• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Bread

Gaz, I think what the posters are saying is that they have managed to take things in hand and now they don't tend to go above 7.0
What we are saying is that you should try to reach this state It's a target and we IMHO the higher target is too high for avoiding complications. :D
 
Ive been told to cut out all the white stuff. All flour, breads, pasta, rice & potatoes etc. Also fruit and juices.
The reason being that if I dont, it will progress and get worse.

What I do, is that every now and again I will have a slice of bread or a croissant.
I eat low carb fruit in small quantities with yoghurt more often ie once daily.

I indulge, but I try hard not to make it part of my daily diet routine, except for the LC fruit.
 
Gaz
I personally would have apoplexy if my bg went NEAR 8.
However nearly all breads consist of a lot of refined carbohydrate, which rapidly turns to blood glucose. there are a few breads which are less quick to turn to sugar. Burgen soy and linseed is one often mentioned on this forum. You can buy several types from low carb suppliers on-line. There are recipes for low carb breads available too.
Hana
 
Indy51 said:
gaz1971 said:
Whats with everyone saying 'I never go above 7'? I thought the advised limit was 9 and for safety 8.5, now everyone is saying 7. :***: I would go over 7 if I ate a strawberry :lol:
Click to expand...
You might find this article of interest - Health Blood Sugar Targets by Jenny Ruhl:
http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14045621.php
Click to expand...

A very good informative little primer.... thanks for sharing. :thumbup: As a matter of fact I think it should be pinned but then it does give some rather stark information about what happens if you don't get your blood sugars under control.... From what I get from the leaders of this forum, the information may be to graphic for newbies in search of good information... :(

Kenny
 
Gaz, if 7.8 is the limit, then personally I do not want to push my BS to the allowable max. Frankly I prefer
the 4's I get when Im lucky and have stuck to the 'correct' foods , but generally I hang around the 5's FBS and spike to the
early 6's sometimes after a meal.

I have set a goal for my numbers. Admittedly I do slip up from time to time, but generally I try to stay well below the range of 7.8.

Take care!
 
Hey Virgo. Still new to the diabetic thing, with white bread the flour is refined and all the husk content removed hence normally that means glucose is absorbed too quickly. Wholemeal is better generally as this contains all the grain. My favourite is seeded batch softgrain otherwise could lose a tooth or two it seems to contain much more slow absorbtion carbs. I am not an expert at this an also different peoples BG can be affected many different ways.

All the best

Simon aka Cobra3164

Oh yesss must try that ice cream recipe :)
 
Hi Gaz, you could also read this http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/16422495.php for reference. It's what we really should be aiming to get as near to as possible.
Most normal people are under 100 mg/dl (5.5 mmol/L) two hours after eating.
Click to expand...

Have you tested longer than 2 hrs with the bread? If you are adding fats etc, you could be peaking later than 2 hrs.
 
Etty said:
Hi Gaz, you could also read this http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/16422495.php for reference. It's what we really should be aiming to get as near to as possible.
Most normal people are under 100 mg/dl (5.5 mmol/L) two hours after eating.
Click to expand...

Have you tested longer than 2 hrs with the bread? If you are adding fats etc, you could be peaking later than 2 hrs.
Click to expand...

Ive tested after 1hr and after 2hrs, so can see that its dropping from the 1hr reading, so havent tested again after that.
 
gaz1971 said:
Well if I read that right, 7.8 after 2 hrs is the recommended target, then Im within that by a mile.
Click to expand...

"Lower is Better
The 140 mg/dl (7.7 mmol/L) blood sugar target is a good start, but many of us find we feel better and get even more normal health if we shoot for truly normal blood sugars and keep our blood sugar under 120 mg/dl (6.7 mmol/L) at all times. If you can do it, go for it. Now that we know that heart attack risk rises significantly at A1cs in the mid 5% range, getting to true normal is that much more important. "

I took the above as the more relevant statement and not the 7.8 which is where the real damage begins according to the research referenced in this article...... While I know that some people just cannot meet these numbers and will need help, as long as I can keep mine at as low a level as possible, the better off I will be.

Kenny
 
KennyS said:
gaz1971 said:
Well if I read that right, 7.8 after 2 hrs is the recommended target, then Im within that by a mile.
Click to expand...

