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

Really Scared! :(


Hmmm.....I would like to see another couple of sources that agreed with this.
It reads very much like a scare site., for example "You are at greater risk of having a stroke if your fasting blood sugar is 83 mg/dL (4.6 mmol/L) or higher. Every 18 mg/dL (0.9 mmol/L) increase beyond 83 mg/dL gives you an additional 27 percent greater risk of dying from a stroke." Note that there is no figure for the absolute risk, just the percentage increase. If the risk is 1 in 10,000 then a 27% increase in risk is negligible.

I also note particularly that as you get down to the "Recommendations" there are loads of links to pills and potions such as Glycemic Balance pills.

At the bottom it says "The above statements have not been evaluated by the FDA and are not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease." so basically it is a scare site to persuade you to buy pills which have no proven benefit using statements not approved by the FDA.

Take a deep breath and step away from the web site!
 
NewTD2 said:
Can you please share those low carb cakes and ice cream recipes please darling?

Thank you!
Click to expand...

Hi @NewTD2,

I'll gladly send them to you. Is it okay if I pm you? Not sure they really fit with this thread.
 
You are so right there bluetit. They tell us to do a fasting BG test first thing on waking up. Well we are told to wash our hands first,so we go to the bathroom then come back do our BG test and because of moving it gives a higher reading. So deffo not reliable
 

Wash your hands last thing at night then wear white cotton gloves.
When you wake up you wonder why you are wearing gloves, then peel them off and test immediately.

Simples.
 
ziggy_w said:
Hi @NewTD2,

I'll gladly send them to you. Is it okay if I pm you? Not sure they really fit with this thread.
Click to expand...

You could always post them in a new thread in the food section, then post a thread link here.
 
Alexandra100 said:
http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/15945839.php
Click to expand...

Thanks - interesting reading.

"While there was no relationship between their fasting blood sugars and the rate at which they developed coronary artery disease over a period of about 3.5 years, there was a strong relationship between their scores on a glucose tolerance test and the degree to which they developed coronary artery disease."

However:

"Another study which drew similar conclusions discovered an even tighter correlation between A1c and heart disease risk that began as A1c rose above 4.6%, a level that corresponds to a blood sugar level of 86 mg/dl (4.8 mmol/l)!
"

All in all an instructive read. It doesn't address the original issue that a fasting BG reading of 5.5 is almost pre-diabetic but it does raise the issue of HbA1c targets with relation to risks of heart disease.

I'm still struggling to find a figure for the absolute risk, and the web page says "But there is something even more important that is left out of the reporting of this study: while better control halved the risk of heart disease in these people with Type 2 diabetes, "good control," as usual, was defined as an A1c of 7%. There is no data about the fate of people with this ugly gene who maintained their blood sugar in the normal range--the 5% A1c range. Given that lowring blood sugar to a still dangerously high 7% cut their risk in half, it is likely that lowering it further would provide even greater improvement." That was, of course, specific to a gene mutation which increased risk, but interesting none the less.

I note also that http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/16422495.php gives a much lower value for normal BG - below 5.

It also says "Heart attack risk rises in a straight line fashion as A1c rises from 4.6% but only becomes a significantly raised threat as A1cs go over 6%.". Which is slightly more reassuring.

Still struggling to find a figure for absolute risk but there is a massive amount of reading on that site.

Jenny Ruhl is a respected name, known for setting much harsher guidelines than most others. This doesn't mean she is wrong.
 
Most people I have tested along the way have seen blood sugars over 5. Or are we talking fasting only?
My daughter is rarely below 5 - although I remain convinced she is on the path to t1.
My son, husband and mum have all tested in the 5s, 6s and occasionally 7s. Not fasting by the way - just generally.
 
LittleGreyCat said:
Jenny Ruhl is a respected name, known for setting much harsher guidelines than most others. This doesn't mean she is wrong.
Click to expand...
JR sets less harsh guidelines for "normal" bg than Dr Bernstein, the other respected name in diabetes literature. She is also much more humane and realistic, suggesting eg that setting less than perfect targets you can keep to for years is better than going for perfect ones you can fulfil for a while, but then burn out and fall off the wagon. Personally I'd love to get down to "normal" bg but however little carb I eat it seems sadly not an option for me, possibly because I am progressing towards LADA.
 
