description of reactive hypoglycemia fitted me for much of my life as I'd often feel very low or shaky after eating , particularly a pasta based meal which could have me weeping within an hour.
My neighbour has been diagnosed as prediabetic recently and offered a place on a walking away from diabetes course. If they push the same dietary advice as on the DESMOND course, she'll be over the edge sooner rather than later.

 

[Brunneria]

If they push the sane dietary advice as on the DESMOND course, she'll be over the edge sooner rather than later.

Lol! you might like to edit that a wee bit!

 

[Bluetit1802]

@Brunneria I have always blamed my diagnosis the dreadful food I was eating because of my cancer treatment. Food that I wouldn't have eaten previously but was recommended to ward off/help with side effects. It worked as far as the side effects were concerned, but combined with a few steroids, did not help with the blood sugars!

 

[cold ethyl]

Lol! you might like to edit that a wee bit!

lol. too early for my eyes to be operating without specs.

 

[Lynn1]

Quite simply at the point of diagnosis my blood scores were in the diabetic range. It's that simple.

Have been testing now for just over two weeks. Recognising the foods which raise BS. Where do I go from here, please?

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

Have been testing now for just over two weeks. Recognising the foods which raise BS. Where do I go from here, please?

Avoid eating the foods that increase your blood glucose, exercise (150 minutes a week), and lose weight (BMI less than 25). The goal for a type 2 is to get and keep blood glucose levels at nondiabetic levels: http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/16422495.php

 

[Brunneria]

And know that by doing so, you are drastically reducing the chance of developing diabetes.



Then you just enjoy living the rest of your life.

 

[Lynn1]

Avoid eating the foods that increase your blood glucose, exercise (150 minutes a week), and lose weight (BMI less than 25). The goal for a type 2 is to get and keep blood glucose levels at nondiabetic levels: http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/16422495.php

Avoid eating the foods that increase your blood glucose, exercise (150 minutes a week), and lose weight (BMI less than 25). The goal for a type 2 is to get and keep blood glucose levels at nondiabetic levels: http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/16422495.php

Avoid eating the foods that increase your blood glucose, exercise (150 minutes a week), and lose weight (BMI less than 25). The goal for a type 2 is to get and keep blood glucose levels at nondiabetic levels: http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/16422495.php

Avoid eating the foods that increase your blood glucose, exercise (150 minutes a week), and lose weight (BMI less than 25). The goal for a type 2 is to get and keep blood glucose levels at nondiabetic levels: http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/16422495.php

Thanks. The vast majority of my BS readings are well-within non diabetic readings. My BMI is 25.2, having lost 4 lbs in the last two weeks and my weight is now 8st 13lbs. As previously mentioned, my main problem is exercise. I have recently had one knee replacement and am awaiting a second next March.