• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2026 Survey »

Dr Bernstein on YouTube

Sometimes, his experiences can be scary ...

"I have seen “nondiabetics” with sustained blood sugars averaging 120 mg/dl develop diabetic complications." (120 is 6.67)

http://www.diabetes-book.com/nondiabetic-versus-diabetic/

All this goes to show you is that there's more to life than spending your entire time worrying about complications. I think it comes down to minimizing risk, rather than eliminating completely. We know that minimizing risk is keeping Hba1C levels below 6,5. No that won't eliminate completely, but you are much less likely to get them. You personally have to weight the risks off against each other.

One might also argue that complications aren't really "Diabetic Complications", they are simply issues that anyone could get, it's just that Diabetics are more likely to as a result of elevated blood glucose levels. Genetics will also play a large part in susceptibility. If your family already has a genetic predisposition to CVD, no amount of having a normal glucose level will eliminate it, just reduce the risk.

And even with his marvellous techniques, and approach, I don't see how it's possible to use any of the basal insulins and avoid dawn or getting up phenomenon. Low carbing helps, but doesn't eliminate it. Doing proper high intensity training is also not really that easy under his regime, as keeping your bg low can be really tough.

So while I applaud his excellent approach that has kept him going for so long, I struggle with it, because it doesn't always fit what I want to do, and if I'm going to live my life, I'd rather enjoy it than worry about it lasting forever. So I'll take the <6.5% relative risk over the 4.5% minimal risk.
 
My mistake, the better word is that "proper" should be "ideal", which is the title of the video. Ideal for him because non-diabetics he tested, in his experience, had 4.6.
Yes, you are absolutely right. In the book, he talks about trying to normalise Hba1c to the average for non-diabetics. (Then my doctor tried to tell me that was dangerous and I might have a heart attack. How more likely to have a heart attack could I be than a non-diabetic with exactly the same Hba1c. Another blow to my trust in the treatment)
 
Yes, you are absolutely right. In the book, he talks about trying to normalise Hba1c to the average for non-diabetics. (Then my doctor tried to tell me that was dangerous and I might have a heart attack. How more likely to have a heart attack could I be than a non-diabetic with exactly the same Hba1c. Another blow to my trust in the treatment)
Your doctor was referring to the ACCORD study that stopped part of its study programme as a result of too many people dying of heart attacks when undertaking intensive type 2 therapy with a target Hba1C of <6.5%.

It wasn't corroborated by a similar study at the time, the ADVANCE one, and there were questions asked about the predisposition to CVD amongst the participants and the impact of lowered glucose levels on them specifically.

It certainly raised many professional eyebrows and has affected the approach that is taken with T2 diabetes and tight blood glucose control. I suspect hat there may be a risk of increased coronary events with low blood glucose amongst those with higher risk of CVD, but there's not a lot of data to prove or disprove that theory.
 
Your doctor was referring to the ACCORD study that stopped part of its study programme as a result of too many people dying of heart attacks when undertaking intensive type 2 therapy with a target Hba1C of <6.5%.

It wasn't corroborated by a similar study at the time, the ADVANCE one, and there were questions asked about the predisposition to CVD amongst the participants and the impact of lowered glucose levels on them specifically.

It certainly raised many professional eyebrows and has affected the approach that is taken with T2 diabetes and tight blood glucose control. I suspect hat there may be a risk of increased coronary events with low blood glucose amongst those with higher risk of CVD, but there's not a lot of data to prove or disprove that theory.
Brilliant. Thank you so much. I think Jenny Rhule criticises the methods used in the study and also points out many patients had heart problems to start with, they did not follow LCFC, and some were on Avandia, later discovered to increase the risk of heart attacks.
And yes there may be other factors affecting risk such as raised LDL in diabetics.
 
All this goes to show you is that there's more to life than spending your entire time worrying about complications. I think it comes down to minimizing risk, rather than eliminating completely. We know that minimizing risk is keeping Hba1C levels below 6,5. No that won't eliminate completely, but you are much less likely to get them. You personally have to weight the risks off against each other.

One might also argue that complications aren't really "Diabetic Complications", they are simply issues that anyone could get, it's just that Diabetics are more likely to as a result of elevated blood glucose levels. Genetics will also play a large part in susceptibility. If your family already has a genetic predisposition to CVD, no amount of having a normal glucose level will eliminate it, just reduce the risk.

And even with his marvellous techniques, and approach, I don't see how it's possible to use any of the basal insulins and avoid dawn or getting up phenomenon. Low carbing helps, but doesn't eliminate it. Doing proper high intensity training is also not really that easy under his regime, as keeping your bg low can be really tough.

