-
Guest, the forum is undergoing some upgrades and so the usual themes will be unavailable for a few days. In the meantime, you can use the forum like normal. We'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »
Non diabetic levels
- Thread starter Marzeater
- Start Date
Grazer
Well-Known Member
This may help, from diabetes.co.uk site
Recommended target blood glucose level ranges
The International Diabetes Federation have specified the following blood glucose levels: [19]
IDF recommended target blood glucose level ranges Target Levels
by Type Before meals (pre prandial) 2 hours after (post prandial)
Non-diabetic 4.0 to 5.9 mmol/L under 7.8 mmol/L*
Type 2 diabetes 4 to 7 mmol/L under 8.5 mmol/L
Type 1 diabetes 4 to 7 mmol/L under 9 mmol/L
Children w/ diabetes 4 to 8 mmol/L under 10 mmol/L
Normal blood sugar ranges
For the majority of healthy individuals, normal blood sugar levels are as follows:
The normal blood glucose level in humans is about 4 mM (4 mmol/L or 72 mg/dL)
The body, when operating normally, restores the blood sugar level to a range of about 4.4 to 6.1 mmol/L (82 to 110 mg/dL)
Shortly after eating the blood glucose level may rise temporarily up to 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL)
Recommended target blood glucose level ranges
The International Diabetes Federation have specified the following blood glucose levels: [19]
IDF recommended target blood glucose level ranges Target Levels
by Type Before meals (pre prandial) 2 hours after (post prandial)
Non-diabetic 4.0 to 5.9 mmol/L under 7.8 mmol/L*
Type 2 diabetes 4 to 7 mmol/L under 8.5 mmol/L
Type 1 diabetes 4 to 7 mmol/L under 9 mmol/L
Children w/ diabetes 4 to 8 mmol/L under 10 mmol/L
Normal blood sugar ranges
For the majority of healthy individuals, normal blood sugar levels are as follows:
The normal blood glucose level in humans is about 4 mM (4 mmol/L or 72 mg/dL)
The body, when operating normally, restores the blood sugar level to a range of about 4.4 to 6.1 mmol/L (82 to 110 mg/dL)
Shortly after eating the blood glucose level may rise temporarily up to 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL)
Depends on whom you ask; some arguing from an incorrect understanding of evolution*, will tell you that we've evolved to low-carb and that any HbA1c higher than 5.5% is bad (not what you asked for, but you get the picture)
* Think about what evolution does - it selects the candidate best able to pass on their genes; since diabetes only kills us well after we would have had kids and grandkids in the past, our evolution is completely irrelevant to the condition.
Further, any diet humans have evolved to eat would be advantageous for evolution - producing lots of offspring and dying young - which is not something usually considered desirable today.
Finally, there is evidence tht humans haven't stopped evolving after agriculture was developed; humans have largest brains and smaller digestive tracts compared to apes of human size I.e. We need easily digested calorie dense food to meet our energy requirements (the brain, located outside the well-insulated torso, has to be kept at body temperature)
* Think about what evolution does - it selects the candidate best able to pass on their genes; since diabetes only kills us well after we would have had kids and grandkids in the past, our evolution is completely irrelevant to the condition.
Further, any diet humans have evolved to eat would be advantageous for evolution - producing lots of offspring and dying young - which is not something usually considered desirable today.
Finally, there is evidence tht humans haven't stopped evolving after agriculture was developed; humans have largest brains and smaller digestive tracts compared to apes of human size I.e. We need easily digested calorie dense food to meet our energy requirements (the brain, located outside the well-insulated torso, has to be kept at body temperature)
Accordin to Bernstein, a normal non-diabetic blood glucose keeps at around, or just under, 5 pretty much the whole time
I recently gave a talk to junior doctors at the BMA and took a meter[donated by Abbott Diabetes Care] with me for them to play with. None of them had done so before. Only 1 of them had a bg above 6.5, an hour after a pasta meal. the exception was a young woman of Indian background whose number was 8. I would say she's at risk of T2.
Hana
I recently gave a talk to junior doctors at the BMA and took a meter[donated by Abbott Diabetes Care] with me for them to play with. None of them had done so before. Only 1 of them had a bg above 6.5, an hour after a pasta meal. the exception was a young woman of Indian background whose number was 8. I would say she's at risk of T2.
