Like the bit about testing after new foods. Might get to that point ....I tested before and two hours after every meal until I was firmly in remission and knew what I could eat without going too high, and kept a food diary - now I still test once a week and also before/after any new foods.
I think your dr’s a fool/ignorant. And I doubt patients following their advice do anything other than have the predicted progression and deterioration. Understanding what makes you have better or worse levels is crucial to improving your situation and hopefully achieving remission. I’d echo that random testing is a bit pointless though. You need to structure it so each test actually tells you something useful. Better to use those two tests before and after a meal as described above.I test my glucose levels twice a day, morning and evening, I will do another test if the reading is higher than I’d like. I was diagnosed June 21’ and it was a total shock, no symptoms, just went confused and got taken to A&E. I was told this morning by GP that I shouldn’t be testing and recording my meals and I should just take it easy What do you think?
Hug for having a very common type of doctor, sadly.I test my glucose levels twice a day, morning and evening, I will do another test if the reading is higher than I’d like. I was diagnosed June 21’ and it was a total shock, no symptoms, just went confused and got taken to A&E. I was told this morning by GP that I shouldn’t be testing and recording my meals and I should just take it easy What do you think?
Besides the undoubtedly good advice on testing before eating and two hours after, would the experts among you also advocate testing after one hour to try to measure a spike at its highest amplitude? I am asking only in the context of those of us relying on simple finger-prick glucometers.Hug for having a very common type of doctor, sadly.
But a win for testing anyway & keeping a food diary.
( Why do they insist on lumping us all as one, and not consider we MIGHT prefer a choice in managing such tasks ...
As @bulkbiker puts it , you'd look at the Speedo to check your safe, right .
And as l'oreal say..."you're worth it"
Others have it right I say.
Test but make them count for something.
Continuity is the key.
I tested while making a tea.
Others once foot on floor.
Horses for courses, just make it similar each time.
Pre food post food
You know your looking for dangers, & you won't find them blindfolded.
And after a while the dangers diminish as you spot the guilty ones, and no longer have them on your plate.
You got this.
Good luck on your journey.
No expert...Besides the undoubtedly good advice on testing before eating and two hours after, would the experts among you also advocate testing after one hour to try to measure a spike at its highest amplitude? I am asking only in the context of those of us relying on simple finger-prick glucometers.
Thank you, I have been unsure as to how much weight to put on suggestions that the max height of the spike is the factor most implicated in damaging one as opposed to its wavelength - if that were true it would be important to know that height. But others just say it’s the integral of the curve that is a measure of the potential for damage. Nothing is clear in this game.No expert...
But I know some who did test at various stages.
Personally I didn't.
I kept it simple as that worked for me.
A little bit of regimentation suited me.
No wrong way to do this if you are ok testing more, as some spikes do seem to take a while to show.
Sure many of been caught out an unaware at some point.
In response to testing earlier, I personally thought it of little use
I believed I was trying to mimic someone without T2D, who will also spoke but return to more level figures after that two hour window normally quoted.
The spike in-between would happen in the control group too, so I decided not to worry about that, and simply focus on my 2 hour window only when eating.
It worked for me: Oct to Jan 58 to 42.
Jan to July 42 went to 40.
Good luck finding whatever suits you best.
The joy of individuality.
On that last point I'd have to agree.Thank you, I have been unsure as to how much weight to put on suggestions that the max height of the spike is the factor most implicated in damaging one as opposed to its wavelength - if that were true it would be important to know that height. But others just say it’s the integral of the curve that is a measure of the potential for damage. Nothing is clear in this game.
Great reply there, thank you.On that last point I'd have to agree.
A differing debate for sure.
I liken it to sunbathing or radiation.
I know if I do too much it's bad, but sometimes it's hard to avoid,
Just being in the sunshine, and I'm sure even that accumulated damage will takes its toll.
But the idea I'd stay in the sun for extended periods is where I think the real damage is caused.
Just like the spikes,..having a spike here and there is almost unavoidable...but staying so far out of range..that's where I think the true danger lurks.
So of the two separate scenarios, I don't sweat the sunshine's days & accept the short term spikes as just 'part of life'
I do actively avoid sunburn & long spikes...hence testing.
Each to his own, due diligence is called for.
And not suggesting for a minute you are.
But I think the fear of any spike, no matter how normal, could suck the joy out of everyday..
Then the question in my mind becomes...
"If we are saving ourselves by testing, what are we saving ourselves for, if we're scared to eat or walk in the sunshine " ?
If your interested, link in my signature Jenny Ruhr diabetes #101...explains her thinking on why 8mmols & above is where the damage occurs.
Just a quick post with that linkGreat reply there, thank you.
...What this suggests is that using an even lower post-meal blood sugar target could further lower the incidence of complications. The subjects in the Kumamoto study, though they had significantly fewer complications, still developed some of classic diabetic complications. Since their blood sugar target--180 mg/dl (10 mmol/L) was well above the 140 mg/dl (7.7 mmol/L) level where complications begin, this could have been predicted.
The real value of this study is in showing that A1c is a poor measurement of control and that lowering post-meal blood sugars targets is far more effective in preventing complications regardless of A1c.
For Type 1 (which I appreciate is a very different condition to type 2), we are advised to minimise the area under the graph rather than get too concerned by the height of the spike.Thank you, I have been unsure as to how much weight to put on suggestions that the max height of the spike is the factor most implicated in damaging one as opposed to its wavelength - if that were true it would be important to know that height. But others just say it’s the integral of the curve that is a measure of the potential for damage. Nothing is clear in this game.
Just read your recommended Ruhr article, most interesting, encouraging and lucid.On that last point I'd have to agree.
A differing debate for sure.
I liken it to sunbathing or radiation.
I know if I do too much it's bad, but sometimes it's hard to avoid,
Just being in the sunshine, and I'm sure even that accumulated damage will takes its toll.
But the idea I'd stay in the sun for extended periods is where I think the real damage is caused.
Just like the spikes,..having a spike here and there is almost unavoidable...but staying so far out of range..that's where I think the true danger lurks.
So of the two separate scenarios, I don't sweat the sunshine days & accept the short term spikes as just 'part of life'
I do actively avoid sunburn & long spikes...hence testing.
Each to his own, due diligence is called for.
And not suggesting for a minute you are.
But I think the fear of any spike, no matter how normal, could suck the joy out of everyday..
Then the question in my mind becomes...
"If we are saving ourselves by testing, what are we saving ourselves for, if we're scared to eat or walk in the sunshine " ?
If your interested, link in my signature Jenny Ruhr diabetes #101...explains her thinking on why 8mmols & above is where the damage occurs.
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?