"Lower is Better
The 140 mg/dl (7.7 mmol/L) blood sugar target is a good start, but many of us find we feel better and get even more normal health if we shoot for truly normal blood sugars and keep our blood sugar under 120 mg/dl (6.7 mmol/L) at all times. If you can do it, go for it. Now that we know that heart attack risk rises significantly at A1cs in the mid 5% range, getting to true normal is that much more important. "

I took the above as the more relevant statement and not the 7.8 which is where the real damage begins according to the research referenced in this article...... While I know that some people just cannot meet these numbers and will need help, as long as I can keep mine at as low a level as possible, the better off I will be.

Kenny
Click to expand...

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:
 
I agree with GraceK on this, I think this new advice is not realistic. Medical advice on the Diabetes.co.uk says you should look to limit it to a max spike of 8.5 and be back to well below this after 2 hrs after a meal, then someone comes on here and says 'No, this research says 7.8' and now its 6.7, Im not surprised people are confused.

If this new research is reliable, why isnt it being given out as standard advice by GP's or diabetes clinics in this country? Is it reliable? There is research thats says smoking cannabis is good for you!
 
Probably a T2 thing but for me wholemeal bread is fine and has a relatively low GI. I have 2 slices for breakfast every day and i find it very good for control. Howeve ri guess as i am T1 i can cover this with insulin whereas a T2 prob isn't able to.

I think for T1s carbs are not the enenmy, it is how you manage them. I would say they should always be the basis of your meals but many many people will say they are evil. I just don't get where you can get fibre without some carb collateral too!
 
GraceK said:
KennyS said:
gaz1971 said:
Well if I read that right, 7.8 after 2 hrs is the recommended target, then Im within that by a mile.
Click to expand...

"Lower is Better
The 140 mg/dl (7.7 mmol/L) blood sugar target is a good start, but many of us find we feel better and get even more normal health if we shoot for truly normal blood sugars and keep our blood sugar under 120 mg/dl (6.7 mmol/L) at all times. If you can do it, go for it. Now that we know that heart attack risk rises significantly at A1cs in the mid 5% range, getting to true normal is that much more important. "

I took the above as the more relevant statement and not the 7.8 which is where the real damage begins according to the research referenced in this article...... While I know that some people just cannot meet these numbers and will need help, as long as I can keep mine at as low a level as possible, the better off I will be.

Kenny
Click to expand...

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:
Click to expand...


A lot depends on insulin response. In non-diabetics (I much prefer that term to "normal" - I'm a normal person who happens to have diabetes!) the First Insulin Response is triggered as soon as they start eating. I suppose they do sometimes go above 6.7 at first, if they are eating something very carby (remember that sugar is a carb, so I'm including sticky cakes, sugary drinks etc in the carbs), but the First response jumps on that and then the later response kicks in. Their BGs drop pretty quickly. In Blood Sugar 101, Jenny RUhl suggests that non-diabetics should be at 6.6mmol/l, 2 hours after eating.

With newly diagnosed Type 2s, we very often have an impaired First Insulin Response, as well as insulin resistance - so not only does the insulin we produce get going later in the eating process, but it can't do much with the blood glucose already there anyway, as the muscle cells won't let it in. So the BG remains high. Then we get more insulin produced in an effort to get rid of that nasty high BG, and end up with an exhausted pancreas. Meanwhile the excess glucose is stored in the fat cells.

In overweight Type 2s (remember, about 20% of us aren't overweight), weight loss lessens insulin resistance so the insulin can then work better. That is the genuine reason why our HCPs tell us to lose weight, even if some of them don't realise it :wink: . With less insulin resistance, we can handle more carbs. If we start eating too many carbs for our own individual metabolism to cope with, insulin resistance becomes a problem again, BGs go up and so does our weight :roll:

That's how I understand it from the point of view of an obese Type 2. If I've got anything wrong, I'm sure someone will come along and correct me. :D

Viv 8)
 
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:[/quote]


A lot depends on insulin response. In non-diabetics (I much prefer that term to "normal" - I'm a normal person who happens to have diabetes!) the First Insulin Response is triggered as soon as they start eating. I suppose they do sometimes go above 6.7 at first, if they are eating something very carby (remember that sugar is a carb, so I'm including sticky cakes, sugary drinks etc in the carbs), but the First response jumps on that and then the later response kicks in. Their BGs drop pretty quickly. In Blood Sugar 101, Jenny RUhl suggests that non-diabetics should be at 6.6mmol/l, 2 hours after eating.

