Is this your first extended fast? I would ease yourself into 7 days rather than going for 7 first off..
Is this your first extended fast? I would ease yourself into 7 days rather than going for 7 first off..I'm trying all sorts in an attempt to fix myself, currently on day 3 of fasting completely with only water and coffee....
Im not sure if I'm harming myself or helping, I can but try.
Please excuse my ignorance if I sound silly for asking, but why would you ever want to the body to go below 4mmol/l? From my understanding the body regulates between 4mmol and 6mmol, and tries to maintain a mean blood glucose of 5.5mmol/l.
Yes, day 4 and I'm struggling. Will go until this evening and see how I feel but I'm ready to eat I think.Is this your first extended fast? I would ease yourself into 7 days rather than going for 7 first off..
If you feel you are ready to eat then eat..there's no point in being a macho man when fasting..Yes, day 4 and I'm struggling. Will go until this evening and see how I feel but I'm ready to eat I think.
Its good to know that you know more than my doctor and my consultant.That is a myth.. any google search will show you that you don't enter the dreaded starvation mode until your fat stores have been close to eliminated...
It was found that metabolism increases 8-10 percent for the first 2-4 days of a fast..
The only way to slow your metabolism is to
1. lose muscle mass.
2. Be sedentary..
Now when you go on a low calorie diet and don't exercise that would convince your body to reduce your muscle mass ... and THAT is how you wreck your metabolism.
The above chart is the ADA, the UK follows the WHO that says:
HbA1c level of 6-6.4% (42-47 mmol/mol) pre-diabetes,
An HbA1c level of 6.5% (48mmol/mol) or above indicates type 2 diabetes.
Also have you seen the research on age and hba1c with non-diabetic people?
It's intersting that the findings state we may have it wrong that hba1c is not static, and does go up with age(not to a high level as diabetics do), for example 5.2% at 42-49 years, and goes high as the person gets older. I will upload the chart if interested, I'm still reading up on it. I guess if we get it below that mark, we are doing great.
I think this thread is going off subject....
This is a more interesting topic. Why not start a new thread about optimal HbA1c, I would like to see your chart.The above chart is the ADA, the UK follows the WHO that says:
HbA1c level of 6-6.4% (42-47 mmol/mol) pre-diabetes,
An HbA1c level of 6.5% (48mmol/mol) or above indicates type 2 diabetes.
Also have you seen the research on age and hba1c with non-diabetic people?
It's intersting that the findings state we may have it wrong that hba1c is not static, and does go up with age(not to a high level as diabetics do), for example 5.2% at 42-49 years, and goes high as the person gets older. I will upload the chart if interested, I'm still reading up on it. I guess if we get it below that mark, we are doing great.
I think this thread is going off subject....
I did not think it normal for the body to go that low, I only see 3s if I do a quick test after a lot of exercise(beofre my liver dump glucose to stop be passing out) or it will be mid 4s. I guess the body does not know when you're going to finish, so it just keeps dump more glucose to keep you going, and then takes it back.
The 100mg/dl is the mean glucose level in humans, I was listening to a professor on the subject last year. Interesting research also into age and hba1c that it goes up with age. Still reading up on my notes on that one.
I did not think it normal for the body to go that low, I only see 3s if I do a quick test after a lot of exercise(beofre my liver dump glucose to stop be passing out) or it will be mid 4s. I guess the body does not know when you're going to finish, so it just keeps dump more glucose to keep you going, and then takes it back.
The 100mg/dl is the mean glucose level in humans, I was listening to a professor on the subject last year. Interesting research also into age and hba1c that it goes up with age. Still reading up on my notes on that one.
Well it seems perfectly normal for my body on the third day of fasting.. so its obviously ok for me.
I am not advocating that you do it but if my BG is going to go up as I get older (I'm now 55) then I would like that rise to start from the lowest level possible that's why I'm not especially concerned who says what.
I quite happily ignore what the NHS says about Eatwell.. I know that my own personal experience of the HCP's at my practice show they know quite a lot less than me about my Type 2 and alternative treatments for it other than Metformin. I don't want to lift weights an don't believe it helps whatever Djsteve may have to say about it. I manage my diabetes my way.
I am happy to help others and maybe will try to push what has worked for me because of that reason - it has worked for me. As I say in my signature.. everything I recommend I have done myself.
Why? I was responding to something somebody asked me...Maybe start your own thread on the topic?
M
I agree... I used to spend my time stabbing my little fingers to death. Testing stresses the hell out of me( even my hands Shack) thinking one day it will be back to 10mmol/l or more again.
I don't think we need to stress that much over it trying for the lowest numbers as my mother has had type 2 diabetes for over 20 years with a hba1c of 6.7% ( it used to be way higher until this year) and has not had any complications, on the other hand my dad did not have diabetes and was a healthy person but she has outlived him.
Normal is the new high... Was a time D wasn't diagnosed until fasting at 7.7 and Prediabetes wasn't a thing. Pharma involvement no doubt, same with BP and cholesterol.
For all they have done right, they have also got a lot very wrong.... Chasing the dollar does not always equate to appropriate care.What, as in 'Pharma want to keep me alive on drugs, the spawns of satan. I'd rather die, like we used to without them'?
It went downhill when some big pharma found antiseptics, and snowballed after that. Bring back the days of the surgeon with the bloodstained apron is what I say!
And anesthesia, devils work, bring back amputations in the days of Nelson!
He could take it!
The jury's out....But big pharma' just keep causing cancer?
For four decades?
Without selling a cure, because.........
I just don't know, but it is undisputable that many cancers can be cured and/or suppressed with cannabis.So, your money is on suppressing a cure for cancer?
Me, I sunk several thousands of my pension fund into the only legal company that is actually manufacturing cannabinoids.
As they have gone up by 1400 percent, I don't think they're hiding an ace up their sleeve.
But, if they were, I'll buy a helicopter and a house with a pad one day, so I hope you are right.
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?