Thanks B. I understand you can not manage your BG levels with diet alone unless you manage your IR first or there is something that i am not quite getting here? hyperinsulinemia and IR over time is the reason you get the full blow D2 anyway. Most attribute it to your visceral fats and keeping your waistline under 70-80 cm (30 inch) often helps. I would agree that treating blood sugar should not be the main goal, rather treating IR and hyperinsulinemia should be. I would think that keeping your BGs in normal range with the use of insulin or ISAs etc would be dangerous because then you may be leaving IR uncontrolled. What's your point exactly?@zamalik
another subject that you may find as useful and interesting as bg levels, is insulin resistance (IR) and its knock on effect, over time.
There are a whole raft of complications that arise from IR, including heart disease and strokes, cholesterol dysregulation and high blood pressure. Classic ‘metabolic syndrome’.
https://www.dietdoctor.com/cardiovascular-disease-missed-elephant-room
Personally, as someone with bg under reasonable control using diet, I have more concerns about IR causing complications than bg causing complications.
Not sure the waistline thing is accurate, for one thing 30" waist for a taller man is quite possibly too thin. Some reports dependent on your sex, Below 37" for men and 31.5" for women:Thanks B. I understand you can not manage your BG levels with diet alone unless you manage your IR first or there is something that i am not quite getting here? hyperinsulinemia and IR over time is the reason you get the full blow D2 anyway. Most attribute it to your visceral fats and keeping your waistline under 70-80 cm (30 inch) often helps. I would agree that treating blood sugar should not be the main goal, rather treating IR and hyperinsulinemia should be. I would think that keeping your BGs in normal range with the use of insulin or ISAs etc would be dangerous because then you may be leaving IR uncontrolled. What's your point exactly?
Thanks B. I understand you can not manage your BG levels with diet alone unless you manage your IR first or there is something that i am not quite getting here? hyperinsulinemia and IR over time is the reason you get the full blow D2 anyway. Most attribute it to your visceral fats and keeping your waistline under 70-80 cm (30 inch) often helps. I would agree that treating blood sugar should not be the main goal, rather treating IR and hyperinsulinemia should be. I would think that keeping your BGs in normal range with the use of insulin or ISAs etc would be dangerous because then you may be leaving IR uncontrolled. What's your point exactly?
I seem to remember that the waistline measurement thing varies with ethnicity.Not sure the waistline thing is accurate, for one thing 30" waist for a taller man is quite possibly too thin. Some reports dependent on your sex, Below 37" for men and 31.5" for women:
https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/lifestyle/why-is-my-waist-size-important/
Other ways to try and calculate without expensive scanning machines:
https://www.bhf.org.uk/informations...nutrition/weight/best-way-to-measure-body-fat
I didn't spend a huge amount of time looking into it to be fair bit believe that's true. I know BMI is a bit of a blunt tool but it does take ethnicity into account and gives lower thresholdsI seem to remember that the waistline measurement thing varies with ethnicity.
@Andydragon @Mr_Pot This link is interesting on the pros and cons of BMI and discusses (briefly) some alternatives.I didn't spend a huge amount of time looking into it to be fair bit believe that's true. I know BMI is a bit of a blunt tool but it does take ethnicity into account and gives lower thresholds
If you look at Protein Power book by Dr. Michael, he has given a good formula to calculate your lean body mass, BMI and protein requirements based on your wrist to height measurement (for men) and hip to waist measurement in women, which makes perfect sense.I seem to remember that the waistline measurement thing varies with ethnicity.
You've doubtless heard the statistic that only 15% of the US adult population DOESN'T have hypertension, abdominal obesity, low hdl/high trig ratio, high blood glucose levels i.e. metabolic disease. Depending on whichever way you look at it this is a health time bomb or an ongoing sales opportunity for the medical/pharma comlex.Excellent point and i totally agree and have done a lot of reading and listening on that. I just didnt want to mix that topic in this one. This was mainly to focus on BGs and complications. I plan to do a detailed post on hyperinsulinemia as the root cause to prevent or cure diabetes. I am of the view that every person should be checked for his/her insulin levels as part of yearly medical exam to stop the process of metabolic disorder. Since i have discovered and learnt all this, i have checked BGs of lot of family/friends and several of them were clearly on their path to metabolic disorder (my estimates from their readings) and was able to convince them on reducing their carbs
I believe that preventing/reducing insulin resistance is massively important for everyone's health as it seems very implicated in inflammatory responses - not just triggering/worsening diabetes, but CVD, Alzheimer's, possibly cancers.My point is that for T2s, the risks arising from IR are greater than the risks from raised blood glucose, and should be considered a higher priority.
With the additional benefit that reducing IR will have a knock on effect to reduce bgs and deal with that problem too. So go for the root cause, not the symptom.
Any clue to what it means?
Ok my statistics is rusty and never that good, so can't give an informed opinion on the validity of this paper. But it is based on a large population study of adult Danes (all white Caucasians). The authors are suggesting that increased risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, peripheral arterial disease, peripheral neuropathy and particularly retinopathy, all occur as blood glucose levels increase above low normal levels ( > 4.0 mmol, 72 mg) , so such increased risk is present even at so-called normal and pre-diabetic BG levels. They attempt to show that this risk is incrementally CAUSED by higher BG levels, not just coincidental to these BG levels.Any clue to what it means?
Ok my statistics is rusty and never that good, so can't give an informed opinion on the validity of this paper. But it is based on a large population study of adult Danes (all white Caucasians). The authors are suggesting that increased risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, peripheral arterial disease, peripheral neuropathy and particularly retinopathy, all occur as blood glucose levels increase above low normal levels ( > 4.0 mmol, 72 mg) , so such increased risk is present even at so-called normal and pre-diabetic BG levels. They attempt to show that this risk is incrementally CAUSED by higher BG levels, not just coincidental to these BG levels.
Therefore they are suggesting that it makes sense to do intensive risk screening for retinopathy, CVD, MI, stroke, neuropathy, etc even in so -called pre-diabetic patients. My takeaway is that keeping BGs and HBAC1s as low as possible is critical for susceptibility to these serious health conditions - the various health care boundaries are just"arbitrary" guidelines. But very hard to do in practice in the context of most Western & Asian carb intensive diets.
Big limitation of this study is that it only considers white North Europeans - relevance for other ethnic groups is completely unknown. Still some food for thought?
Thanks for sharing. Interesting and easier to interpret than the Danish study I quoted above.Thanks for you input. Yes i read a couple of studies where they say the risk of cardiovascular diseases increase as you start going above 83 mg/dl and there were other potential risks below that number to, like a U-shaped relationship. And yes these are all guidelines, so best is to keep your insulin as low as possible with BGs under control as well.
Just found this study which probably answers your questions as its on different ethnicities and deals with pre-diabetic ranges and study lengths are several years.
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2297
You do find some good studies, always a good read
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?