With newly diagnosed Type 2s, we very often have an impaired First Insulin Response, as well as insulin resistance - so not only does the insulin we produce get going later in the eating process, but it can't do much with the blood glucose already there anyway, as the muscle cells won't let it in. So the BG remains high. Then we get more insulin produced in an effort to get rid of that nasty high BG, and end up with an exhausted pancreas. Meanwhile the excess glucose is stored in the fat cells.

In overweight Type 2s (remember, about 20% of us aren't overweight), weight loss lessens insulin resistance so the insulin can then work better. That is the genuine reason why our HCPs tell us to lose weight, even if some of them don't realise it :wink: . With less insulin resistance, we can handle more carbs. If we start eating too many carbs for our own individual metabolism to cope with, insulin resistance becomes a problem again, BGs go up and so does our weight :roll:

That's how I understand it from the point of view of an obese Type 2. If I've got anything wrong, I'm sure someone will come along and correct me. :D

Viv 8)[/quote]

OK Viv ... Bear with me please ... I think I'm getting the gist of this. Looking at your second paragraph above - and me being a recently diagnosed T2 who has been on Metformin and very low carbing for 3 months (no sticky buns, no cakes, no bread etc) and have only lost a few pounds in weight and ground to a halt. Could the reason I'm not losing as much weight as some people are, be the result of possible impaired First Insulin Response coupled with insulin resistance? I can't understand why I'm not losing weight like others on the LCHF because I've been really good and my 3 month HBA1C shows excellent control and as far as calories are concerned I know I'm not eating anywhere near what I ate before, yet still no shift in weight. :think:
 
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:
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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
 
Grace, insulin resistance definitely makes it much more difficult to lose weight, as does hypothyroidism - have you been tested for that?

As far as very low carb goes - do you know just how many grams of carb you are eating? No "hidden" carbs creeping in? We are all very different in our carb metabolism, and you may need to go very low indeed to get things moving again.

On the brighter side - have you honestly lost no weight at all? have you checked your measurements? how are your clothes fitting? It is possible to lose size without losing much weight as your body readjusts itself.

My personal experience - the first time on Atkins I lost nearly 6 stone, about 80lb in 20 months. I was not diabetic then. This time round I lost 60lb in 21 months, so a good bit slower, and I am going to reach this Christmas at pretty well exactly the same weight I was before last Christmas. Yes, I confess to too much red wine (which stops the weight loss in its tracks :oops: ) but I am also eating more carbs than at first - nearer 50g daily than 25g daily - because my pancreas seems to be able to cope with them. Quite possibly I still have insulin resistance, and I shall have to drop back down to 25g or less to get the weight loss started again.

So I've changed my mental outlook. This time I am not dieting for weight loss - I am eating to my meter. I am aiming for close to non-diabetic levels. Whatever happens to my weight, as long as my BGs (and BP and lipid profile) are okay, I'm eating correctly. I am trying not to fixate on my weight (been there, done that, got lots of T-shirts :roll: ), rather I'm looking at any weight loss as a pleasant side-effect of controlling my diabetes.

It isn't easy, unless you really like low-carbing. What also makes it more difficult for me is that instead of walking 25 miles a week with the Wolfhound, I now can hardly walk any distance at all and I can't afford to go to the gym to use the exercise bike - the only bit of kit I'm allowed on!

My aim at the moment is to reach Christmas a few pounds lighter than I was last year. Then I'll put at least seven of them on again :roll: , have a great time and a few treats while still keeping my BGs under control. In 2013 I'll aim to lose another 20lb of the 60lb I still have to go. (All I have to do is keep off the booze! :lol:. Then maybe I can afford the gym again :wink: ).

Try looking at it this way. What are you aiming for - excellent diabetic control or the figure of a catwalk model? Which is more important?

Have a hard look at your diet and see if there's any way you can tweak it. But in my opinion weight loss, though desirable, is nowhere near as important as diabetic control.

Hang on in there! :D

Viv 8)
 
Back
Top