What is the expected blood sugar reading if a diabetic uses a severe Atkins diet?

@yetta2mymom you appear to simply be wanting to rename conditions that have already been identified (reactive hypoglycaemia, insulin resistance type 2 and gestational diabetes) under a "hunter gene" umbrella. This gene which has not in fact been identified so is an entirely putative theory. Renaming these conditions would appear to have no beneficial purpose as they all have treatment paths (those endorsed by the "establishment" and those that are currently in development). You don't appear to be proposing any alternative treatment option specifically for those with your putative hunter gene. So what exactly is the point?

Yes you're right about that, fatigue is fatigue.

yetta2mymom said:

Hi

Hello. You discribe the "hunter" gene which was found by a doctor I can not find (anyone know his name) on P.B.S. who said people with this glucose tolerance test do not lose weight on his weight loss diet. I then encounted people from the near east and found out that about 1/2 of them (at least that is what 2 such people said, my enquires of the establishment have been ignored) are found to be prediabetic but do not get diabetes. This seems to be the history of populations which have eaten grains but continue to have the "hunter" gene (me). I assume numerous famines occur and since the "hunter" gene is much more efficient at processing sugar and/or protein it is recommended during famines. With the "hunter" gene you do not process sugar into fat and later process fat into sugar unless you have too. I have no idea how we do this. A major problem with the "hunter" gene is that women in pregnancy can't turn off what ever it is that makes them simulate type 2 diabetes when their blood sugar gets too large (do you have any guesses?). Just ask anyone from the Near East and problably some of your relatives. I have bounced my ideas off my local expert (harvard, Brigham and Women's hospital, will give name on request) and he says possible,even probable but not proved. I am writting an article for Scientific American (I hope my latest draft is on this (word?). I will believe they will publish when I see the article. My expert says what other tests should we try everything is very normal. I do not wish to eat any significant sugar/starch since it took me years to become nearly normal.
What does upper atmospheric behavior have to do with medicine? Please find me anyone who is diabetic and has delayed reactive hypoglycemia. What happened to me in 1957? It sure had all the symptoms of an autoimmune reaction.

Click to expand...

I linked you to a page that named that doctor - did you read it? It named the doctor.

You're repeating the same information but not adapting it to the extra information you've been told here. The hunter gene is the thrifty gene. It's just a different name. It's a commonly known theory, not a new or mysterious one.

Gestational diabetes is insulin resistance caused by the hormones of pregnancy in women who are more prone to develop Type 2 later in life.

You're pre diabetic because you don't have enough insulin resistance to qualify you as diabetic (Type 2).

You may also have reactive hypoglycaemia.

yetta2mymom said:

Hi

I am not diabetic. I can not write for people who are. My problem in 1957 in retrospect are classical autoimmune symptoms. I am convinced by my glucose tolerance test, just look at it, and the doctor who found people with my type test "do not loss weight on his weight loss diet" that what must be happening is that I simulate type 2 diabetes (how?) since I have no problem processing protein and then when my blood sugar gets high enough I turn off whatever stops my insulin from turning sugar into fat and my blood sugar actually quickly goes somewhat lower than most people. This method of processing sugar would save the energy of forming fat and at a later date changing the fat back into sugar. If you do not eat a large enough amounts of sugar/starch and/or protein you never change sugar into fat. That is what I think is happening. This procedure feels like complicated chemistry. After 1957 I have late reactive hypoglycemia if I eat too much sugar/starch/alcohol and fatigue as soon as my sugar processing begins. Something has gone wrong with the timing and/or the amount of insulin released after my body cuts the type 2 diabetes.

Click to expand...

RH does simulate T2 in many of its symptoms, if you don't eat to control it, the symptoms of insulin resistance, high blood glucose (not sugar) high hba1c and many more. The hypos are as severe as other types but doctors dismiss the hypos as false hypos. The excess insulin causes the visceral fat not the glucose (blood sugar as you call it!) You do not have anything else metabolic except RH!
If you restrict your carbs really low, you will control it! You are already saying that. If you have a monitor, use it to learn how foods affect you.
Once the first initial insulin response is triggered, the insulin doesn't turn off until your body in my case has sleep.
That's why you get symptoms of hunger, your body needs the glucose, because of the brain telling your body it needs fuel, only when your body get its energy source from the alternative fuel source, muscle fat, can you cope without carbs. The symptoms ease. You do not lose weight because you only require very small amounts of food at your and mine age. The body will not use up the excess amount of whatever food you eat.
We can fast for days and not feel hungry, in fact we feel better and more clear headed if we fast!
The question is why we don't lose weight is because we eat a lot of protein and calories, full fat and vegetables to balance and get important vitamins to support our needs. We as I've said, don't need a lot of food to exist.
We are better in restricting our intake severely. The visceral fat is used as fuel!
This is how we lose weight! It has nothing to do with genes, just a simple metabolic biological fact.

yetta2mymom said:

Hi
I am using classical terms to describe a completely different problem. That is what the doctors who find my type symptoms have done. They call me prediabetic since my blood sugar in 1964 after 2 hours is 185. Me a relative and many people in India don't become diabetic. Why are we prediabetic? They call low blood sugar hypoglycemia if it occurs in an hour or so or if it occurs over 3 hours after ingesting sugar. Fatigue is fatigue.

