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

'hypo'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You eat lots of carbs, so you must have a BIG insulin dose, which reduces the margin even further.

I'm all for self experimentation, but you're on the fast track to killing yourself Michael. As I said before, I hope you don't drive a car, and that your 93 year old mother will be able to cope with you in a coma on the kitchen floor.

Not big. Not clever.
 
Having your body to recognise a low reading can be a lifesaver. Awareness of 3.5~4 I recognise, with anywhere in between causing me to wake. The reason of this is to prevent dangerous lows leading to a coma or worse.Awareness at this level comes from having levels running usually 4.5~8, but then, I dose my insulin the old fashioned way by injecting to match carbs.
In my view the **** you have written needs to be removed asap, especially with new members joining. Only 1 of them to think a reading of 2 is ok could have serious consequences. Whilst currently, your body not recognising being "hypo" doesn't mean your not, and as your body is preventing you from from dropping lower, it may not last, which by the time your body recognises you.are hypo, will have very little time to react. This indicates either you run your levels dangerously low,or, no hypo awareness.


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
Just to perhaps clarify to any newly diagnosed who may be reading this thread. Any readings of 2 are way to low and need addressing immediately. I agree that hypo refers to symptoms and not a specific number. Some get the symptoms higher in the 5's for instance. DAFNE regard a hypo as 3.5 or below. Michael has a "unique" way of dealing with his diabetes which "works"for him but I would not encourage anyone to follow suit as constant "grazing" on rye bread is not practical for the majority.


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
I note that you don't take insulin, @borofergie.

So I take what you've written in the same way that I take the orthodox guidance from most medical people.

Please excuse me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to be speaking of something which you have no direct experience of.
 

I don't take insulin. I have spent the last three years reading everything that I can on Diabetes, including almost all of the research (or as many as I can get my hands on). I'm also a zero carb runner, and I've managed to knock-myself out cold with a hypo.

I also know what the law is on driving and hypo awareness. I hope you do too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks, borofergie.

You surely don't believe everything you read.

So, what is it that you don't believe about me and my claim to a typical and typically entirely trouble-free HbA1c reading of 27mmol/mol?

I could post stuff from my GP to a moderator.
 
Michael

your body has got so used to you having lower bg levels every day that it doesnt know any better when yr bg drops very low. This is typical of what ultra tight control of bg does to the brain and why good control for insulin dependant is not the 5% club.
 
I used to have many hypos.

And I still have to be careful, of course. But nothing like so careful as I used to have to be.

Meanwhile, there is a problem with the orthodox definition of 'hypoglycaemia' as officially accepted on this Forum.
 
A reading of 27mmol indicates (i think) average readings between 4~5.6. whilst this margin is a normal reading (not hypo). A hba1c, however is not a way of determining hypos/highs/swings in daily readings, nor a persons hypo awareness.


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
I wrote previously that my typical HbA1c of 27mmol/mol is typically a trouble-free reading.

So unless you doubt what I say, then the posting you made was pointless: I do not lack hypo awareness.
 
You're certainly unique Michaeldavid....Inject all the insulin upfront first and then feed it with Rye bread so you don't go low(But you DO go low according to this thread) Very unique indeed and a one off just like the Highlander..."There ken be only one..."
 
Thanks very much, @brett.

But that's how it used to be in the past.

I don't know how I managed to survive most of the past 31 years.

I was very lucky. Apart from anything else, it used to be chiefly controlled by so much guesswork.
 
Thanks, @Paul-1977 (year of The Clash!).

But I don't agree that there need only be one.

One needn't go all the way. There's a lot of room for compromise.

But there should be no room at all, anywhere, for an incorrect definition of 'hypoglycaemia'.
 
Well what a mad thread.

I run my BG low - some would say too low - and I don't buy in to the 4s the floor nonsense - but I would never let my BG drop to and sit in the 2s - that's just asking for trouble. Mostly mine are in the 4s and 5s, sometimes dipping to high 3s before lunch.

I only feel confident keeping them at that level because I low-carb and take very small doses of insulin which are unlikely to cause much harm.

I have to agree though that some people seem to suffer very badly when their BG falls into the high 3s whereas I just seem to be able to eat a jelly baby and get on with life. I used to think people were being a bit melodramatic in panicking over normal BG, but maybe different people have different natural levels for their BG. Who knows? Either way, anything below mid 3s definitely needs correcting.

Smidge
 
michaeldavid said:
But there should be no room at all, anywhere, for an incorrect definition of 'hypoglycaemia'.
Click to expand...

The definition isn't wrong, it's just conservative, which is sensible when the consequences of hypoglycemia are serious.

The NHS uses a similar definition:
Most people will have some warning that their blood glucose levels are too low, which gives them time to correct them. Symptoms usually occur when blood sugar levels drop to between 3 and 4 millimoles per litre (mmol).
Click to expand...
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/hypoglycaemia/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Here is what Wikipedia says:

This is what Diabetes UK says (actually a pretty **** definition, but what would you expect from them):
Means ‘low blood glucose levels’ – less than 4 mmol/l*. This is too low to provide enough energy for your body’s activities.
Click to expand...

And this is how the American Diabetes Association defines hypoglycemia:

So you regularly let your blood sugar levels run at between 50% and 66% of any recommended minimum? And I bet you still drive a car...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How about some definitions of SEVERE hypoglycemia?

University of Michigan Endocrinology Dept say that:

This paper defines severe as <2.78 mmol/l:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7497031

WebMD defines severe hypoglycemia as:
The symptoms of severe low blood sugar develop when blood sugar falls below 35 mg/dL to 40 mg/dL (1.9 to 2.2 mmol/l)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't allow my blood sugar to 'sit in the 2s'.

Moreover, the orthodox supposed 'definition' of hypoglycaemia - far from being merely 'conservative' - is worse than incorrect. (I should have edited my last post.) For if a supposed definition of 'hypoglycaemia' makes no reference to symptoms, then really it's INCOHERENT.

Any blood-sugar reading is nothing more nor less than the blood-sugar reading that it is. No blood-sugar reading, of whatever level, is a hypo.

Hypoglycaemia always involves behaviour, witting or unwitting. If left unchecked, hypoglycaemia results in unconsciousness, and sometimes death. And neither unconsciousness nor death are blood-sugar readings either.

Any appearance to the contrary notwithstanding, it makes no sense to speak of hypoglycaemia or unconsciousness or death as being blood-sugar readings.

The orthodox definition of 'hypoglycaemia', as endorsed by this Forum, should be changed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…