HbA1c and the Insulin Fairies

xyzzy

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,950
Type of diabetes
Other
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
Undeserving authority figures of all kinds and idiots.
Quite like this one and thought it might deserve its own thread. I will delete if someone tells me what I am aiming to explain is horribly wrong. It's my way of trying to show borofergie (and anyone else) that real testing with a meter each day can be more important than an HbA1c result

In the existing thread starting from here http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=26841&start=39 you will find some additional stuff including some simple maths to show how the story below works in real life... ish

What follows is not supposed to be biologically accurate btw but in some ways I wish it was :)

===================================================================================

Ok borofergie it worries me that someone as obviously up on this as you doesn't get the HbA1c thing. So here's a story for your delectation (and anyone else) who wants to see why HbA1c is not all that good as a safety predictor. This way uses no maths at all.

You need to enter imagination land to do this and in my imagination it gets pretty gruesome so you have been warned!

Think of your blood, now zoom in to where you can see individual blood cells swimming about. If you're like me you end up with a mental image of lots of little red blobs moving around.

Now lets impose a personality on each blob. Make each blob a little spiky devil monster with big teeth and evil glowing eyes.

Now each monster can be in two states. Asleep or awake.

When they are asleep all is well, when they wake up then depending on how woken up they are they will progressively become angrier and angrier and psychotically and berserkly go around your body attacking the blood cells in the backs of your eyes cos they want to blind you or attack your feet to try and make them drop off or attack things called your beta cells which make their arch nemesis the insulin fairies.

First important thing to notice.

The insulin fairies are just that little fairies but they carry big hammers that they use to whack the evil awake blood cells with to put them back to sleep.

Second important thing to notice.

The blood cell devils are woken up by glucose which is coming from what you eat. The glucose ISN'T in liquid form so it can't be absorbed by all the devils just bathing in it. Its found in little sugar cubes so each blood devil has to be able to grab one to wake itself up. If it can grab two, or three or more GREAT it becomes more awake and more evil but it has to be able to grab at least one to wake up.

Third important thing to notice.

If I restrict what I eat I can control how many blood cell devils will wake up because if I'm good there won't be enough sugar cubes for all the cell monsters so only SOME will be able to wake up.

Fourth thing you notice.

Like most other living things the evil demonic blood cells have a life span. Each one lives for exactly 90 days and whenever any individual one shifts its mortal coil because of old age its instantly replaced by a new ASLEEP one so the total number of monsters stays the same each day and importantly if nothing is done to wake them up the proportion of AWAKE devils will fall each day because the new ones are always born ASLEEP.

Fifth thing you notice

Once they've been woken up the little b*****s stay awake. They can never be put make to sleep UNLESS an insulin fairy hits them with a hammer or they die when their 90 days is up.

So starting to bring it all together.

Imagine two weird people. They both only eat at one time each day. One just eats cheese which contains only a tiny number of sugar cubes, the other eats curry sauce and chips which contains loads.

Both have the same number of insulin fairies.

In both people just before they eat they number of awake blood devils is roughly the same.

In the person who eats cheese in the hour just after they eat the number of blood cell monsters awake and doing damage keeps roughly the same. The number does not spike.

In the other person its different in the hour afterwards LOTS of monsters are woken up career around his body ripping this and that eyeball blood vessel to shreds, hacking away at his feet and especially like tracking down and horribly mutilating, torturing and then finally gorging on the beta cells that make the insulin fairies as they are their favourite thing to eat.

Everyday during that hour the insulin fairies mount a valiant defence and hammer as many of the little blighter's they can find but ON AVERAGE each day just a few and ONLY A FEW blood devils escape and keep awake. They manage to stay awake until they day when their time is up and they die.

So because blood devils that reach 90 days and die are always replaced by ones that are ASLEEP and because the person eats the same curry sauce and chips each day THE AVERAGE number of AWAKE blood devils is the same on each of the 90 days. There are a FEW more AWAKE in our curry guzzling friend but not very many more than his cheese eating partner.

BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE ISN'T THERE. Our cheese eating friend never gets attacked for the one hour each day and his eyeball blood vessels and feet and beta cells remain intact.

Now both people go to their doctors who take the sample of blood monsters that gets sent to the lab. The lab results come back.

The GP says to the Cheese eater. Well done Mr Cheese you have over the last 90 days on AVERAGE very little blood monster activity your score is 5.4%, keep it up you fine fellow.

The GP says to the Curry sauce eater and chips eater. Well done Mr Sauce you have over the last 90 days on AVERAGE very little blood monster activity your score is 5.5%, keep it up you fine fellow.

