Tannith's views on reversing T2

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jaylee

Oracle
Retired Moderator
Messages
18,213
Type of diabetes
Type 1
Treatment type
Insulin
Can you explain this please, @Tannith, because it is not an accurate description of my experience.
If I have said something that has been misunderstood, then I am concerned that I am being held partly responsible for some choices you are making, and would like to correct any errors.

I'm not seeing any responsibility levied on your part, Pipp.

Any more than I'd lay it with @Jim Lahey . :)
 

Tannith

BANNED
Messages
1,230
Hi,

Steady on with the bold in red.

Looking at the packaging right now "8.4carbs" of which are sugers "4.5." That's per per 100ml.
I can nudge up from a hypo on a ton glug. Certainly need no insulin in this instance..
I'm not keen on the stuff either, but needs must.....
Not my red Someone must have messed with it. Or my bold either. The original is: "round here often drink more than one bottle (with their sweets) on the way home from school. I wouldn't let my kids do it, but it's definitely not dangerous (unless they are T1s and haven't had their insulin)."
 

Tannith

BANNED
Messages
1,230
Apart from oldvatr, who seems to have read up on it, I don't think anyone who has commented on it here so far has any qualifications to declare the OGT "dangerous" Perhaps someone has a link to o Govt Health Warning on it to support their personal opinion?
 

Antje77

Oracle
Retired Moderator
Messages
19,284
Type of diabetes
LADA
Treatment type
Insulin
Apart from oldvatr, who seems to have read up on it, I don't think anyone who has commented on it here so far has any qualifications to declare the OGT "dangerous" Perhaps someone has a link to o Govt Health Warning on it to support their personal opinion?
It gives you high blood glucose, which can cause all sort of diabetic complications if it happens too often or too long.
This is the main reason most people with diabetes try to keep ther BG within or as close as possible to the range of non-diabetics.

We just can't understand why you deliberately and repeatedly choose to go out of this range, possibly doing damage. It's like picking an already infected wound. You might get lucky, and it'll still heal, or you might get complications by doing this and increasing the risk of complications.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HSSS

Oldvatr

Expert
Messages
8,470
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Tablets (oral)
Apart from oldvatr, who seems to have read up on it, I don't think anyone who has commented on it here so far has any qualifications to declare the OGT "dangerous" Perhaps someone has a link to o Govt Health Warning on it to support their personal opinion?
If you had done your own reading up on it you might have found this
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/586717/

I will only make the following observation. One major cause of death in diabetics is kidney failure. The kidneys are easily damaged by high glucose levels in the blood, and cease filtering out the waste products leading to a toxic overload and death. It is at the microvascular level that this damage occurs, and is generally irreversible except by transplant operation. Stressing the kidneys by using an OGTT or similar high glucose intake is not a sensible thing to do. I really cannot fathom why you are so hellbent on using this test. It is not dangerous but not completely safe either. It is designed to be stressing your endocrine system, and so it is potentially harmful.

I also note that it is only really used in the diagnosis of gestational diabetes, where the levels of FBG and HbA1c are not immediately obvious as diabetes-induced. Most T2D diagnosis is satisfied by FBG and HbA1c values. I have never had or needed an OGTT in my life, but then, I am unlikely to suffer gestational diabetes. Why are you so against using the 2hr PP level of above 7.8mmol/l as proof of impaired response like the rest of us? And incidentally in the revised NHS advice to clinicians where the OGTT is replaced by this 2HR test for pregnant women. I did post the link to this in a recent post which you may not have seen.
https://www.nice.org.uk/news/article/new-thresholds-for-diagnosis-of-diabetes-in-pregnancy
 
Last edited:

lucylocket61

Expert
Messages
6,435
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Apart from oldvatr, who seems to have read up on it, I don't think anyone who has commented on it here so far has any qualifications to declare the OGT "dangerous" Perhaps someone has a link to o Govt Health Warning on it to support their personal opinion?
I personally, on this thread, have linked to reports and research and clinical guidelines about OGT and the guidelines to follow when using it. I find your flippancy annoying and unwarranted, asking for a Government Guidelines.

