GraceK said:
I'm confused ... when you say 'keep our blood sugar under 6.7mmol/L at all times' ... does that also include straight after meals. Isn't it normal for BS to rise after eating and then return to normal within 2 hrs? :? :think:
This link explains non diabetic blood glucose and what is seen across the averages of fasting and postprandial.
http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/16422495.php
Excerpt from the article: "The main findings here, for those of you who don't have the high speed Internet connection needed to listen to this presentation, are that in normal people the fasting blood glucose stays flat in the low 80 mg/dl (4.4 mmol/L) range throughout the night. After a high carb meal, normal people's blood sugar rises to about 125 mg/dl for a brief period, with the peak blood sugar being measured at 45 minutes after eating and then drops back under 100 mg/dl."
gaz1971 said:
If this new research is reliable, why isnt it being given out as standard advice by GP's or diabetes clinics in this country?
Before I start I want to say that each of us approach our diagnosis in different ways. We have different belief systems, different expectations of both medicine and ourselves and arrive at our beliefs following different paths of knowledge, so while I may not see the situation the same as you, I respect your right to conduct your life in line with your beliefs and try to understand your position based on the information you provide.
You asked "If this new research is reliable, why isn't it being given out as standard advice by GP's or diabetes clinics in this country?"
The short answer is money. First of all the NHS does not do its own pure research. Its not its mandate nor is it funded for research. It may participate in clinical studies but as a health organization it must get its medical advise from acknowledged research. This is a problem in two ways. One is, who does the research and more importantly who owns the research that gets published. I will try to demonstrate my cynicism in current medical practice. For brevity, I will use links to articles rather than try to explain it all myself. I did not arrive at my conclusions lightly and what I present here is just an overview of why I think the way I do. It does not include my feelings about nutrition and the misguided approach that leads us to the acceptance of our 'Modern Western Diet'... also known in the US as 'SAD' (Standard American Diet). That is another complete subject.
I include in this discussion some information about cholesterol. This is important because the way cholesterol is viewed has profound effects on recent clinical studies with respect to cholesterol control and the knock-on effect in a major glucose control study.
A brief history from Anitschkow forward.
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.co.u ... abbit.html
Obviously testing cholesterol on an oblique vegetarian animal does not make for good research anymore than feeding a cat corn on the cob all the time....
Follow on and the six nation studies.
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.co.u ... udies.html
Several countries that contradicted the conclusions of this test were omitted from the conclusion....
Recent Study on red meat consumption
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press- ... ality.html
Completely lost in the media hype of this study was the part about the quantities involved. The increased disease risk was seen in people who ate two or more servings of red meat every single day. That’s a lot of beef! Researchers found no increased risk in people who ate red meat two or three times a week.
The reason that I talk about the connection of cholesterol with our topic of blood sugar is that one of the most recent studies into Glucose control and widely used in criticism of lower blood glucose maintenance is the ACCORD study. While run to double blind standards it attempted to see if tight blood sugar control was good or bad The flaw in the test was that it also attempted aggressive control of both blood pressure and cholesterol levels along side its control of glucose. The problem here is that because of the cholesterol red-herring, total fat intake was limited to 30%. While educated in the use of self monitoring and how to use the result, in order for a person to control the speed of weight loss or maintain weight at a prescribed level, the required extra calories would have to come from carbohydrates which made it impossible for subjects to control without medicine intervention. The Accord study mentioned carbohydrates 6 times in its study and while it suggested reduced carbs, it was impossible to control blood sugar levels with the fat restriction without the use of drugs. So the study was called off when the group that was aggressively controlling their blood sugar started dying at a rate much faster than the control... While the study said that they could not attribute the deaths to any drug, a drug Avandia has been singled out post test as a likely suspect for the increase in deaths and not the attempt to tightly control blood sugars.
http://diabetesupdate.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... xcess.html
Finally I give you a short video from a TED convention by Ben Goldacre about why doctors sometimes don't get the most relevant information.
http://www.badscience.net/2012/10/i-did ... uite-fast/
As I said.... this is just my opinion. Its not an attempt to scare or advise but just an explanation of why I attempt to control my BG to as low a level as I can and without medication if possible. I have learned from a study of x-syndrome or 'medical syndrome' that the blind faith I have put in the medical profession previously is not completely warranted.... Had the original studies of x-syndrome been paid attention to many years ago, a lot of people would have the information they needed to be a lot healthier however a lot of people would have lost their jobs.
Kenny