Here endith the imagination of xyzzy.

Hope that clears it up for you
 

Yvonne8

Active Member
Messages
26
Get what you are saying but think you may have too much time on your hands and obviously you've been eating way too much cheese!
 

phoenix

Expert
Messages
5,671
Type of diabetes
Type 1
Treatment type
Pump
just a fairy story?
Intuitively I would agree that damage is being caused by those spikes but the matter is hotly debated by researchers.

The role of glycemic variability in the
pathogenesis of vascular complications
is still not clear from the available data
On the one hand there is no data to suggest that it matters a jot whether the HbA1c was gained through a flat line or a bumpy sequence of peaks and troughs. Post hoc analysis of available data from the DCCT suggests that it doesn't matter.(In T1)
On the other hand there are studies that show oxidative stress is highest when glucose levels peaks... and this is thought to be a culprit.
If you want to research this further here are a few starters but be warned I once started with the idea of writing a blog post about it and 3 years later still haven't attempted to write it .
Glycemic variability: a debate still not settled
http://www.internationaldiabetesmonitor ... Fs/836.pdf
Glucose variability debate, halfway through paper.
http://www.diabetes.procampus.net/cours ... _Nov07.pdf
Postprandial Hyperglycemia and Glycemic Variability Should we care?
(this last looks at recent T2 evidence)
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/conten ... 0.full.pdf

Personally as someone who can have occasional very high (and very low) readings... I have a a horrible 'bug' at the moment which makes control a bit unpredictable . I take comfort in the fact the long term evidence in T1 (so far) seems to show that it's the overall 'average' that matters and not the way that HbA1c is achieved.
 

xyzzy

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,950
Type of diabetes
Other
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
Undeserving authority figures of all kinds and idiots.
phoenix said:
just a fairy story?
Intuitively I would agree that damage is being caused by those spikes but the matter is hotly debated by researchers.

Yes it's a fairy story...

but as I've just written in the other thread I think the way people eat during the day has a lot to do with it.

All my opinion but...

If you balance your carb intake across the day so that you "spike" moderately at each meal then I would say HbA1c is a fine and valid number as you are measuring your average BG's against the test sample of other peoples average BG's that were used to work out the HbA1c regression analysis model.

If however you are like me and weight most of you carb intake in your main meal then you will be "low" for the vast majority of the day and any potential dangerously high spike can get through without it becoming apparent in your HbA1c. That's just the way the maths will work out.

For hBA1c to be really accurate you need to be comparing like with like i.e. I would need to behave near enough like the average of all the people they used to work out the HbA1c model. If you don't behave like the average eater of carbs and remember the NHS says eat carbs at every meal then you are not measuring like with like and although hBA1c will still give you an accurate good / bad score it will potentially miss or mask dangerous spikes.

If research says its unclear if those spikes are actually dangerous then I would err on the side of caution and try to avoid them.

The original thread actually started out as a "you need to test after eating your main meal" not that HbA1c was not good.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
xyzzy said:
If however you are like me and weight most of you carb intake in your main meal

Just an aside, but isn't this what you're saying does the damage? Is this out of practicality?

I do much the same, in that my heavier meal is Breakfast (Porridge - 26g) whereas lunch can be almost none and I have more time to be creative at supper and go lower-carb.

To reduce spikes the obvious answer would be to low carb and graze rather than eating set meals, but that's not very sociable or practical.
 

xyzzy

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,950
Type of diabetes
Other
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
Undeserving authority figures of all kinds and idiots.
swimmer2 said:
Just an aside, but isn't this what you're saying does the damage? Is this out of practicality?
No it does me no damage because my main meal is normally sub 50g carbs so pre meal I'm normally around 4.8 at +2 I'm less than 6.5 so the spike never hits the "blood monster switch on level" which most reckon is more than 7.8. At 6.5 and less I am no worse that 19 out of 20 non diabetics, wouldn't mind dropping that max to 5.5 then it would be 3 out 4 non diabetics.

swimmer2 said:
To reduce spikes the obvious answer would be to low carb and graze rather than eating set meals, but that's not very sociable or practical.

That's exactly the approach I took over the Christmas period. Putting aside Christmas dinner as a massive carb fest then I found I could keep relatively good control and eat Christmas treats like the occasional small sausage roll, mince pie etc. by grazing on at most two of them in any two hour period pretty much continually on and off over a number of days. Still have to be strict though with no extra carbs as main meals and it was actually at a time I was bringing by BG's under control so at the time they were normally in the 7 to 9 range not the 4.5 to 6.5 they are now.