So while I applaud his excellent approach that has kept him going for so long, I struggle with it, because it doesn't always fit what I want to do, and if I'm going to live my life, I'd rather enjoy it than worry about it lasting forever. So I'll take the <6.5% relative risk over the 4.5% minimal risk.

Well, I got dizzy a couple of hours ago from hunger at work, had to regain strength with one chicken thigh. Anyway, what do you think of these NICE guidelines, safe upper ranges ? This was what I was using as a guide before I saw Dr. Bernstein's recommendation.

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes_care/blood-sugar-level-ranges.html
 
I aim for Bernstein blood sugar and HBA1C targets , don't always get there but am close. Never had a HBA1C of 4.6 % but will keep trying. Don't low carb anymore but can still achieve non-diabetic targets.

I liked this passage from an interview with the Dr on ADA......................

Now, why do they advocate elevated blood sugars where the A1C is 6.5 or 7? I’ve asked a number of the ADA presidents over the years. Not recently, because I haven’t been in touch with them recently. But back in the old days before I became a physician, I knew a lot of them, including my own physician. And he gave the same answers that the other presidents gave.

“If a diabetic goes blind, dies of congestive heart failure, dies of kidney disease, that’s to be expected. That goes with the disease. If a patient of mine dies of hypoglycemia, it’s my fault and I get sued. So, I’m going to keep my patients as far from hypoglycemia as I can.”
Now, if you have them on high carbohydrate diets, where the blood sugars can vary by plus or minus 150 in a day, you want to keep their blood sugars certainly above 250. And 200 is an A1C of 7.
 
I aim for Bernstein blood sugar and HBA1C targets , don't always get there but am close. Never had a HBA1C of 4.6 % but will keep trying. Don't low carb anymore but can still achieve non-diabetic targets.

I liked this passage from an interview with the Dr on ADA......................

Now, why do they advocate elevated blood sugars where the A1C is 6.5 or 7? I’ve asked a number of the ADA presidents over the years. Not recently, because I haven’t been in touch with them recently. But back in the old days before I became a physician, I knew a lot of them, including my own physician. And he gave the same answers that the other presidents gave.

“If a diabetic goes blind, dies of congestive heart failure, dies of kidney disease, that’s to be expected. That goes with the disease. If a patient of mine dies of hypoglycemia, it’s my fault and I get sued. So, I’m going to keep my patients as far from hypoglycemia as I can.”
Now, if you have them on high carbohydrate diets, where the blood sugars can vary by plus or minus 150 in a day, you want to keep their blood sugars certainly above 250. And 200 is an A1C of 7.
However in the UK, you don't get sued, so that's not a good argument out of the US (and coincidentally describes why health care in the US costs so much...)
 
I aim for Bernstein blood sugar and HBA1C targets , don't always get there but am close. Never had a HBA1C of 4.6 % but will keep trying. Don't low carb anymore but can still achieve non-diabetic targets.

I liked this passage from an interview with the Dr on ADA......................

Now, why do they advocate elevated blood sugars where the A1C is 6.5 or 7? I’ve asked a number of the ADA presidents over the years. Not recently, because I haven’t been in touch with them recently. But back in the old days before I became a physician, I knew a lot of them, including my own physician. And he gave the same answers that the other presidents gave.

“If a diabetic goes blind, dies of congestive heart failure, dies of kidney disease, that’s to be expected. That goes with the disease. If a patient of mine dies of hypoglycemia, it’s my fault and I get sued. So, I’m going to keep my patients as far from hypoglycemia as I can.”
Now, if you have them on high carbohydrate diets, where the blood sugars can vary by plus or minus 150 in a day, you want to keep their blood sugars certainly above 250. And 200 is an A1C of 7.
Thats telling it like it is
 
However in the UK, you don't get sued, so that's not a good argument out of the US (and coincidentally describes why health care in the US costs so much...)

I live in Germany who are also a bit 'sue happy', so there is another good argument 'out of the US'. UK and US appear to have similar BS guidelines, so who is copying who ?
 
I aim for Bernstein blood sugar and HBA1C targets , don't always get there but am close. Never had a HBA1C of 4.6 % but will keep trying. Don't low carb anymore but can still achieve non-diabetic targets.

[/I]

It's admirable that you can aim for such a target, and honestly I'd love to know how if you are not low carbing. But for me it wouldn't be possible. If I could clone my best days for glucose control and replicate them then I'd be comfortably in the 5.5% to 6% range. But for what I'd lose in terms of quality of life wouldn't be worth it.

Maybe the difference between 6.5% and 4.6% means I'm at risk of complications. But for all I know I could just be placing myself in a whole new risk category for some other non diabetic complication by having such a restricted diet and lifestyle.
 
