Is there any research on whether even with good control, glucose tolerance will still worsen?
From my experience with three years of tight BG control (3,9-7,7, mostly under 5,7) I can see, that all my problems (eye, legs, cholesterol) disappeared. But in any case I eat excess carbs, my BG elevates to the sky. So no "cure", but also no progress to worse. From my blood tests and other measurements, I'm perfectly healthy.Is there any research on whether even with good control, glucose tolerance will still worsen?
From my experience with three years of tight BG control (3,9-7,7, mostly under 5,7) I can see, that all my problems (eye, legs, cholesterol) disappeared. But in any case I eat excess carbs, my BG elevates to the sky. So no "cure", but also no progress to worse. From my blood tests and other measurements, I'm perfectly healthy.
I deduce from the case when one has to eat normal carbs level for three days before an ogtt that the body takes around 3 days to adapt to drastic change of carb. If u has been eating say 15g carbs a meal, every sudden 10g more may elevate an additional 2mmol or more.
black belt in diabetes
Even with good bld glucose control? Say post meal 9.0 or below,
hba1c 5.8%, fgl 6.5 ave.
Is there any research on whether even with good control, glucose tolerance will still worsen?
Even with good bld glucose control? Say post meal 9.0 or below,
hba1c 5.8%, fgl 6.5 ave.
Is there any research on whether even with good control, glucose tolerance will still worsen?
Even with good bld glucose control? Say post meal 9.0 or below,
hba1c 5.8%, fgl 6.5 ave.
Is there any research on whether even with good control, glucose tolerance will still worsen?
There's 2 types of long term damages to consider.
1) Damages due to glucose spikes or elevated levels.
2) Damages due to insulin spikes or elevated levels.
FBG of 6.5 would still suggest elevated insulin levels...and is considerably higher than the magical 4.6 mmol...
Not sure I would class post meal below 9 to be "good control".. post meal below 7.0 or even better 6.0 would be good control and will probably knock those diabetes issues for six.
I think that a "deterioration in glucose tolerance" is not necessarily the main thing to try to avoid. Complications are the thing to try to avoid.
Research has certainly been done which suggests that if you can keep your post-meal bgs less than 7.8 then you greatly reduce the risk of complications.
So, even if your glucose tolerance worsens with age, then so long as you eat less and less carbs so that you still keep post-meal spikes low, it may not matter at all. If you are already eating a low carb diet, then you may not have to adjust anything - you'll keep on getting spikes so small that no damage is being done.
This page has something to say on this subject with a few references to scientific studies including the one I'm referring to:
http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14046702.php
Your standard is very high. That will require 10 carb per meal.
Between 70 mg/dl (3.9 mmol/L) and 92 mg/dl (5.0 mmol/L) .
This is the finding of a considerable body of research. People whose blood sugar tests at this level do not develop diabetes over the next decade or longer. Those with supposedly normal blood sugars above 92 mg/dl often do. Nevertheless, most doctors consider any fasting blood sugar below 100 mg/dl (5.6 mmol/L) as completely normal
The mean 24-hour interstitial glucose concentration under everyday life conditions was 89.3 ± 6.2 mg/dl (mean ± SD, n = 21), and mean interstitial glucose concentrations at daytime and during the night were 93.0 ± 7.0 and 81.8 ± 6.3 mg/dl, respectively.
Results
Subjects developed diabetes at a rate of less than 1% per year during a mean follow-up of 81.0 months. Each milligram per deciliter of fasting plasma glucose increased diabetes risk by 6% (hazard ratio
1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.07, P < .0001) after controlling for other risk factors. Compared with those with fasting plasma glucose levels less than 85 mg/dL, subjects with glucose levels of 95 to 99 mg/dL were 2.33 times more likely to develop diabetes (HR 2.33; 95% CI, 1.95-2.79; P < .0001). Subjects in the 90 to 94 mg/dL group were 49% more likely to progress to diabetes (HR 1.49; 95% CI, 1.23-1.79; P <.0001). All other risk factors except sex were significantly associated with a diabetes diagnosis.