Do I test if I am 'post diabetic'?

[sarah]

That is interesting. I get that an average of a test group isn't what we should consider the "norm", merely the average. The second link I posted was for the info under the test group. But my first set of figures stand. My own personal intention is to keep as near to non-diabetic numbers for as long as I can and for me that's less than 7.8 after an hour and 6.6 after two hours, but lower if I can get it. This is my attempt to feel as good as I can and stave off any complications for as long as possible, rather than to "cure" anything. Having said that, if I do peak higher at an hour, it is always back under 6.6 after two hours, so if I only tested after two hours, I would not know of any spikes.

I still maintain you cannot declare yourself "cured" when you don't test after an hour.

 

[catherinecherub]

Recovered diabetic!

Undiabetic

Carb tolerant.

Glycemic free

Type nil diabetic

Why would anyone want diabetic in a title if they are no longer diabetic? Women who have had a baby don't refer to themselves as pregnant.

 

[SJC]

That is interesting. I get that an average of a test group isn't what we should consider the "norm", merely the average. The second link I posted was for the info under the test group. But my first set of figures stand. My own personal intention is to keep as near to non-diabetic numbers for as long as I can and for me that's less than 7.8 after an hour and 6.6 after two hours, but lower if I can get it. This is my attempt to feel as good as I can and stave off any complications for as long as possible, rather than to "cure" anything. Having said that, if I do peak higher at an hour, it is always back under 6.6 after two hours, so if I only tested after two hours, I would not know of any spikes.

I still maintain you cannot declare yourself "cured" when you don't test after an hour.

I wonder about all this often. Not too many of us are testing after an hour from what I have read. General information on a lot of sites points to that '2 hour' timeframe as being important. I reckon non diabetic get 'spikes' and I realise that it is spikes that do damage, BUT isn't the most important and overriding factor how your body deals with that hourly spike within the next hour or two. Isn't it that which tells you how well your body is coping with what's thrown at it?

 

[Lamont D]

You have to set a norm for you! Depending on you.
My fasting is always between 4.1 and 4.7. My 1 hour is always 3 or 4 above my norm depending what I eat and how many low GI carbs I have.
I always return to within two after two hours. The only way I know that I'm getting or had a spike is after two hours.

We are different you have some leeway depending on the reactions of food or drinks on the certain individual, depending on their fasting BSLs.

 

[Bluetit1802]

I always test at 1 hour, 2 hours, and 2.5 hrs if I haven't seen a significant drop, very occasionally I've had to test at 3 hours. I find my peaks are about equally distributed between the 1 hour and 2 hour readings. If either peak is slightly above 7.8 I am not at all concerned as long as it drops to an acceptable level an hour later because I know my own insulin is working. (not on any meds)

 

[SJC]

I have been led to understand that too much spiking damages the pancreas (beta cells) and that once that has happened the damage irreversible. If that's the case ( and I may have got that wrong), then surely someone who has been told they are prediabetic or diabetic will always remain potentially as such despite any kind of improvement in figures through diet.

Once a person has changed their diet and tolerance to their new diet is showing positive results ( even down to non-diabetic levels), surely it just means that the damage is still there and if you test that damage too much, eventually you will be back where you started. Once normal ranges are met, a packet of custard creams or 3 dime bars may not be testing your pancreas enough (when it's an occasional day) to show unfavourable results, but if you continued to do it consistently, it would only be a matter of time before your pancreas is saying 'sorry, the damage is done, and I can't take consistent onslaught" ?

 

[SJC]

Therefore no one is cured. They are in remission.

 

[zand]

Well whatever you call it, if my diabetes was so much improved that I could eat that many carbs once in a while without a problem I would be over the moon.

 

[sanguine]

So we could call it 'Over the Moon' Zand? That would make newly diagnosed 'Sick as a Parrot' wouldn't it?

 

[AndBreathe]

OK. Here goes.

I can now eat more carbs than I could around my diagnosis; although not in quantities anything like @Andrew Colvin: aka "The Carb Meister". I don't want any label. I mean any label, but I have a bit of a theory.

For me, my numbers and ability to handle carbs improved as I lost weight. I didn't have too much to lose, and I am quite, quite skinny now. Trust me, pinching an inch does not involve any fat these days. But, I digress. My theory is my T2 issue probably is/was almost totally insulin resistance. So, does that make me one of those dreaded lifestyle diabetics? But, take away any interfering fat, from my liver and pancreas, and, abracadabra, there's less resistance, my numbers are much better, and I can tolerate increased carbs. That my 30 day average testing records show a score of 4.0 (testing fasting, pre and postprandially for the "riskiest" meal of the day, every day), I clearly have plenty insulin to deal with what I eat.

Perhaps over time there will be a reclassification, a bit like LADA or T1.5s, who appear to usually be a secondary classification, post diagnosis as T2. Whether that would become a T0, IR (insulin resistant), PD (pretendy diabetic), or whatever; who cares.

It strikes me the medics and scientists have at least as many unanswered questions relating to diabetes as we, the great diagnosed, have.

Sorry @Pipp - another perfectly good thread deflected.

 

[Tall Paul]

I have been led to understand that too much spiking damages the pancreas (beta cells) and that once that has happened the damage irreversible. If that's the case ( and I may have got that wrong), then surely someone who has been told they are prediabetic or diabetic will always remain potentially as such despite any kind of improvement in figures through diet.

The research of Prof Roy Taylor and the Newcastle University team has been that for Type 2 diabetics, substantial weight loss of visceral fat in the pancreas and liver can enable those organs to recover and return to normal levels of functioning. (Particularly within the first few years of diagnosis).

