Today's The Day:)

[sud5nala]

The OGTT is a good predictor, based on a normal response.
The ops results fall into the normal category, and there is little point in then trying to tighten up the category to only be at the 'best' of normal.
As you say, the 'average' of groups were 7.8, not the individual response.
Hence the 2h cutoff t the 7.8, otherwise many none diabetics would be incorrectly failing, and being classed as diabetic while having a perfectly normal response.

Another important point you seem to have overlooked, is that the op was on a low carb diet immediately before this particular test.
This has been proven to slow the insulin response in none diabetics, and normally three days acclimatisation with a high carb diet immediately before should have been undertaken.
So in view of that, it would seem it's an even better result to achieve a normal response.

Before addressing anything else, let's be clear that we're not talking about this test result being diabetic vs. normal, but prediabetic vs. normal.

In post #8, a doctor was quoted as saying "OGTT will be a better predictor" although different from the HbA1c. My response to be unsure as to predictor of what; presumably of progression to diabetes.

The OP is not a nondiabetic full stop, but a former diabetic. Weeks ago his BG was high. His system is now in the normal range based on a single test run, and it seems on track to stabilise within the normal range. But for months to come it will be unstable. Scientifically, the OP is not necessarily like the normal people that clinical standards are based on, because past research into the risks of progression would not apply to people to were already had hyperglycaemia and have reverted to normal.

As to the test result having fallen into normal: one test result isn't an ironclad proof. I noted explicitly that this particular test has poor consistency. Diabetologists have been saying so for years, eg Dr. Davidson in the 2002 article I linked to. As to the appeal to what the diet was immediately before the test was taken, it should make no difference because the science of this test (which was refined decades ago) was surely not based on testees who were eating low carb, nor on testees who very recently tested diabetic; and again, because the test result has a wide error range.

The value in this favourable result is not that it genuinely shows his physiology to be longterm normal, rather (1) he will almost surely achieve full reversal shortly if not already; (2) he is officially negative, leave aside whether genuinely cured.

 

[SunnyExpat]

Before addressing anything else, let's be clear that we're not talking about this test result being diabetic vs. normal, but prediabetic vs. normal.

In post #8, a doctor was quoted as saying "OGTT will be a better predictor" although different from the HbA1c. My response to be unsure as to predictor of what; presumably of progression to diabetes.

The OP is not a nondiabetic full stop, but a former diabetic. Weeks ago his BG was high. His system is now in the normal range based on a single test run, and it seems on track to stabilise within the normal range. But for months to come it will be unstable. Scientifically, the OP is not necessarily like the normal people that clinical standards are based on, because past research into the risks of progression would not apply to people to were already had hyperglycaemia and have reverted to normal.

As to the test result having fallen into normal: one test result isn't an ironclad proof. I noted explicitly that this particular test has poor consistency. Diabetologists have been saying so for years, eg Dr. Davidson in the 2002 article I linked to. As to the appeal to what the diet was immediately before the test was taken, it should make no difference because the science of this test (which was refined decades ago) was surely not based on testees who were eating low carb, nor on testees who very recently tested diabetic; and again, because the test result has a wide error range.

The value in this favourable result is not that it genuinely shows his physiology to be longterm normal, rather (1) he will almost surely achieve full reversal shortly if not already; (2) he is officially negative, leave aside whether genuinely cured.

I'm glad you agree the numbers are normal, and your previous figures were unrealistic for a 'normal'response.

 

[sud5nala]

I'm glad you agree the numbers are normal, and your previous figures were unrealistic for a 'normal'response.

I said no such things. This is the second person who has responded to a post of mine by sarcastically putting retractions in my mouth, and by looking past what I did say. Electoral politics is an field where I never would have made a living.

 

[SunnyExpat]

I said no such things. This is the second person who has responded to a post of mine by sarcastically putting retractions in my mouth, and by looking past what I did say. Electoral politics is an field where I never would have made a living.

Neither is medicine I'm afraid.

 

[lindisfel]

One would not have thought it beyond the wit of modern science to be able to calibrate the amount of insulin produced for a given amount of carbohydrate wrt blood glucose. This would surely be a definitive diagnosis. Some authorities show damage and CVD starts at hba1c's of 37. D.

 

[Lamont D]

Due to the different approaches to the glucose test. This is why it should not be used in T2 or prediabetic diagnosis.
The variance in results is so inexact that it only shows what is happening to your blood glucose at that time, it can be skewed by so many variables.

Having been through so many of them for my diagnosis and experimental research
tests. The two hour, testing every half hour is diabolical in this modern age of CGMs.