I now deeply suspect your motive and think you are playing with us on here.
 

Tannith

BANNED
Messages
1,230
I personally, on this thread, have linked to reports and research and clinical guidelines about OGT and the guidelines to follow when using it. I find your flippancy annoying and unwarranted, asking for a Government Guidelines.

I now deeply suspect your motive and think you are playing with us on here.
Please post these links again. I have only seen one and that was NOT about the test being dangerous at all.
 

lucylocket61

Expert
Messages
6,435
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Please post these links again. I have only seen one and that was NOT about the test being dangerous at all.
read the thread, and other numerous threads and replies you have been on. I do not have time to go back and find stuff for you. Read my signature!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjraak

Brunneria

Guru
Retired Moderator
Messages
21,889
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
....
Apart from oldvatr, who seems to have read up on it, I don't think anyone who has commented on it here so far has any qualifications to declare the OGT "dangerous" Perhaps someone has a link to o Govt Health Warning on it to support their personal opinion?

You have been given multiple links on this thread and others, going back months. Those links have systematically and comprehensively explained, in depth, the reasons why people are concerned for you and have been trying to help you. They have been from the NHS, the Mayo Clinic, and all sorts of other reputable organisations with decades of expertise.

I am sorry you have not been reading them.
I am also sorry that you value your health so little that you are unwilling to take in new information.
 

Jo123

Well-Known Member
Messages
717
@Tannith your blood vessels are damaged by high blood glucose levels, obviously it is a cumulative over time.
For me, as I stated in an earlier post weight loss has no effect, even at a bmi of 18.5. So all I can do is keep my blood glucose as low as I can, which I've done successfully for 11 years, all normal hba1c's. I don't want to inflict OGTT's tests on myself, which I doubt i would pass anyway, and if I did I wouldn't go back to my old diet. Which was by the way thouht to be very healthy at the time, lots of pulses, fruit and wholegrain. I was never overweight.
 

KK123

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,967
Type of diabetes
Type 1
Treatment type
Insulin
Can "normal" people eat "normally" into the late 20's, 30's etc? What is "normal" eating? These questons are root analysis that are skirted around, but go to the heart of almost every thread on this forum.

A five year old's view would be different to a 5 year old 70 years ago in any modern country.

I'm another one who dislikes the 'normal' that is applied to just about every test you ever get. 'Normal' cholesterol has to be under 4, 'normal' blood pressure has to be 120/80 etc. I do understand we have to use averages sometimes though otherwise how would any medical 'issues' be diagnosed. Lots of the blood tests give quite wide parameters of course as they appreciate that 'normal' doesn't mean a whole lot as people are so very different and what's normal for one isn't for another, there is only normal for 'me'. I don't know the answer by any means but if they have to define 'normal' and use it then they can at least look specifically at the individual in front of them as a whole before dishing out (sometimes) unnecessary meds.
 

Tannith

BANNED
Messages
1,230
@Tannith your blood vessels are damaged by high blood glucose levels, obviously it is a cumulative over time.
For me, as I stated in an earlier post weight loss has no effect, even at a bmi of 18.5. So all I can do is keep my blood glucose as low as I can, which I've done successfully for 11 years, all normal hba1c's. I don't want to inflict OGTT's tests on myself, which I doubt i would pass anyway, and if I did I wouldn't go back to my old diet. Which was by the way thouht to be very healthy at the time, lots of pulses, fruit and wholegrain. I was never overweight.
I know. But the crux is high blood sugar levels over time not a one off post prandial once in 3 weeks. That's why I am aiming for mid normal BG levels - for which I am also being criticised. Because I know that people get complications even below pre-diabetes. But then I'm told I'm a doom merchant and aiming too low!
 