The weird one I can never explain is

Eat 150g (15g carb) fresh fruit salad with nothing else BG's rise but not dangerously.

Eat 150g (15g carb) fresh fruit salad with a 35 - 50g main meal has no effect on final 2 hour BG reading.
 
C

catherinecherub

Guest
An answer to the "weird one" at the bottom of your post is probably that when you combine the fruit with your main meal, the overall G.I. of the meal, including the fruit, is probably quite low and your blood sugars will not spike.
Eat the fruit salad on it's own with various G.I.'s for individual fruits and nothing to combine it with to lower it, and the spike will be more pronounced.
 

xyzzy

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,950
Type of diabetes
Other
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
Undeserving authority figures of all kinds and idiots.
Another way of putting across the same thing:

If you're a person who balances out carb intake so your BG's say roughly work out at around 6.5 across the day then lets show this and make each :shock: mean 6.5.

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

then your average is 6.5 and if you did that for 90 days your blood that went for your HbA1c would also be a based against a BG averaging a :shock: (6.5)

compare that to

:) :) :) :) :) :twisted:

where :) means 5.0 and the :twisted: a massive 14

the average is still 6.5 and if you did that for 90 days your blood that went for your HbA1c would average as a :shock: (6.5)

so you would get the same hBA1c but in the second case for each of those 90 days you had a :twisted: in your blood stream.

BUT the second case is only arising because you are weighting all your carb intake in one meal. What you need to aim for if you do this kind of carb weighting in my opinion is

:) :) :) :) :) :shock:

each day. Your HbA1c will be roughly the same but on each of the 90 days the max is a :shock: not a :twisted:
 

xyzzy

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,950
Type of diabetes
Other
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
Undeserving authority figures of all kinds and idiots.
catherinecherub said:
An answer to the "weird one" at the bottom of your post is probably that when you combine the fruit with your main meal, the overall G.I. of the meal, including the fruit, is probably quite low and your blood sugars will not spike.
Eat the fruit salad on it's own with various G.I.'s for individual fruits and nothing to combine it with to lower it, and the spike will be more pronounced.

So that's all to do with averages as well but this time on G.I values and not BG's

Thank you Catherine :wave:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I was going to ask this question in a new post, but it fits quite well in here.

So I have been eating an occasional piece of very dark chocolate (Lindt 90%). I noticed that 2 squares of it has no noticable effect on my +2hr reading. But yesterday I tested 15 minutes afterwards and my level had jumped by +0.4 and at 30 minutes it was at +0.1 .
So even very dark chocolate does cause a spike, but it's so fast that it doesn't show in my +1hr or +2hr tests. This is presumably because it's very high GI even if the carb count is low. So it's probably not good for me. :(
 

Sirzy

Well-Known Member
Messages
266
Type of diabetes
Other
Treatment type
Insulin
Hi Swimmer,

+0.4 doesn't seem like a particularly large increase in bg.

I often have a couple of squares of Lindt and tend to increase by a similar amount. I suppose it depends how low your bg is before you have the choc.
 

slimtony

Well-Known Member
Messages
107
You need to keep in mind meter error when you're dealing with changes as small as 0.4 and 0.1 mmol/l.
That kind of fluctuation is within the excepted margins of most meters. Add to this the variation you'll see between particular fingers/sample sites as well as any contamination from sweat, handwashes, jam, etc. :problem:

And I certainly don't plan to give up Lindt 90% anytime soon. Not when it's 14g carb (7g sugar) for the WHOLE BAR. :shock: :thumbup:
 

Pneu

Well-Known Member
Messages
689
swimmer2 said:
I was going to ask this question in a new post, but it fits quite well in here.

So I have been eating an occasional piece of very dark chocolate (Lindt 90%). I noticed that 2 squares of it has no noticable effect on my +2hr reading. But yesterday I tested 15 minutes afterwards and my level had jumped by +0.4 and at 30 minutes it was at +0.1 .
So even very dark chocolate does cause a spike, but it's so fast that it doesn't show in my +1hr or +2hr tests. This is presumably because it's very high GI even if the carb count is low. So it's probably not good for me. :(

Swimmer,

Given most metre can vary by around 0.5 - 1.0 mmol/l in accuracy on the same sample I would suggest that actually your first reading and 2 subsequent were all the 'same'. As a type I when I look to balance my fasting level against my bolus insulin I accept up to 0.5 mmol/l movement either way over the course of a 0 - 5 hour period as just the metre variance.

So readings of say 4.6, 4.8, 4.7, 5.1, 4.7 etc.. I would consider to be 'stable' blood glucose..

