Single high spike for a short time VS several small spikes?

[DannyB]

I am not sure if there is an answer to this - but I thought I would just throw it out there anyway.

Which causes the most harm, a single very high spike for say two hours or several smaller, consecutive spikes. For example:

Say I want to eat 45g of carbs in the morning (for now let's put aside why I would want to do that). I could:

- eat them all in a single meal - that would cause quite a high spike which would proably take two hours to 'normalise'.

OR

- spread them over three meals at roughly 1 / 1.5 hour intervals. This would cause smaller spikes but those smaller spikes would last (in total) between 4.5 / 6 hours. ie my GG would not be in the 'normal' (accepatble) range for a much longer period.

 

[sugarless sue]

How high a spike are we talking here,Danny? Over 10 or just a point or two higher than your normal.

 

[DannyB]

The question is somewhat hyperthetical - but let's say for argument:

a single spike of 10
vs
3 spikes of 8

 

[sugarless sue]

Well I would say,and I'm prepared to be corrected, that the 10 is worse than the three 8's.Having said that I like to keep mine below 7 with 7 being the 'spike'.

 

[DannyB]

To be honest - I try to keep mine below 7 too. I was just throwing numbers around to try and give an idea of what is going through my mind.

I guess what I'm trying to get at (forgetting the numbers) is, to try and establish which is the most damaging:

- a single higher spike
OR
- several lower spikes

I'm trying to plan not only what I eat but also when, and how often I eat. I was just wondering if I am better taking one 'big hit' rather then several smaller 'hits' during the course of a morning.

 

[Dennis]

Well I would say,and I'm prepared to be corrected, that the 10 is worse than the three 8's.Having said that I like to keep mine below 7 with 7 being the 'spike'.

Its not often that I disagree with Sue, but here goes (helmet firmly on head!). The "harm" in high sugar levels is from retinopathy and neuropathy damage, but the damage is generally after a prolonged period with high levels (i.e. of over 7.5). So it would seem more likely that an isolated high would do less damage than a series of highs.

 

[Trinkwasser]

Some forms of damage are more related to "area under the curve" whereas others are more related to height of the spike.

http://www.bloodsugar101.com/

you can probably improve one at the expense of the other

 

[sugarless sue]

Well I would say,and I'm prepared to be corrected, that the 10 is worse than the three 8's.Having said that I like to keep mine below 7 with 7 being the 'spike'.

Its not often that I disagree with Sue, but here goes (helmet firmly on head!). The "harm" in high sugar levels is from retinopathy and neuropathy damage, but the damage is generally after a prolonged period with high levels (i.e. of over 7.5). So it would seem more likely that an isolated high would do less damage than a series of highs.

That's OK Dennis ,I am always willing to learn!!It's just retaining the info that's the problem.