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

What is pre-diabetes and how serious is it?

@cured - I would be curious to understand your own relationship with diabetes or metabolic disorders, please?
 
cured said:
Diabetes is a silent killer and most people only realise they have it after the damage has been done. It is aimed at those who have pre-diabetes but who are unaware of it.
Click to expand...
But those who are unaware of it are not very likely to read this forum.
 
cured said:
My article was firstly written in Word, then copied and pasted from that into the Forum. I thought that members were allowed to express their personal opinion?
My comments were not intended to offend and I apologise if they did, but I strongly believe that trying to be PC can often be the biggest obstacle as was proved by the Fight Fat campaign in Newcastle.
Diabetes is a silent killer and most people only realise they have it after the damage has been done. It is aimed at those who have pre-diabetes but who are unaware of it. An obese lady in the Fight Fat program was still having difficulty going on a diet and exercising despite the fact that her father had just had his leg amputated due to being diabetic! Regardless of whether a person has or does not have diabetes it is essential to remain active.

Post edited by moderator.
Click to expand...

No problem with putting it out there so long as the facts are correct.
The problem is that a vast majority of members have suffered due to the view of the NHS and politics.
Doctors Tell diabetics to eat carbs. That is tantamount to prescribing an alcoholic a bottle of scotch a day.

As to bmi. My daughter is technically obese. Premier league hockey player. Runs 10 miles a week, can swim a mile in under 30 min and does at least that 3 times a week plus hockey. There is not an ounce of fat on her.

Please preach. But do it right, to the right people. We know what diabetes is capable of. We are also the minority that knows how to fight it properly.
 
cured said:
Please refer to the Banting and Patrick Holford diets, the latter being a recognised dietician specialising in diabetics
Click to expand...

No way would I recommend anyone who has a 5 meal a day dietary plan thanks.. or one that includes so much fruit.
Maybe you would care to read around the forum a little before imparting your views .. you may even learn something!
 
bulkbiker said:
No way would I recommend anyone who has a 5 meal a day dietary plan thanks.. or one that includes so much fruit.
Maybe you would care to read around the forum a little before imparting your views .. you may even learn something!
Click to expand...

Indeed. Grazing, and lots of fruit, is about the absolute worst dietary strategy for any insulin resistant diabetic. Promotion of constant insulin secretion and a direct contribution to fatty liver at the same time.

“Triffic”
 
As I've suggested in other posts, I don't really agree with the whole pre-diabetes thing. It used to be called "borderline diabetes", then they changed the name. Problems I have with it are:

1) People diagnosed like this often think "I'm ok at the moment, just need to be a bit more careful", rather than modifying their diet properly.
2) The levels used to diagnose "pre-diabetes" are well above normal limits, not just a bit. The very most that a true non-diabetic would record as an HbA1c is about 36 according to most medical research, yet we suggest figures in the 40's are merely "pre" diabetic. I think that many people diagnosed as pre-diabetic would fail an oral glucose tolerance test; not necessarily at the +2 hours stage, but under the original rule (when blood was tested every 15 mins during the test) that stated that "any reading above 11.1 at any stage indicated diabetes"
3) Cynically, I believe NICE and the NHS like to have a pre-diabetes classification because it avoids them having to declare the true number of diabetics and ruining their numbers.

To me, pre-diabetes is just diabetes caught early, and more easily managed if approached under the same vigour as any other diabetes.

Don't mean to upset anyone here, but I hate the idea that some (probably not those on here) bury their head in the sand a little.
 
Grazer said:
As I've suggested in other posts, I don't really agree with the whole pre-diabetes thing. It used to be called "borderline diabetes", then they changed the name. Problems I have with it are:

1) People diagnosed like this often think "I'm ok at the moment, just need to be a bit more careful", rather than modifying their diet properly.
2) The levels used to diagnose "pre-diabetes" are well above normal limits, not just a bit. The very most that a true non-diabetic would record as an HbA1c is about 36 according to most medical research, yet we suggest figures in the 40's are merely "pre" diabetic. I think that many people diagnosed as pre-diabetic would fail an oral glucose tolerance test; not necessarily at the +2 hours stage, but under the original rule (when blood was tested every 15 mins during the test) that stated that "any reading above 11.1 at any stage indicated diabetes"
3) Cynically, I believe NICE and the NHS like to have a pre-diabetes classification because it avoids them having to declare the true number of diabetics and ruining their numbers.