So the previously held belief that the damage that causes Type 2 Diabetes is irreversible has been challenged.

See these links for more details:

http://www.fend-lectures.org/index.php?menu=view&id=94
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/magres/research/diabetes/reversal.htm

 

[SJC]

So, do you believe it's possible that somebody of slight stature or even underweight who gets diabetes can not recover in the same way as someone who is overweight? I note you say 'substantial' weight loss of fat but I am not sure the same would apply to those diabetics who are not very big to begin with or who even struggle to keep weight on such as I have done for many years. If this is the case, how can we explain how 'slight' people not carrying excess fat can also become in the 'normal' range - surely if the BG is permanently lower in both cases, it throws doubt over whether the fat is conclusively involved?

I probably haven't worded that very well but I know what I mean lol.

 

[zand]

Yes SJC...I know what you mean too........I don't have an answer though!

 

[AndBreathe]

So, do you believe it's possible that somebody of slight stature or even underweight who gets diabetes can not recover in the same way as someone who is overweight? I note you say 'substantial' weight loss of fat but I am not sure the same would apply to those diabetics who are not very big to begin with or who even struggle to keep weight on such as I have done for many years. If this is the case, how can we explain how 'slight' people not carrying excess fat can also become in the 'normal' range - surely if the BG is permanently lower in both cases, it throws doubt over whether the fat is conclusively involved?

I probably haven't worded that very well but I know what I mean lol.

Professor Taylor talks about personal fat thresholds. It is also known that there are some people who are thin on the outside, but still carry visceral fat around their organs. Prof Taylor talks about breaching individual's fat thresholds, and also those of normal weight. The following link is to his pages at Newcastle University and the links in this page contain both his full paper and some excellent summaries. You might find it interesting reading. I have visited it several times to refresh my memory and understanding.

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/magres/research/diabetes/reversal.htm

Enjoy!

 

[Scandichic]

Why would you want to be taken off the diabetes register? You need all the tests a diabetic gets on a regular basis to make sure there is no damage happening to your body. An Hba1c doesn't tell us anything about spikes, only self-testing does. Hba1c is merely half the story.

By the way, an Hba1c of 41 is super for a diabetic but only just squeaks into the non-diabetic range. I'd be fighting for those regular health checks to continue for the rest of my life, if I were you. You're a well-controlled diabetic, not pre-diabetic, post-diabetic or non-diabetic.

Hi Pipp,
I agree with Sarah. If you want a cheap meter you can pick up the sd code free starter kit for £13.92 from:
http://www.homehealth-uk.com/medical/blood_glucose_monitor_testing.htm
Strips are £26 for 5 pots of 50 strips.
Cheapest I've found so far. Pp free. Love mine as simple to use.
X

 

[sarah]

Yes, I would agree that how your body deals with spikes is important but you do need to know if you're getting a spike in the first place, hence the one-hour testing. If you want to say you are 'cured' then this one hour figure is vital. If you have no first-phase response, you're not cured, even if your 2 hour might indicate you are.
I would say both spikes and overall control are important, though do believe that it's the spikes that contribute more to nasty complications, rather than running high but stable all the time, though neither are desirable, of course.

 

[andcol]

Yes, I would agree that how your body deals with spikes is important but you do need to know if you're getting a spike in the first place, hence the one-hour testing. If you want to say you are 'cured' then this one hour figure is vital. If you have no first-phase response, you're not cured, even if your 2 hour might indicate you are.
I would say both spikes and overall control are important, though do believe that it's the spikes that contribute more to nasty complications, rather than running high but stable all the time, though neither are desirable, of course.

The problem with the first phase response is it is learnt. So for those that low carb they are not going to have one and the only way to know is to stop low carbing which many do not want or feel the need to do (and if testing initially would scare themselves into low carbing almost immediately). So the absence of a strong first phase is not an indication on its own. Oh this is all so intertwined; if you don;t eat lots of carbs you can't eat them without coming up with a diabetic profile and you have to go through that diabetic profile to see if you come out the other side being able to manage them and not have the diabetic profile. I went through all of this in a different thread and it raised much consternation as to why I wanted to bother.

 

[SJC]

It's concerned me somewhat as a prediabetic whose BG Ha1c has now gone down to 37. I still occasionally get readings of over 6.5 - 7.0 2 hr post meals....and yet I am not even classed as prediabetic right at this moment in time. Should these kind of figures I have read in this thread alarm me? Should I be worried my hourly BG is much bigger than I think because I don't test it. Those figures don't sit well with me and it's all confusing me a bit seeing as though my BGs gone down. Why is this all so confusing!! ???

 

[sarah]

Andrew your replies have been very interesting and given me a lot of food for thought, so thanks for that.

Obviously some diabetics don't think it's worth testing after an hour and are happy with just a two-hour reading, whereas some of us are not. People have to find their own ways of managing their own condition. I personally would not be comfortable knowing just my two hour figure as I know that no matter what my one-hour peak, my two hours is at worst in the 6's, so if I just go by that, I can manage full sugar coke (for example) or a big slab of cake or pretty much anything that if I tested at one hour, I would know to avoid like the plague.

I probably don't have anything else to add to this thread but I remain firm in the conviction that "cured" isn't as straightforward as just getting a decent Hba1c a few times in a row and am not sure what purpose declaring yourself 'cured' makes anyway. If you have the propensity to get diabetic blood glucose numbers, even if you currently don't, then that's diabetic.

 

[sarah]

@SJC sorry if I have alarmed you. If you're happy with your numbers, that's the main thing.