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

GFR reading was lowing during switch over to keto diet

wiserkurtious

Well-Known Member
Messages
368
Location
hull
Type of diabetes
Type 1
Treatment type
Insulin
Dislikes
diabetes :P having to eat food in moderation
So I' type 1 of over a 1 year now and currently on the,so called honey moon period no insulin just diet controlled atm,I have been on a keto/low carb diet for over a month now.3 days into my keto i had my diabetes check up,you know the drill bloods and all so after 2 day later rang up and they said my kidney funtion was low me like,***!!!!!!!! so went in to speak to my nurse and she said my gfr was 49,well didn t really know what that meant until i got home thats were dr google came in!!! this would possibly mean I had kidney disease I was thinking to myself,ya always have to think the worst with dr google right ,my hbalc have all been under 6.1 and only had diabetes for over a year now please give me a break!!!on top of all this I have to go for more test on my eyes because they've possibly spotted changes to the retina buts that another story right there.So anyways the nurse ordered me to go in a week later which was tuesday and get bloods repeated just rang this morning and they've come back as normal,phew!!!!! I'm trying my hardest please diabetes cut me some slack ok all the best to every1 who reads this and ty,peace.
 
Hey @wiserkurtious
that would freak anybody getting unexpected results like that.
glad you went back for a retest and got a normal .............
all the best !!
 
I'd take that as a lab error over anything else @wiserkurtious on the GFR.

What's your glycaemic variability been like whilst you haven't been taking any insulin? That's more likely to be a driver of retinal changes, so worth bearing in mind.
 
tim2000s said:
I'd take that as a lab error over anything else @wiserkurtious on the GFR.

What's your glycaemic variability been like whilst you haven't been taking any insulin? That's more likely to be a driver of retinal changes, so worth bearing in mind.
Click to expand...

rarely in double figures,since diagnosis probably been in double figures 10 times maybe,11 been the highest.I was thinking maybe due to having meal and then exercising straight after maybe the problem but ya,won t know the extent until i ve been seen
 
ya pretty good tbh,bit shocked with the news regarding my eyes but we ll see.
 
The other question is blood pressure. As a T1, it's not only glucose levels, but also blood pressure that comes into play. How's yours?
 
Not to derail this thread but...

When I get my eGFR, it only ever says >60. I assume the Dr will have the actual value, which I know is over 100 (exact value I'm not sure of though). I have access to my results through Scotland's "My Diabetes My Way" programme, but as I've said - merely states >60.

If any others here have access to their results, do you have an absolute figure or just a "greater than 60"?
 
I ask when I'm there with the nurse or doctor
 
GFR or eGFR are both an estimatiom based on 'none of the above' in other words, lack of other markers. It is a bit like the normal LDL value which is also estimated, not measured. So it is only a pointer, not an absolute.
 
Oldvatr said:
GFR or eGFR are both an estimatiom based on 'none of the above' in other words, lack of other markers. It is a bit like the normal LDL value which is also estimated, not measured. So it is only a pointer, not an absolute.
Click to expand...
Absolute was a poor word choice then
 
My eGFR is always given as a real estimated value, rather than a > value. Typically mid-nineties and has been for years.
 
The >60 is old hat these days. It has changed to >90 as being normal. Goalposts have moved.

It is almost always an estimate and will be recorded as EGFR if so. Yesterday I had mine done and it was recorded as GFR (calculated) so do be careful to distinguish between the 2. Anything under 90 will be written as a figure.

When being estimated or calculated, the calculation includes a lot of different factors including sex and age. The older you are the lower the estimate or calculation will be. Presumably because it is expected that things wear out the older we get. One size fits all.
 
Unfortunately NHS Scotland still appear to be using a threshold of >60ml/min. I will write to them now and see if it's something that they are aware of.

It's not really a big deal, as I'm sure if there were a downward trend with my eGFR - that I'd be made aware by my diabetes team. But it makes no sense using >60ml/min, considering that between 60-90 has two stages of kidney damage...

https://www.kidney.org/atoz/content/gfr
 

Attachments

  • eGFR.jpg
    210.7 KB · Views: 291

Don't forget that the GFR is only one marker and needs to be accompanied by other markers for kidney disease. One of these is Albumin in the urine taken from your first splash in the morning. A high level of albumin is a marker.
 
noblehead said:
Likewise Grant, on my notes it just says >90 (no actual figure).
Click to expand...
I contacted "My Diabetes My Way". It was tough trying to say what I needed to in 250 characters without any special ones such as ">"... Jesus that was hard, there wasn't even enough characters for me to rip right into their horrendous "contact us" form
 
Sorry its abit late but my gfr came back has normal,phew and thnx for all ya comments
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…