To me, pre-diabetes is just diabetes caught early, and more easily managed if approached under the same vigour as any other diabetes.

Don't mean to upset anyone here, but I hate the idea that some (probably not those on here) bury their head in the sand a little.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.
 
Do not forget the diagnostic levels were set many years ago by committee they were kept deliberately high as at the time there were no medications such as metformin and the blood sugar lowering medications either by stting the bar for dianosis high they avoided the necessity to treat a large number of diabetics when the only thing they could offer was insulin. The levels have never been brought back in line with reality

I do not agree with the arbitrary distinction between pre and full diabetes. I though am having difficulty in impressing this on my daughter recently diagnosed with pre-diabetes who does not take it as seriously as I think she should.
 
Grazer said:
As I've suggested in other posts, I don't really agree with the whole pre-diabetes thing. It used to be called "borderline diabetes", then they changed the name. Problems I have with it are:

1) People diagnosed like this often think "I'm ok at the moment, just need to be a bit more careful", rather than modifying their diet properly.
2) The levels used to diagnose "pre-diabetes" are well above normal limits, not just a bit. The very most that a true non-diabetic would record as an HbA1c is about 36 according to most medical research, yet we suggest figures in the 40's are merely "pre" diabetic. I think that many people diagnosed as pre-diabetic would fail an oral glucose tolerance test; not necessarily at the +2 hours stage, but under the original rule (when blood was tested every 15 mins during the test) that stated that "any reading above 11.1 at any stage indicated diabetes"
3) Cynically, I believe NICE and the NHS like to have a pre-diabetes classification because it avoids them having to declare the true number of diabetics and ruining their numbers.

To me, pre-diabetes is just diabetes caught early, and more easily managed if approached under the same vigour as any other diabetes.

Don't mean to upset anyone here, but I hate the idea that some (probably not those on here) bury their head in the sand a little.
Click to expand...

I’m reading this and feeling quite emotional for some reason. I had been pre diabetic for many years and didn’t realise that I could have changed it.
Found an old food diary over the last few days and can’t believe how bad the numbers were no matter how “healthy” I ate.
Made my own bread, meusli etc and rarely ate processed food or “junk” . Kept my weight under control by exercising and religiously followed mainstream teaching and assumed that the authorities knew what they were talking about. I have so many books on diabetic eating etc, it’s embarrassing.

Thank god for this forum and all you guys who are so selflessly putting yourselves out there.

I have been following the keto programme for around a month now and doing great.
 
Grazer said:
As I've suggested in other posts, I don't really agree with the whole pre-diabetes thing. It used to be called "borderline diabetes", then they changed the name. Problems I have with it are:

1) People diagnosed like this often think "I'm ok at the moment, just need to be a bit more careful", rather than modifying their diet properly.
2) The levels used to diagnose "pre-diabetes" are well above normal limits, not just a bit. The very most that a true non-diabetic would record as an HbA1c is about 36 according to most medical research, yet we suggest figures in the 40's are merely "pre" diabetic. I think that many people diagnosed as pre-diabetic would fail an oral glucose tolerance test; not necessarily at the +2 hours stage, but under the original rule (when blood was tested every 15 mins during the test) that stated that "any reading above 11.1 at any stage indicated diabetes"
3) Cynically, I believe NICE and the NHS like to have a pre-diabetes classification because it avoids them having to declare the true number of diabetics and ruining their numbers.

To me, pre-diabetes is just diabetes caught early, and more easily managed if approached under the same vigour as any other diabetes.

Don't mean to upset anyone here, but I hate the idea that some (probably not those on here) bury their head in the sand a little.
Click to expand...
I have come to similar conclusions in a short space of time. What I seem to see is the division between the two being used to avoid funding the support of or treatment of those in the Prediabetic category, when it is important for the nation as a whole aswell as the individual to do just that.
 
Last edited:
Grazer said:
As I've suggested in other posts, I don't really agree with the whole pre-diabetes thing. It used to be called "borderline diabetes", then they changed the name. Problems I have with it are:

1) People diagnosed like this often think "I'm ok at the moment, just need to be a bit more careful", rather than modifying their diet properly.
2) The levels used to diagnose "pre-diabetes" are well above normal limits, not just a bit. The very most that a true non-diabetic would record as an HbA1c is about 36 according to most medical research, yet we suggest figures in the 40's are merely "pre" diabetic. I think that many people diagnosed as pre-diabetic would fail an oral glucose tolerance test; not necessarily at the +2 hours stage, but under the original rule (when blood was tested every 15 mins during the test) that stated that "any reading above 11.1 at any stage indicated diabetes"
3) Cynically, I believe NICE and the NHS like to have a pre-diabetes classification because it avoids them having to declare the true number of diabetics and ruining their numbers.