Chocolate takes around 1/2 - 3/4 hour to hit the blood stream and is actually comparably slow say to glucose tablets that will take effect within 10 mins.. that's why its no longer used as a treatment for hypo's because it can't keep up with modern insulins..
 

Pneu

Well-Known Member
Messages
689
Reference the OP... as Phoenix points out the debate over HbA1c's and the relation to the stability of blood glucose is a hot topic...

My personal opinion would be that stable blood glucose more closely replicate those of 'healthy' individuals and thus if you can avoid spiking over 7.8 mmol/l then all the better. Certainly in insulin controlled diabetics a stable blood glucose history and slightly higher HbA1c is preferable to a lower HbA1c that contains numerous hypo's... which present dangers in themselves..
 

borofergie

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,169
Type of diabetes
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
Racism, Sexism, Homophobia
xyzzy, I think we're disagreeing over the definition of a "spike".

When I talk about a spike - I mean a disturbance from your fasting level. If you even eat a single mouthfull of carbohydrate then you get a small "spike" that pushes your BG away from it's pre-meal (fasting) level. This is true for diabetics and non-diabetics, only our "spikes" tend to be bigger and last for longer.

As far as I am concerned, the amplitude and duration of these spikes is what causes your HbA1c and your average BG to rise.

(Ignoring liver dumps and protein being metabolized into glucose, both of which are secondary in T2s) these carb induced spikes are the only thing that makes your BG rise. If I didn't eat any carbs (and I'm trying not to right now), then my BG would never move very far from it's fasting level.

The accumulated area under all of your spikes contributes to both your HbA1c and your average BG.

Bigger longer (diabetic) spikes contribute more than small-shorter (non-diabetic) spikes, which is why we have higher HbA1cs than boring normal people.

What am I missing here?
 

Sid Bonkers

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,976
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
Customer helplines that use recorded menus that promise to put me through to the right person but never do - and being ill. Oh, and did I mention customer helplines :)
borofergie said:
xyzzy, I think we're disagreeing over the definition of a "spike".


Perhaps 'peak' might be a better term to use for in range, normal 1 hour rises :D
 

Grazer

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,115
I think another issue is that we often talk about "spikes" or "peaks" when we're not really measuring them. Most measure 2 hours after then talk of spikes. But the peak with MOST meals would have come long before. 7.8 is mentioned a few times as a peak not to cross, and we say 6.5 is ok at 2 hours. But 6.5 at 2 hours could well mean a peak of more than 7.8 was reached earlier. So if we seriously were concerned with exceeding 7.8, then we shouldn't be happy with 6.5 at two hours. Personally, I'm not sure where this 7.8 figure came from as a threshhold. I use it as a target to be below at 2 hours because that is the max a non-diabetic normally achieves at 2 hours. But non-diabetics can easily go above 7.8 (in fact up to 11'ish) at some stage after eating a heavily carby meal.
 

borofergie

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,169
Type of diabetes
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
Racism, Sexism, Homophobia
Sid Bonkers said:
Perhaps 'peak' might be a better term to use for in range, normal 1 hour rises :D

Yes. That's a good idea Sid.
 

Pneu

Well-Known Member
Messages
689
Grazer said:
I think another issue is that we often talk about "spikes" or "peaks" when we're not really measuring them. Most measure 2 hours after then talk of spikes. But the peak with MOST meals would have come long before. 7.8 is mentioned a few times as a peak not to cross, and we say 6.5 is ok at 2 hours. But 6.5 at 2 hours could well mean a peak of more than 7.8 was reached earlier. So if we seriously were concerned with exceeding 7.8, then we shouldn't be happy with 6.5 at two hours. Personally, I'm not sure where this 7.8 figure came from as a threshhold. I use it as a target to be below at 2 hours because that is the max a non-diabetic normally achieves at 2 hours. But non-diabetics can easily go above 7.8 (in fact up to 11'ish) at some stage after eating a heavily carby meal.

Grazer.. from the GTT studies I have seen on non-diabetics the majority of individuals do not go above 5.5 mmol/l with the peak being at around +1 hour. A small percentage of these individuals may reach 7.8 mmol/l at +1 hour. 7.8 mmol/l is quoted as a figure as its the maximum a non-diabetic reaches after a significant volume of carbohydrate intake...

If these studies have been done in significant scale or number I can not say as I have only read the few I have come across (testing glucose levels in normal people doesn't seem to be that interesting?!), but the general findings all appear to be the same.

That's not to say that non-diabetics don't go about 7.8 mmol/l because as I understand it they can with the likes if infection or other external rarely occurring influence.. but from purely an eating carbohydrate point of view what I have read would suggest they don't.