This is normal. Your liver will try and maintain what it is used to and dump glucose to achieve that. After a while it’ll get used to the lower normal and behave better. It’s a series of steps rather than a nice smooth curve down to true normal levels.I seem to be hitting the same issue I did the other week, where the numbers hit a certain threshold then refuse to go down further.
Last night I was 10.1 after a carb-free meal. Excellent I thought, not spiking this is good.
However, this morning I was still at 9.8. And after testing myself again today, after eating absolutely nothing, it went from 9.8 to 9.7 and now 9.6.
Is this right? It almost seems as if my body "wants" to be at this figure and is failing to produce any insulin to get the number down, despite it still being high. I found this previously without metformin where it would stabilise at about 11.5 or so.
Should I inform the doctor about this? Or is this some sort of normal body reaction to being starved of carbs and burning up reserves?
I should point out I am not hungry and do not have cravings. I've had probably a total of 20g of carbs since last Wednesday, plus whatever that (almost totally meat) takeaway had in it on Saturday (which did not spike me either).
This could be a duff glucose meter, although I have my doubts. I've bought another one to be sure, just in case. I did change to a new batch of strips, direct from the manufacturer the other day.
Perfectly possible to be the same or lower with a wisely chosen meal. (Don’t take the decimal points too seriously. All meters have an to,earn extra zone and aren’t that perfectly accurate).I'm not entirely sure as I only have a couple of meals I've checked, but the rise was 1.8 (weekend takeaway) and 0.2 (today's salad). That latter one is suspiciously low, although in principle it was well under 5g of carbs based on the numbers I've found online.
It’ll get better. It’s usually the last part of the puzzle to fall into place. But it could be months not days. If the rest of the day the rises are less than 2 the pre meal levels should start falling and eventually the morning fasting will too.It certainly does appear that I am experiencing the "dawn spike"... Last night at 11pm (3 hours after meal) 8.0, which pleased me. This morning, 10.2, which didn't. Will see later.
The weight continues to drop.
Is that something you want or are you getting underweight?
You’re obviously frustrated right now but take a breath.I think I'm going to give up on any thoughts of believing what these silly little glucose meters have to say for themselves...
Sinocare: Almost exactly 10mmol/l this morning and now.
GlucoNavii: 9.3mmol/l this morning, 11.1 just now, having eaten one avocado in the meantime.
Errr, yeah. A 10% differential in both cases, but no actual pattern.
In other words, it's all nonsense. This idea that you can use these things to reliably tell which foods spike you and which don't is nonsense, at least with the budget meters. A 20% spread overall in readings. Hopeless.
I don't have any experience of either of those meter, but what is the difference between testing before the meal and then 2 hours later? That is the key for type twos like me.I think I'm going to give up on any thoughts of believing what these silly little glucose meters have to say for themselves...
Sinocare: Almost exactly 10mmol/l this morning and now.
GlucoNavii: 9.3mmol/l this morning, 11.1 just now, having eaten one avocado in the meantime.
Errr, yeah. A 10% differential in both cases, but no actual pattern.
In other words, it's all nonsense. This idea that you can use these things to reliably tell which foods spike you and which don't is nonsense, at least with the budget meters. A 20% spread overall in readings. Hopeless.
the other to state a huge change
A difference between 9.3 and 11.1 is by no means a huge change, no matter if it's meter accuracy or actual BG change.GlucoNavii: 9.3mmol/l this morning, 11.1 just now
Sorry no idea about what rtfm is. And no your state of being doesn’t effect the meter (but the stress might your bgl!) but it does effect how you see the issue. Sorry I meant no offence by my comments.That's not really the point though.
The margin of error on these devices would appear to be in the order of 20%. My state of being, and whether I've RTFM or not, has very little bearing on the basic precision of what is being read. If the conditions are the same then the result should follow the same pattern. The results I am getting simply aren't systematic.
I am forced to conclude that the results I see are +/-10% at the minimum. For one device to state no change and the other to state a huge change means that the noise in the measurements is huge. This type of imprecision is the difference between "normal" and "hypo" when used on someone lower down the scale.
A lot of folks follow these numbers religiously. "This food raises by bg by x points, that food by y points so I'll go with y". But unless the difference is night and day - to the point where you can tell that y is better than x by how much blood drips off it when it's raw - this method is not reliable.
It might as well just flash red/amber/green. False precision is dangerous.
So yeah, the only choice I have here is to eat blandly for three months and hope I don't get another disaster at the end of August.
Eating blandly is not going to help much - you need to sort out your blood glucose levels, but to have got two duff meters seems rather odd - maybe send them back to the manufacturers for checking?That's not really the point though.
The margin of error on these devices would appear to be in the order of 20%. My state of being, and whether I've RTFM or not, has very little bearing on the basic precision of what is being read. If the conditions are the same then the result should follow the same pattern. The results I am getting simply aren't systematic.
I am forced to conclude that the results I see are +/-10% at the minimum. For one device to state no change and the other to state a huge change means that the noise in the measurements is huge. This type of imprecision is the difference between "normal" and "hypo" when used on someone lower down the scale.
A lot of folks follow these numbers religiously. "This food raises by bg by x points, that food by y points so I'll go with y". But unless the difference is night and day - to the point where you can tell that y is better than x by how much blood drips off it when it's raw - this method is not reliable.
It might as well just flash red/amber/green. False precision is dangerous.
So yeah, the only choice I have here is to eat blandly for three months and hope I don't get another disaster at the end of August.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?