Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Food and Nutrition
Low-carb Diet Forum
BG levels on a carnivore diet
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HSSS" data-source="post: 2627958" data-attributes="member: 480869"><p>And generalising with such a wide margin will put others at risk of excessive glucose levels that are entirely unnecessary. </p><p></p><p>The risks of exercise etc you list are there for non diabetics who don’t monitor at all as well as well managed ones, who probably have a better chance of catching anything going astray than someone not monitoring. </p><p></p><p>Who talked about setting hba1c goals in the 20’s? No one. And again the situation you describe pertains to non diabetics as much as well controlled ones not on hypoglycaemic medication.</p><p></p><p>And if on a carni diet then you are likely in ketosis in which case you will have the flexibility to use fats for energy and not run out the way you described previously.</p><p></p><p>Damage chances increase significantly at 6.8mmol. Not that it <em>starts</em> there or doesn’t happen earlier in some cases. Personally I’d like to minimise the risks, so long as I don’t create bigger ones in the process.</p><p></p><p>You seem to be conflating genuinely good control with erratic control consisting of highs and hypos resulting in a similar hba1c. They are very different things. You are entirely correct if hypos are a significant part of the situation and extremely over cautious if they aren’t. Education and awareness of the differences is key. It’s also difficult when talking back and forth about both insulin use (and other hypo drugs) and with those not on such medications without being specific for each statement/claim which group you are referring to. The risks are quite different. </p><p></p><p>NB re the emcrit study - have you got that the right way round? If mortality was lower in the 4.4- 5.6mmol group I’d say that is a demonstration that tight control like this is a good thing. If it actually meant to say like the NICE sugar study looser control is better then I suspect it is worth considering HOW the hba1c was arrived at - with or without hypos</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HSSS, post: 2627958, member: 480869"] And generalising with such a wide margin will put others at risk of excessive glucose levels that are entirely unnecessary. The risks of exercise etc you list are there for non diabetics who don’t monitor at all as well as well managed ones, who probably have a better chance of catching anything going astray than someone not monitoring. Who talked about setting hba1c goals in the 20’s? No one. And again the situation you describe pertains to non diabetics as much as well controlled ones not on hypoglycaemic medication. And if on a carni diet then you are likely in ketosis in which case you will have the flexibility to use fats for energy and not run out the way you described previously. Damage chances increase significantly at 6.8mmol. Not that it [I]starts[/I] there or doesn’t happen earlier in some cases. Personally I’d like to minimise the risks, so long as I don’t create bigger ones in the process. You seem to be conflating genuinely good control with erratic control consisting of highs and hypos resulting in a similar hba1c. They are very different things. You are entirely correct if hypos are a significant part of the situation and extremely over cautious if they aren’t. Education and awareness of the differences is key. It’s also difficult when talking back and forth about both insulin use (and other hypo drugs) and with those not on such medications without being specific for each statement/claim which group you are referring to. The risks are quite different. NB re the emcrit study - have you got that the right way round? If mortality was lower in the 4.4- 5.6mmol group I’d say that is a demonstration that tight control like this is a good thing. If it actually meant to say like the NICE sugar study looser control is better then I suspect it is worth considering HOW the hba1c was arrived at - with or without hypos [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Food and Nutrition
Low-carb Diet Forum
BG levels on a carnivore diet
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…