going over the 'safe' limit.

[Darrell]

I am sure the figure will be questioned but for the sake of the question can we say the safe BG to be under is 7.8, my question is;
Is going over the safe limit a time thing, i.e. the longer you are over it the worse it will be, or is it simply a matter of go over it and the damage is done?

 

[claymic]

I think the longer you have poor control the more the risk of damage done.....

 

[xyzzy]

Yes its both a time thing so the longer you are over it the more risk but also a spike thing so if you eat, spike into double figures but quickly return under 7.8 that does damage too. When we had a discussion about this in a different context a while back it appears it's still unclear what is the more risky (being slightly over 7.8 for a longer time compared to spiking highly).

What has been found is that people who maintain less spiky BG's have better outcomes than those who are more spiky even to the extent that those who have stable BG's do better even if they have slightly higher HbA1c's. There is obviously some cut off point to that as someone with say very stable but very high BG's does not do as well as a person whose average BG's are say in the normal range but spikes (or peaks) somewhat each time they eat.

You can find a good discussion of 7.8 and other levels here http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14045678.php

The other simple way of looking at 7.8 is to see that it is the maximum level that all of the average non diabetic population get 2 hours after eating so that's why those people can call themselves non diabetic.

Similarly 6.5 is the level that 19 out of 20 (95%) average don diabetics get at +2 hours and 3 out of 4 (75%) of non diabetics get 5.5 after 2 hours.

 

[Darrell]

I have seen that link before. I have read it quite a few times.

whether I have understood what it is on about is another matter :crazy:

 

[xyzzy]

Well on blood sugar levels it translated to me as two things.

1) Nasty things happen if you go above 7.8 so don't except on special occasions!
2) Beta cells (the things that produce insulin) actually start to die off in ever increasing numbers above 5.5 (five.five) so try very hard!

That 5.5 value is the shocker as its in the pre diabetic range i.e a range that a gp would not necessarily be too concerned about.

 

[carty]

XYZZY
Have you got any stats to back up the statement that beta cells die over 5.5
CAROL

 

[the_anticarb]

Crumbs! After reading all that I'm suprised I'm still alive - in my wild days I regularly had hba1c's over 10 so god knows what the average post meal readings were. I'm paying for it now though....

 

[lucylocket61]

I have had a 5.5 once since i started testing.

I'm doomed :shock:

 

[xyzzy]

XYZZY
Have you got any stats to back up the statement that beta cells die over 5.5
CAROL

Yes apart from I should have said 5.6 (five.six) not 5.5 its one of the things mentioned at the link I gave earlier http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14045678.php

see for example...

Beta Cell Destruction Begins at Levels Over 100 mg/dl (5.6 mmol/L)

When a team of Italian researchers led by A Gastardelli started examining beta cell response to glucose in people with normal blood sugars, they discovered that a small amount of beta cell dysfunction began to be detectable in people whose blood sugar rose only slightly over 100 mg/dl on a 2-hour glucose tolerance test. The beta cells are the cells in the pancreas that produce the insulin your body uses to control your blood sugar.
Analyzing their data further, they found that with every small increase in the 2-hour glucose tolerance test result, there was a corresponding increase in how much beta cell failure was detectable. The higher a person's blood sugar rose within "normal" range, the more beta cells were failing.


Beta-cell dysfunction and glucose intolerance: results from the San Antonio metabolism (SAM) study. Gastaldelli A; Ferrannini E; Miyazaki Y; Matsuda M; De Fronzo RA;Diabetologia 2004 Jan;47(1):31-9

or not quite so bad...

Beta Cells Die Off in People Whose Fasting Blood Sugar is Over 110 mg/dl (6.1 mmol/L)

An intriguing study shows the severe organ damage experienced by people whose blood sugar falls into a range most doctors consider to be near-normal. A team of researchers autopsied the pancreases of deceased patients who were known to have had fasting blood sugars that tested between 110 mg/dl and 125 mg/dl within two years of their deaths. The researchers found that these patients, whose blood sugar was not high enough for them to be diagnosed as diabetic, had already lost, on average, 40% of their insulin-producing beta cells.

Since the American Diabetes Association believes that a fasting blood sugar level of 100 mg/dl to 125 mg/dl corresponds to a 2-hour glucose tolerance levels of 140 mg/dl to 199 mg/dl, this suggests that patients whose post-meal blood sugars rise only to the non-diabetic "impaired" level may be well on the way to losing as much as 40% of their beta cell mass. It also suggests that people with abnormal glucose tolerance who wish to avoid further beta cell loss should try to keep their blood sugars under 140 mg/dl at all times.