LittleGreyCat said:
It also says "Heart attack risk rises in a straight line fashion as A1c rises from 4.6% but only becomes a significantly raised threat as A1cs go over 6%.". Which is slightly more reassuring.
Click to expand...

I haven't read Jenny Ruhl's work for a long time, so forgive me if I have missed something, but these non-diabetics with such low HbA1cs - do we know what type of diets they were consuming? Was it the normal Eatwell Plate/Western Diet/Low carb/other? How did they know it was the HbA1c level or the food they were eating that caused/didn't cause problems?

Edit to add - same for the others that had higher HbA1cs.
 
Last edited:
If this was random testing, it doesn't mean much. You and they need to test just before a meal and 1 / 1.5 / 2 hours after. My understanding is that a normal person's bg might or might not rise about 1 point after a meal, especially a meal containing carbs, but should fall quite quickly, so that at 2 hours after it should be no higher than 5.55 (Jenny Ruhl's numbers). The testing is quite tricky, as you can't be sure the peak will come after one hour, especially if the meal was fatty. Obviously, if the peak comes later, the fall will come later too. She says that some normal people see virtually no rise however many carbs they eat. Personally I have adopted her target of NEVER seeing a bg reading over 6.7, but I don't quite always achieve this.
 
Dr Bernstein's claim that normal bg is under 5 was based, he says, on tests made on the reps (all young men) who came to his surgery trying to sell him bg monitors. He used to ask them to demonstrate the machines on themselves and so built up a sort of database. We could bear in mind that this happened, I think, a long time ago, as in the video where he tells this tale he commented that nowadays women also sell bg meters, but in those days it was all young men. So perhaps we can assume that in those days the young men were at least not eating as much junk food as they would be nowadays. They would certainly not have even heard of the Eatwell plate!
 
I have the impression that Dr B is not a great fan of the A1c test. What counts is above all post prandial readings, which of course would be down to the food we eat and our susceptibility or not to raised bg in response to it.
 
Alexandra100 said:
I have the impression that Dr B is not a great fan of the A1c test. What counts is above all post prandial readings, which of course would be down to the food we eat and our susceptibility or not to raised bg in response to it.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree with him.
 
I wasn't really questioning what Dr. Bernstein says. I was more questioning the assertions that with an HbA1c of more than 4.6% (27mmol/mol) the risk of heart attacks increase, and increase significantly over 6% (42mmol/mol) and whether or not the type of diet was taken into account. It isn't just high BG that causes heart attacks - the type of diet matters a great deal, as does the level of circulating insulin.
 
Look up the ACCORD study. Huge Type 2 study. Randomized thousands of Type 2 diabetics to whatever they were taking in one group, and a more intensive blood sugar control group and followed for almost 4 years. A pretty high risk group overall. Readers Digest version is that the more intensively treated group did have a lower A1C , and fewer heart attacks, but a HIGHER MORTALITY. So they stopped the study. You cannot forget to consider what drugs they take to control their blood sugar. And the lower the A1C the more drug(s) they took. And we don't really know the long term effects of those drugs. Or maybe we do.............
 
Just got my blood tests results back. Doctor knew I was travelling soon and worried, thus expedited the test.

So for my initial prick test done at a government clinic:

Fasting Prick Test - 5.5

The results I received about 30 minutes ago:

Glucose (Fasting) 70 mg/dL
HbA1c - 5.1%

Should I further get a OGGT done?
 

Your fasting glucose of 70mg/dl is 3.9mmol/l

Your HbA1c of 5.1% is equal to an average of 5.5mmol/l over the previous 2 to 3 months.

Absolutely no need to worry. You are nowhere near diabetic levels. Nowhere near.
What do you expect an OGTT to show that is any different?
 
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.…