I still think that @KevinPotts is just too high at two hours, even though it would be considered normal for a test of this sort.

His results on Wednesday will be interesting.

 

[6cats]

I am T2 and continual testing has enabled me to reduce original BG levels (diagnosed 5 months ago) from 21.5 to an average of 6.5. It has provided me with info that I needed to make a drastic change to my diet. It's a crucial tool in T2.

Sent from my MotoE2(4G-LTE) using Diabetes.co.uk Forum mobile app

 

[SunnyExpat]

One would not have thought it beyond the wit of modern science to be able to calibrate the amount of insulin produced for a given amount of carbohydrate wrt blood glucose. This would surely be a definitive diagnosis. Some authorities show damage and CVD starts at hba1c's of 37. D.

Due to the different approaches to the glucose test. This is why it should not be used in T2 or prediabetic diagnosis.
The variance in results is so inexact that it only shows what is happening to your blood glucose at that time, it can be skewed by so many variables.

Having been through so many of them for my diagnosis and experimental research
tests. The two hour, testing every half hour is diabolical in this modern age of CGMs.

I still think that @KevinPotts is just too high at two hours, even though it would be considered normal for a test of this sort.

His results on Wednesday will be interesting.

Many none diabetics would be showing many diabetic complications if these 'authorities' were indeed correct.

The problem with these type of posts, it's not just newbies that read it, and stress over not getting a better than none diabetic reading, or even pre diabetics, you also get completely none diabetics becoming convinced they have been mis-diagnosed a well when all their readings come back as 'normal', but not at the absolute bottom of the scale.

 

[lindisfel]

Hi Sunny, I rate Dr. Kraft's findings on many many insulin assays. Diabetes, in the form of insulin resistance, occurs well before it is manifested by abnormal hba1c's! He was a pathologist and I think regarded 90% of heart attacks due the inflammatory response caused by excessive insulin....due carbs. D.

 

[SunnyExpat]

Hi Sunny, I rate Dr. Kraft's findings on many many insulin assays. Diabetes, in the form of insulin resistance, occurs well before it is manifested by abnormal hba1c's! He was a pathologist and I think regarded 90% of heart attacks due the inflammatory response caused by excessive insulin....due carbs. D.

I have a consideration for that view though.
One man, who can sell any number of books to let you promote his theory, or the rest of the world, still managing to walk around, none diabetic, with blood glucose that he says should be killing them from diabetic complications?
As a pathologist, I guess he's never actually inter-reacted with any patients?
Possibly that explained why he believes everyone should be his gold standard specimen sample in a test tube?
Sorry, it's a nice dream, but maybe he needs to look out of the lab window, there are generations of us still up and about, in spite of the fact he says we shouldn't be, according to his lab results.
That's all the proof I really need.

 

[KevinPotts]

Due to the different approaches to the glucose test. This is why it should not be used in T2 or prediabetic diagnosis.
The variance in results is so inexact that it only shows what is happening to your blood glucose at that time, it can be skewed by so many variables.

Having been through so many of them for my diagnosis and experimental research
tests. The two hour, testing every half hour is diabolical in this modern age of CGMs.

I still think that @KevinPotts is just too high at two hours, even though it would be considered normal for a test of this sort.

His results on Wednesday will be interesting.

Well this has developed into a really interesting thread and I've learned such a lot on both sides of the argument. Either way the GTT seems close enough for me to remain happy.

As @nosher states my results of A1c and for me all my lipid panel metabolic markers this coming Wednesday will be very interesting


Sent from my iPhone using DCUK Forum

 

[lindisfel]

• It is obvious from your comments you are ignorant of the subject in question. Kraft in no way suggests the things you purport and his considered studies are not off the cuff remarks whilst sitting on his seat looking through a lab window. Some of us don't live in your black and white world with no shades of grey..

I have a consideration for that view though.
One man, who can sell any number of books to let you promote his theory, or the rest of the world, still managing to walk around, none diabetic, with blood glucose that he says should be killing them from diabetic complications?
As a pathologist, I guess he's never actually inter-reacted with any patients?
Possibly that explained why he believes everyone should be his gold standard specimen sample in a test tube?
Sorry, it's a nice dream, but maybe he needs to look out of the lab window, there are generations of us still up and about, in spite of the fact he says we shouldn't be, according to his lab results.
That's all the proof I really need.

 

[SunnyExpat]

• It is obvious from your comments you are ignorant of the subject in question. Kraft in no way suggests the things you purport and his considered studies are not off the cuff remarks whilst sitting on his seat looking through a lab window. Some of us don't live in your black and white world with no shades of grey..