Beta-cell deficit and increased beta-cell apoptosis in humans with type 2 diabetes. Butler AE, Janson J, Bonner-Weir S, Ritzel R, Rizza RA, Butler PC.Diabetes. 2003;52:102-110.

Shocking isn't it. :shock: It's why I have a personal 6.5 2 hour target and why my long term target is 5.5

I have never posted those quotes directly before as I thought people might find them too depressing. That's why I always give it as a link and also I think everyone should make their own judgement on risk.

The only positive thing I take from it is that it says

that a small amount of beta cell dysfunction began..

So at 5.6 you are only just beginning to damage beta cells but the damage increases as you rise above it.

 

[Defren]

I have had a 5.5 once since i started testing.

I'm doomed :shock:

That surprises me Lucy as I know by your posts here, you are running a very tight ship as far as carbs go. My lowest ever was 5.1 and my highest 9.1 (that was while I was trying a certain foodstuff that I now know I can't have).

Looking at my lowest and highest, is quite an eye opener for me. I have only been testing two weeks, and as I have looked through my diary, I see there are no real high BG's since last Saturday. All mine have been in the 5's and 6's. Guess I am slowly getting the hang of this. Have you bought the Collins little gem carb counter? I ordered a copy yesterday, people here say it's very good and will help me while still learning.

 

[lucylocket61]

I am around the 90-100g of carbs a day and go from 5.6 - 8.1

maybe I am doing something wrong still?

 

[Defren]

I am around the 90-100g of carbs a day and go from 5.6 - 8.1

maybe I am doing something wrong still?

Yes, I read your posts and know you are very careful. I am on 30g of carbs a day or less, but I am a worry wart and am terrified of complications. Could you lower your carbs any more? I am so lucky as I like all low and none carb foods.

 

[Anonymous]

I am doing the same as Defren. 30, but more likely less than 20 gramms of carbs a day. I record everything I eat at my fitness pal, and that adds up the carbs and calories I use. Free site as well.

I have the little Gem book. It is good once you get the hang of everything in sections.

 

[Defren]

I am doing the same as Defren. 30, but more likely less than 20 gramms of carbs a day. I record everything I eat at my fitness pal, and that adds up the carbs and calories I use. Free site as well.

I have the little Gem book. It is good once you get the hang of everything in sections.

I am quite possibly nearer 20 than 30, but just say less than 30g I am going to have a look at the site you mention - thank you. I am looking forward to my little gem arriving as I am still unsure of many foods carb value. I check on line, but often the carb amount is different, so am going to rely just on the little gem, rather than conflicting sites. I know I will feel better and easier once I do.

 

[Defren]

I am doing the same as Defren. 30, but more likely less than 20 gramms of carbs a day. I record everything I eat at my fitness pal, and that adds up the carbs and calories I use. Free site as well.

I have the little Gem book. It is good once you get the hang of everything in sections.

My fitness pal is amazing. The brands you buy and eat every thing. I can see so clearly where I am going. This site is brilliant. Thank you so much. :mrgreen:

 

[Anonymous]

I am doing the same as Defren. 30, but more likely less than 20 gramms of carbs a day. I record everything I eat at my fitness pal, and that adds up the carbs and calories I use. Free site as well.

I have the little Gem book. It is good once you get the hang of everything in sections.

My fitness pal is amazing. The brands you buy and eat every thing. I can see so clearly where I am going. This site is brilliant. Thank you so much. :mrgreen:

You are welcome. It saves me looking everything up, and if you put in a meal that you repeat often, save it by a name you will remember. It makes life much easier.

I am Jeannemum on there as well if you want to add me as a friend.

 

[LittleGreyCat]

Just a drive by posting 8)

It occurred to me that I used to have a fasting glucose tolerance test nearly every day.
Mars bar, kit kat, flake, turkish delight mmmm......confort food at stressful work.
Looks like I may have been machine gunning my beta cells.

When I was little I was told by some "eat too many sweets and you will get diabetes".
I was then told this was an Old Wives' tale and eating sweets was not connected to diabetes.

I wonder.

LGC

 

[phoenixlyn]

This is a bit like the chicken and the egg question, which came first?

Obviously, if the beta cells are damaged, the blood glucose levels will be higher!