But for what I'd lose in terms of quality of life wouldn't be worth it.

I don't understand what you would lose in terms of quality of life by having a lower HBA1C ? Do you mean the extra effort ?

and honestly I'd love to know how if you are not low carbing.

Daily exercise !
 
Well driving licence and hypo awareness symptoms would be two @Wurst,

Good point , I'm not aware of the HBA1C limits for a UK driving licence disqualification , what are they exactly?

In Germany you have to be over 5 mmol to drive which if averaged out would be ~ HBA1C of 4.8 % or 29 . I've yet to experience a problem with hypo awareness running in non-diabetic levels.
 
I don't understand what you would lose in terms of quality of life by having a lower HBA1C ? Do you mean the extra effort ?



Daily exercise !
I exercise most days and honestly my control would be much easier if I didn't!

Even if I could live under the strictest routine (and I don't want to) I'd still get different results on different days.

So my point is I can try to live a very controlled life with a strict routine, but I don't want to. And I'm not even sure how much better off if be.

Ultimately I guess everyone has to choose what level of risk they are willing to accept.
 
I live in Germany who are also a bit 'sue happy', so there is another good argument 'out of the US'. UK and US appear to have similar BS guidelines, so who is copying who ?
Honestly, why do we get so bothered about it? Sad to say it, but for the majority of people, Bernstein's approach isn't doable.

If you have discussions with various diabetes consultants around the UK, getting T1s to blood test more than twice a day is hard. Most of the people on the forum are motivated. Being motivated makes you likely to be one of the 30% in the UK with an Hba1C below 7.5%. If you are below 6.5% then you are one of 8.4%, with correspondingly smaller numbers at lower levels, and very few at Bernstein level.

That's 70% of UK T1 diabetics who struggle. What the guidelines are is a level at which long term studies showed created similar levels of risk compared to the normal population for suffering complications. More importantly, it presents achievable targets for by far the majority of people, without them suffering horrific fluctuations that also present risks.

As much as we might like to think that changing diet and the law of small numbers are great, we know they are not easy things to accomplish and require psychological help in many cases.

We shouldn't forget that in order to manage your diabetes well you have to be massively motivated and capable of managing the condition yourself. That's far more difficult than many people realise, and even more so when you start to look at trying to achieve Bernstein levels.
 
Good point , I'm not aware of the HBA1C limits for a UK driving licence disqualification , what are they exactly?

In Germany you have to be over 5 mmol to drive which if averaged out would be ~ HBA1C of 4.8 % or 29 . I've yet to experience a problem with hypo awareness running in non-diabetic levels.

Same in the UK, you have to be above 5mmol/l which would make it impossible to get a HbA1c of 4.6 as Bernstein would like.

Isn't Bernstein hypo unaware anyway, sure I read he was, I know of other people who have tried to get their HbA1c <5.0% and have lost their hypo awareness symptoms, if you lose them then your automatically disqualified from driving in the UK which is a heavy price to pay if you rely on a licence for work and recreational purposes.
 
Same in the UK, you have to be above 5mmol/l which would make it impossible to get a HbA1c of 4.6 as Bernstein would like.

Isn't Bernstein hypo unaware anyway, sure I read he was, I know of other people who have tried to get their HbA1c <5.0% and have lost their hypo awareness symptoms, if you lose them then your automatically disqualified from driving in the UK which is a heavy price to pay if you rely on a licence for work and recreational purposes.


I'm no mathematician but you would only need to be 5 mmol to drive not for an entire 2-3 months 24/7 , unless driving was your profession. If you were only driving 1 hour per day @ 5 mmol you could still hypothetically attain a 4.6 HbA1C. I was at 4.2 mmol for most of the weekend and perfectly happy.

I understand the argument for avoiding non-diabetic levels as it is not possible for everyone, nor am I saying I am right and others are wrong but while I can attain these levels I intend to continue :-)
 
I'm no mathematician but you would only need to be 5 mmol to drive not for an entire 2-3 months 24/7 , unless driving was your profession. If you were only driving 1 hour per day @ 5 mmol you could still hypothetically attain a 4.6 HbA1C. I was at 4.2 mmol for most of the weekend and perfectly happy.

I understand the argument for avoiding non-diabetic levels as it is not possible for everyone, nor am I saying I am right and others are wrong but while I can attain these levels I intend to continue :)

Not sure about the maths myself @Wurst, but one thing is for sure we all have to aim for levels that are realistic, achievable and doesn't impact too much on the quality of life.
 
And I might have failed to mention, it's nigh on impossible to get to Bernstein numbers without being Low Carb. The fluctuations that carbs induce just make it incredibly difficult.
 
Back
Top