Tannith

BANNED
Messages
1,230
Thank you. At least its about OGT and not all sorts of irrelevant stuff that others (not you) have posted without reading it first to check if it's actually about OGT being dangerous, instead of just finding something that mentions OGT (or maybe is about something quite else.) It applies only to bariatric patients though.
 

zand

Master
Messages
10,784
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
I know. But the crux is high blood sugar levels over time not a one off post prandial once in 3 weeks. That's why I am aiming for mid normal BG levels - for which I am also being criticised. Because I know that people get complications even below pre-diabetes. But then I'm told I'm a doom merchant and aiming too low!
Oh that's what I aim for too. That's why I have followed low carb for nearly 10 years, after following a vlcd for 9 weeks.
 

Beating-My-Betes

Well-Known Member
Messages
653
I'm another one who dislikes the 'normal' that is applied to just about every test you ever get. 'Normal' cholesterol has to be under 4, 'normal' blood pressure has to be 120/80 etc. I do understand we have to use averages sometimes though otherwise how would any medical 'issues' be diagnosed. Lots of the blood tests give quite wide parameters of course as they appreciate that 'normal' doesn't mean a whole lot as people are so very different and what's normal for one isn't for another, there is only normal for 'me'. I don't know the answer by any means but if they have to define 'normal' and use it then they can at least look specifically at the individual in front of them as a whole before dishing out (sometimes) unnecessary meds.

Yup! We have ranges in most cases, because in most senses we are not binary beings. There are huge limitations and flaws when it comes to nutritional science and health, for the simple reason that the kinds of experimentation that would be more conclusive would be extremely unethical.
 

Tannith

BANNED
Messages
1,230
....


You have been given multiple links on this thread and others, going back months. Those links have systematically and comprehensively explained, in depth, the reasons why people are concerned for you and have been trying to help you. They have been from the NHS, the Mayo Clinic, and all sorts of other reputable organisations with decades of expertise.

I am sorry you have not been reading them.
I am also sorry that you value your health so little that you are unwilling to take in new information.
I have read almost every one of them diligently. None I have read are about the OGT being dangerous. The majority are about completely different topics discussed much earlier in the thread. If I am mistaken perhaps people would repost them, but I suspect that no one has found anything whatsoever about it being dangerous.

If 75 g carbs were dangerous -even high GI carbs ingested at one go, the world's population would have been extinct by now. And all the kids outside the sweetshops after school, swigging their fizzy drinks would not have lived to see another day. Not that I am advocating high doses of high GI carbs on a daily basis but there is sometimes a good enough reason to check how fast your beta cells can process a standardized amount of carbs, so that the results can be compared with an internationally recognised scale. And as Oldvatr's previously linked article said, it is best not to diagnose T2 without using all 3 tests together to get a more reliable result. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/586717/ ( thanks oldvatr)
 

Brunneria

Guru
Retired Moderator
Messages
21,889
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
I have read almost every one of them diligently. None I have read are about the OGT being dangerous. The majority are about completely different topics discussed much earlier in the thread. If I am mistaken perhaps people would repost them, but I suspect that no one has found anything whatsoever about it being dangerous.

If 75 g carbs were dangerous -even high GI carbs ingested at one go, the world's population would have been extinct by now. And all the kids outside the sweetshops after school, swigging their fizzy drinks would not have lived to see another day. Not that I am advocating high doses of high GI carbs on a daily basis but there is sometimes a good enough reason to check how fast your beta cells can process a standardized amount of carbs, so that the results can be compared with an internationally recognised scale. And as Oldvatr's previously linked article said, it is best not to diagnose T2 without using all 3 tests together to get a more reliable result. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/586717/ ( thanks oldvatr)

And once again, you prove that you have entirely missed the point.
But I know that if I explain the point for the 3rd? 4th? time in the last 2 pages, you will once again miss it and go off on some strange tangent to distract yourself from the unpleasant truth you so busily avoid.
So I shall spare myself the effort.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr Snoddy
Status
Not open for further replies.