I think the figure for type 2 two hours after eating is now 7.8. Damage to internal organs is obviously worse, the higher the reading; and I personally like to try to see numbers under 6.The only official guidance is that you are OK if your reading is less than 8.5 at the two hour mark. I don't know where that information originated from or even if it is true but your doctor is probably using it for guidance.
It is true that if you eat your blood sugar will rise. It is also true that high blood sugar is damaging. Lots of people do their own thing and use their meter to find out exactly when they peak and whether they should do anything about it. You can obsess too much about these finer points but it is entirely up to you what numbers you use and how far you go in investigating this.
Personally I think your numbers are good and I don't think I have ever tested just 20 minutes after eating.
Yes, you're quite right. It is how long you stay high. I do manage these numbers quite often, but not all the time, by any means. I take Metformin and try to be as low carb as possible. Must admit I do panic a bit if the readings are higher, even though NICE reckons they are okay. I tend to think diabetes is not treated agressively enough by HCPs, and the figures they tell us are okay, aren't. Bernstein talks about doing all you can through diet, exercise and medication, to normalise BG levels.@dbr10 Under 6 after meals is a very hard target for anyone not on insulin or strong drugs. Do you reach your target most times?
I don't think it is a question of "how high" it is, more a question of "how long it stays high". The longer it is high the more damage is being done. By "high" in this context I mean higher than 7.8 (supposedly the non-diabetic recommended level at at least 90 minutes). My personal target is under 7 at all times, but being human this doesn't always happen.
Yes. I know what you mean. But I'm strongly influenced by Jenny Rhule in her book, and of course, Bernstein when she suggests that problems occur as BG rises above around 6 and stays there.@dbr10 It all depends on whose guidance you choose to adopt. For example. The ADA say
1-2 hours after beginning of the meal (Postprandial plasma glucose)*: Less than 180 mg/dl That’s 10 in English.
http://www.diabetes.org/living-with...ucose.html?referrer=https://www.google.co.uk/
or if you prefer Australia
It's 6-10mmol/l two hours after starting a meal.
https://www.diabetesaustralia.com.au/blood-glucose-monitoring
Or good old UK
Type 2 diabetes (Diabetes UK Council of Healthcare Professionals 2015)**
· before meals: 4–7mmol/l
· two hours after meals: less than 8.5mmol/l.
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Monitoring/Testing/
My point is that we seem to get many bits of advice that vary on this topic and none of them seem to backed by any research that I know of so you might just as well invent a figure of your own and go for it.
Yes. I completely agree with you.The best overall view on the effects of higher numbers after eating is on the www.bloodsugar101.com website.
The author (Jenny Ruhl) draws together what research has been done on the subject, discusses it, and allows you to decide where you want to aim your numbers.
Me? I read her figures and thought 'goodness, no wonder all these government bodies tell us that D is a progressive disease! They tell us that our blood glucose is OK when it REALLY isn't - which is what causes the progressive damage.'
As a result I try not to go above 7mmol/l at any time.
Being human, I fail quite regularly, but the goal/result is a non-diabetic HbA1c, which is below where the damage happens- which should prevent that dreadful NHS progression.
I have the greatest respect for Jenny Ruhl but it's just another target which a person can adopt or not as they choose. There is nothing compulsory about any of them.I think the figure for type 2 two hours after eating is now 7.8. Damage to internal organs is obviously worse, the higher the reading; and I personally like to try to see numbers under 6.
Yes, of course.I have the greatest respect for Jenny Ruhl but it's just another target which a person can adopt or not as they choose. There is nothing compulsory about any of them.
There's evidence that wild swings in BG are what cause damage. There's also evidence that any reading above 7.8 is causing damage somewhere in the body. So, in my opinion it does matter.Daft question.. Does it really matter that oatmeal sends it high. If it comes down within 2 hours?
I don't think it's what happens in 1x 2 hour period - it's the accumulation of damage over a lifetime. Here's an article about levels above 7.8:How much damage can be caused in 2 hours?
I am honestly interested.
I get the long term of being high.
But the short term spike, surly can't cause damage can it?
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?