'Ignorant?'
No, I just don't get sucked in by a guru selling his latest book.
But, if you need to pay for his teachings, and it makes you happy, and somehow better than the 'ignorant' masses, that's good if it makes you smile.

 

[Jasperville]

Kevin, I think your OGTT result was just brilliant. To not go above 10.0 after 75mg of glucose is impressive. Even better, I think the fact you came down to 7.4 suggests to me that your vagal nerve is intact, and no gastroparesis.

I have been diabetic for 17 years, and have had delayed stomach emptying for at least 10 of those. My peak with any carbs is at 2-4 hours, and it can still be elevated 8-12 hours later. I pigged out with a curry yesterday, rice, nan, the works + full carb ice cream. probably 150-200 grams of carbs.

I peaked at about 11.5 (6 months ago, I think I would have peaked at above 20), but my BG stayed above 10 until bedtime (6 hours after the meal). Wish I had had my libre on.

I think if you keep going as you are, you may become truly carb tolerant (ie non-diabetic) in the next year or two. I don't think I can ever achieve that, so resigned to low carb for life (with the occasional major slip-up).

 

[lindisfel]

I prefer to go with the science. There are no hard edges when reaching the diabetic threshold. The prediabetic and diabetic thresholds can be moved up and down as is currently the medical establishments opinion. People don't suddenly start dying when they reach an hba1c of say 48. Kraft never said that, you have a nice line in bending what's being said. I have never seen a book by Kraft only an interview and the man is now in his 90's. You have a strange view, that experts somehow sully their findings when they write books? Perhaps not all experts are funded by big pharma and multinationals and do actually write books for altruistic reasons!

'Ignorant?'
No, I just don't get sucked in by a guru selling his latest book.
But, if you need to pay for his teachings, and it makes you happy, and somehow better than the 'ignorant' masses, that's good if it makes you smile.

 

[SunnyExpat]

I prefer to go with the science. There are no hard edges when reaching the diabetic threshold. The prediabetic and diabetic thresholds can be moved up and down as is currently the medical establishments opinion. People don't suddenly start dying when they reach an hba1c of say 48. Kraft never said that, you have a nice line in bending what's being said. I have never seen a book by Kraft only an interview and the man is now in his 90's. You have a strange view, that experts somehow sully their findings when they write books? Perhaps not all experts are funded by big pharma and multinationals and do actually write books for altruistic reasons!

You're happy, his particular sell on science works for where you are.

The majority of us think the op's results are none diabetic, so if you and Kraft need better, that's your choice too. The rest of the human race lives on with similar figures to the op, that works for them too.
Or maybe they are just happy, living to old age in ignorance along with the rest of us?

 

[hankjam]

You're happy, his particular sell on science works for where you are.

The majority of us think the op's results are none diabetic, so if you and Kraft need better, that's your choice too. The rest of the human race lives on with similar figures to the op, that works for them too.
Or maybe they are just happy, living to old age in ignorance along with the rest of us?

The majority of us think...

I wish you would not be so inclusive when trying to trash another poster...

how many other posters have actually stated they thing the OP's results are non-diabetic.... a number have congratulated him on his numbers... only you stated they were none diabetic.
Your giving your own opinion , which is good, I wouldn't dream of including others when giving mine.

 

[SunnyExpat]

The majority of us think...

I wish you would not be so inclusive when trying to trash another poster...

how many other posters have actually stated they thing the OP's results are non-diabetic.... a number have congratulated him on his numbers... only you stated they were none diabetic.
Your giving your own opinion , which is good, I wouldn't dream of including others when giving mine.

So, you're happy to post, are you still so happy when it comes to giving your opinion on the results.
Because I'm 100% behind 'normal'

Are you?

 

[hankjam]

So, you're happy to post, are you still so happy when it comes to giving your opinion on the results.
Because I'm 100% behind 'normal'

Are you?

I'm sorry, I just don't understand your first sentence.

You can post what you like.

I was hoping to make the point that you seem to speak for others, the majority in this thread, when there aren't any other posters holding that position.

Normal is "out of scope" for my response.

 

[SunnyExpat]

I'm sorry, I just don't understand your first sentence.

You can post what you like.

I was hoping to make the point that you seem to speak for others, the majority in this thread, when there aren't any other posters holding that position.

Normal is "out of scope" for my response.

Ah, it is a shame when 'others' don't speak for themselves, but entirely expected I'm afraid.
So, let's still agree the results are 'normal' then.