Hana
Agree with Hana. We kid ourselves that non-diabetics have BGs dotting around like us but a bit lower. It is not the case. A healthy adult who metabolises sugar properly will have very tight BG levels between mid 4s and mid 5s most of the time. Sometimes down to mid 3s and occasionally up to mid 6s after carb-heavy food. Anything else is a sign of impaired ability to metabolise sugar properly - either temporarily due to illness or permanently.
Smidge
Smidge
xyzzy
Well-Known Member
smidge said:
I agree but that shouldn't mean that we diabetics shouldn't aspire to get as close to those targets if possible. If you take a non diabetics low to be mid/high 3's upwards then studies show 19 out of 20 non diabetics return below 6.5 after 2 hours whereas presumably 20 out of 20 returned to the 7.8 non diabetic upper limit that we are always quoted. 7.8 is also the threshold that is supposed to be the actual limit before risks of complications can begin to occur if exceeded regularly which is less than the 8.5 people are normally told is ok. The upper 7.5% HbA1c NHS value when changed back to a BS level also exceeds the 7.8 threshold not that it matters if you're in my neck of the woods where people are told to just try to keep under 12.5 (yes twelve point five) after eating "if they can".
I aim for the 6.5 +2 hour value at the moment for no better reason than the 19 out of 20 rule and that it gives me leeway under 7.8. I'd love to find out the upper values at different numbers of people so for example what BS reading do 15 out of 20 non diabetic achieve or 10 out of 20 etc so if anyone knows...
Sid Bonkers
Well-Known Member
There have been very few studies done on bg levels in non diabetics for fairly obvious reasons, why would they?
One that did reported that many non diabetics can spend an average of 45 minutes a day over 11 mmol/L. The idea that non diabetics never go above 6 mmol/L is incorrect.
As for measuring bg levels 1 hour after a pasta meal, not much use really as pasta is digested very slowly especially if served with a fatty sauce so any peak/spike will be well after 1 hour probably closer to 2, 3 or even 4 hours after eating.
One that did reported that many non diabetics can spend an average of 45 minutes a day over 11 mmol/L. The idea that non diabetics never go above 6 mmol/L is incorrect.
As for measuring bg levels 1 hour after a pasta meal, not much use really as pasta is digested very slowly especially if served with a fatty sauce so any peak/spike will be well after 1 hour probably closer to 2, 3 or even 4 hours after eating.
Sid
the peak of bg is usually about 75 minutes after commencing a meal. By 2 hours, the number is dropping. And it's a myth that pasta is digested and metabolised slowly. I've experimented with starches and enzymes "in vitro" and I can state that they metabolise pretty fast. I know there's a lot more going on "in vivo", but an hour or so after the meal [I opted for a salad myself!] most people will have reached up to or nearly up to their peak. I commented on the Indian Junior Doctor, because her ethnic background increases her risk of T2.
There are graphs of bg levels against time on the web and they show far less change in non-diabetics than in diabetics.
Hana
the peak of bg is usually about 75 minutes after commencing a meal. By 2 hours, the number is dropping. And it's a myth that pasta is digested and metabolised slowly. I've experimented with starches and enzymes "in vitro" and I can state that they metabolise pretty fast. I know there's a lot more going on "in vivo", but an hour or so after the meal [I opted for a salad myself!] most people will have reached up to or nearly up to their peak. I commented on the Indian Junior Doctor, because her ethnic background increases her risk of T2.
There are graphs of bg levels against time on the web and they show far less change in non-diabetics than in diabetics.
Hana
Grazer
Well-Known Member
STUDIES on non diabetic sugar levels -
Xyzzy, you might find the answer you want on this (might not work as a live shortcut, cut and paste)
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source ... jmVLC-yrlA
Xyzzy, you might find the answer you want on this (might not work as a live shortcut, cut and paste)
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source ... jmVLC-yrlA
xyzzy said:
Absolutely. I aim for much lower BGs than my consultant generally advises insulin users to aim for. My reasoning is that if the body wants a tight control of BG, then to allow it to go even a bit high must increase risk of complications. Now, with LADA my BG is very peaky and difficult to keep low and I have to balance the risk of high BG against the risk of hypos? I do this by keeping carbs low and using small doses of insulin.
Like Noblehead, I do sometimes have to split the dose. If my BG starts to rise at the 3 hour mark I take a small dose of quick-acting to cope with that. In a non-diabetic, the BG wouldn't rise at the 3 hour mark because they would produce insulin to stop the rise. Injecting the 2nd dose just mimics what a non-diabetic would produce naturally.
Smidge