To me, pre-diabetes is just diabetes caught early, and more easily managed if approached under the same vigour as any other diabetes.

Don't mean to upset anyone here, but I hate the idea that some (probably not those on here) bury their head in the sand a little.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. At work there are 6 I know of Inc me. One t2 the rest pre.
Guess which one has done anything pro active AT ALL. Yep. Your lookin at him.

Even the t2 just takes his met. Job done. He is perfectly happy with double figure FBg. "need a bit to get you going" A direct quote.... Told me how good salted caramel ice cream was after a pizza last week.
 
JohnEGreen said:
Do not forget the diagnostic levels were set many years ago by committee they were kept deliberately high as at the time there were no medications such as metformin and the blood sugar lowering medications either by stting the bar for dianosis high they avoided the necessity to treat a large number of diabetics when the only thing they could offer was insulin. The levels have never been brought back in line with reality

I do not agree with the arbitrary distinction between pre and full diabetes. I though am having difficulty in impressing this on my daughter recently diagnosed with pre-diabetes who does not take it as seriously as I think she should.
Click to expand...

When I was diagnosed as pre diabetic, I wish I knew then what I know now. My dad is a diabetic and is in a bad way. He never took his disease seriously and continued to just drink smoothies etc that were made from primarily fruit. Always had a jar of peanuts (choc Coated) alongside his chair near the t.v. He had two fridges and one was full of snacks....Tim Tams were bought by the case. Even after he had part of his foot amputated he wouldn’t change a thing.

His situation scared me to death. I don’t want to end up like him. He went into palliative care this week.
 
Spl@ said:
Absolutely. At work there are 6 I know of Inc me. One t2 the rest pre.
Guess which one has done anything pro active AT ALL. Yep. Your lookin at him.

Even the t2 just takes his met. Job done. He is perfectly happy with double figure FBg. "need a bit to get you going" A direct quote.... Told me how good salted caramel ice cream was after a pizza last week.
Click to expand...

Some don't care or just have no idea what is going on.
 
Spl@ said:
Absolutely. At work there are 6 I know of Inc me. One t2 the rest pre.
Guess which one has done anything pro active AT ALL. Yep. Your lookin at him.

Even the t2 just takes his met. Job done. He is perfectly happy with double figure FBg. "need a bit to get you going" A direct quote.... Told me how good salted caramel ice cream was after a pizza last week.
Click to expand...

Perhaps when they see how well you are doing they will be curious enough to ask.
 
"Pre-diabetes is caused by lifestyle factors, primarily obesity (being overweight due to eating the wrong types of food in excess) and indolence (being inactive), but also and probably more especially due to ignorance and indifference."

I am pre-diabetic, have never been overweight and have been pretty active (trekking in Himalyas, Andes, hill walking in UK and Europe). Which of these factores led to my Pre-diabetes?
Obesity is associated with Diabetes, but as many more experienced people than me have said, association does not neccesarily show the direction of the effect.

As to the ignorance element - yes I was ignorant as I had never heard of HbA1C and had never heard of pre-diabetes.

Responding to later points about whether Pre-diabetes is a helpful label or not - I think it depends what you do in response.
When I had an HbA1C of 45, I was given a review with a Nurse (who also happened to be Type 2 herself). She advised me to reduce my carbohydrates and to look at this website. She took it seriously and I took it seriously. To me it sounded like "A Condition" so I better do something about it. I genuinely don't know if "at risk of" would have worked in the same way.

As so many people who are diagnosed with Type 2 at the moment are given such bad advice about diet, I think putting this right will make a much bigger difference than the actual label.
 
Sparkle1953 said:
Perhaps when they see how well you are doing they will be curious enough to ask.
Click to expand...

Actually they are worried. One asked if I was ill as apparently its not possible to lose weight that fast and be healthy.
The others keep telling me to stop being so ott about it. As to mentioning omad. They thought I was mad. It's nothing.

Darwin would be proud.
 
Back
Top