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

Random glucose - non diabetic husband

Bluetit1802

Legend
Messages
25,215
Location
Lancashire
Type of diabetes
Treatment type
Diet only
Hi,

My husband is not diabetic. His fasting glucose tests taken annually at the surgery (venous) are always around 4.5, never higher. I was looking at his print outs just now and noticed that 2 years ago he had a random glucose test along with some other blood tests. It was 8.6mmol/l. Taken in the afternoon, probably about an hour after lunch. He is in good health. This just shows that non-diabetics do spike above the levels quoted by experts.

Just thought I'd let you know.
 
yes I think just over 11 is a key number that you will not go over if you aren't D
 
It makes you wonder why we worry so much if we see a high number after a meal. As long as it comes back down quickly, maybe we worry over nothing.
 
Exactly even non diabetics can have higher BG levels after eating a meal that is normal as BG goes up and down all the time but we probably never checked ours before diabetes so never knew what our BG levels were then
 
I've posted this several times. Normal people do go above this level, a few go above the level that would diagnose them as diabetic (though if you remember, diabetes shouldn't be diagnosed on one random test, even above 11mmol/l unless there are other symptoms.)
The chart shows time above various glucose levels for non diabetics of various ages and ethnic groups. They were wearing a continuous monitor.
93% as highlighted, spent some time above 7.8%.
The second graph shows that jus about 38% of them spent very short periods above this level but a quarter of them experienced glucose levels above 7.8mmol/l for at least 75 min/day, and three individuals (3.8%) remained in this range for 5 h or more per day. The 8 people who spent more than two hours a day above 7.8 mmol/l were older, had higher fasting levels and HbA1c ( av 6.1mml/l and 5.7% so still technically normal ) and were heavier. If you read the discussion section of the paper you will see that similar results have been found in other studies.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892065/?report=reader#!po=44.1176
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bluetit1802 said:
It makes you wonder why we worry so much if we see a high number after a meal. As long as it comes back down quickly, maybe we worry over nothing.
Click to expand...

One of the first things I did was to test other none diabetic people, who were prepared to donate a drop of blood.
That's probably why I am more relaxed over what I eat than others, I've seen 'normal' readings, I don't worry if mine are the same as theirs.
 
I don't worry about any high 1 hour readings, but I do like to see it returning to acceptable levels at 2 hours.
 
I'd have to hijack my OH, midst blood injury, to get a sample out of him!! We've often joked about it. For whatever reason, he just will not do it.

On his MOT results,, and with no relatives, symptoms or even indicators I just, erm,............. mention it from time to time. The response is like a broken record.

It would have been such a valuable comparator in the early days, but it wasn't to be.

Men, eh?
 
Bluetit1802 said:
I don't worry about any high 1 hour readings, but I do like to see it returning to acceptable levels at 2 hours.
Click to expand...

I think acceptable gets distorted. Under 6 seems to be a popular target for some on this forum, even after meals.
 

I found my kids had the highest figures.
 
douglas99 said:
I found my kids had the highest figures.
Click to expand...

I'd have to kidnap some of those if I wanted to test young people. I don't have children, and my OH's daughter's age starts with a 4.
 
Reading through this thread, makes me question, What is a diabetic or, for that matter, a non-diabetic?

Clearly, anyone who has blood sugars permanently, or almost always, above 10 IS diabetic. Similarly, someone who is almost always below 5, isn't. But, in between, there must be many shades of grey. A little bit diabetic sometimes? More often diabetic than not?

We know that raised blood sugars and spikes in blood sugar do damage to our bodies. Somebody who is a tiny bit diabetic on their birthday and Christmas afternoon, must be doing a tiny bit of damage to their body?? Much too small to notice, just a small contribution to the ageing process. So is raised blood sugars something that we should all be avoiding, diabetic or not? Thoughts?
Sally
 

I don't think anyone, is almost always below 5.

No body is a tiny bit diabetic on their birthday or Christmas.

So should everyone be chasing sub 5 levels, all their life?


No. Diabetic or not.
 

Interesting read Phoenix. Thanks for finding it.
 

I'm sorry, but I think @douglas99 has misunderstood the point behind my post. Raised sugar levels will do damage to your body, whether the doctor labels you diabetic or not. However, if the raised sugar levels are only very occasional (I suggested the excesses of birthday or christmas, but illness, tiredness, stress could all be causes), it doesn't amount to anything much and the body will have time to heal before the next onslaught. I have suggested that there are shades of grey between definitely not diabetic and definitely diabetic, it's not an on-off switch and some "non-diabetics" may be more susceptible to occasional high bs readings than others.
An important point to add, is that true diabetics shouldn't say things like, "my non-diabetic partner tested at 10 after dinner, so it's OK for me to test at that level".
And, do I think everyone should be chasing sub 5 levels all their lives? Yes, I think everyone should aim for and work towards the lowest safe blood sugar levels they can manage, it will be better for them, their families and for a struggling NHS.

Sally

ps. I don't think I have quite worked out the "quote" thing. The latter half of the expandable quote above was douglas' post.
 

An interesting response from @sally and james to suggest sub 5 should be the target for all, when it's seems even the study above didn't use that as a fasting criteria, let alone the maximum target.
7.8 is were damage is known to occur.
Even if you devoted all your time to monitoring, eating, and correcting, to attain sub 5 without letting any other factor influence you, it may be achievable, but to be honest, the cure would be worse than the disease for many, let alone those without it.
 
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.…