Click to expand...

The whole point of telling people they are prediabetic is to give the information that they are at risk of developing diabetes (nb at risk does not mean developing diabetes is a certainty, it means it is an increased risk) so that they can decide whether lifestyle changes would be appropriate in an effort to avoid the risk materialising. Well done, you, like many others, have made the lifestyle change of adopting a low carb diet and avoided developing diabetes.

For the avoidance of doubt, being diagnosed prediabetic doesn't mean you will definitely get diabetes. It means you have been identified as at increased risk of developing type 2. A risk is not a certainty.

I don't understand why you are so determined to have a different problem. From what you have posted, it doesn't sound like you do have a "completely different problem" it sounds very similar to possible reactive hypoglycaemia with a level of insulin resistance enough to classify you as pre diabetic, which you are treating with a low carb diet. Yes, reactive hypoglycaemia is initself unusual but you have the opportunity to benefit/learn from @nosher8355 expereince of diagnosis as he has been kind enough to share the knowledge he has gained with you - I would suggest you take that opportunity rather than dismissing it because of your fixation on an unidentified gene.

yetta2mymom said:

Hi

Hello. You discribe the "hunter" gene which was found by a doctor I can not find (anyone know his name) on P.B.S. who said people with this glucose tolerance test do not lose weight on his weight loss diet. I then encounted people from the near east and found out that about 1/2 of them (at least that is what 2 such people said, my enquires of the establishment have been ignored) are found to be prediabetic but do not get diabetes. This seems to be the history of populations which have eaten grains but continue to have the "hunter" gene (me). I assume numerous famines occur and since the "hunter" gene is much more efficient at processing sugar and/or protein it is recommended during famines. With the "hunter" gene you do not process sugar into fat and later process fat into sugar unless you have too. I have no idea how we do this. A major problem with the "hunter" gene is that women in pregnancy can't turn off what ever it is that makes them simulate type 2 diabetes when their blood sugar gets too large (do you have any guesses?). Just ask anyone from the Near East and problably some of your relatives. I have bounced my ideas off my local expert (harvard, Brigham and Women's hospital, will give name on request) and he says possible,even probable but not proved. I am writting an article for Scientific American (I hope my latest draft is on this (word?). I will believe they will publish when I see the article. My expert says what other tests should we try everything is very normal. I do not wish to eat any significant sugar/starch since it took me years to become nearly normal.
What does upper atmospheric behavior have to do with medicine? Please find me anyone who is diabetic and has delayed reactive hypoglycemia. What happened to me in 1957? It sure had all the symptoms of an autoimmune reaction.

Click to expand...

I haven't described the 'hunter gene' because in reality there is no such thing. Sometimes people watch a show...say about witchcraft or psychics and they find themselves identifying with it, but that doesn't make it 'real'. The hunter gene is a theory that has multiple problems because it has no basis in reality. Every guess made by the doctor was disproved and he kept trying to get it right and eventually conceded he was just plain wrong. Another poster linked you to that information, but you seem hell-bent on ignoring it. The 'un-named' doctor named in the linked article himself would tell you this. You NEED to come up with a new theory because this one is out by the very person who created it.
I believe I was/am hypoglycaemic when I was a child and a teenager. When I became pregnant, it was vastly intensified for who knows what reason. I have ended up diabetic because I DID NOT make the lifestyle changes required when I was classified as pre-diabetic soon after my last pregnancy. I stupidly thought my hormones were just taking longer to come back around to normal because I was older.
A lot of people, diabetic or not, only lose a marginal amount of weight on any given diet and plateau. That is the main reason people do not continue on diets. You not continuing to lose weight is not abnormal, but actually quite normal. You can study all types of diets and see this happen to regular people, to diabetics, everyone. Sorry, you're not a special cookie in that regards.
I am the FIRST person to develop diabetes in my family in at least the last 100 years. I have no knowledge before that. I do lose weight, in fact, lost 80 pounds actually because my sugars were too high for too long before diagnosis. But I can also go days and days without eating if I choose too, or can go days without drinking. I have a lot of these markers that you coin, but I have not described your debunked gene because different things have resulted than what you are saying. And that is sort of the point. Everyone with the range of these sugar diseases has slightly different episodes and stories they can tell. They differ from person to person, but you have not describe one thing to me that can only be found in the very few people you claim to have spoken to. The symptoms you keep repeating over and over and over again I read every single day on all kinds of forums. As caterpillar says, you just want to rename something.....because why? you want to be different? You aren't or the establishment would not ignore you. My family has a friend. He developed diabetes after getting a virus. One day it disappeared completely. He IS different and he IS being studied to see why this happened after 7 years. You just have what a bunch of other people do and it is fine to want to know/understand/debate/wonder about the origins, but at least do it in the context of current science and not with theories that have been debunked, especially by the original person who thought it up.

yetta2mymom said:

Hi

You are doing what I find many people do. A theory is a theory. It is not true it is a guess as to the real reality. I present a different theory because it better fits my facts. My facts are I know of people who have a glucose tolerance test which rises for more than 2 hours and sometimes later crashes. These people have a normal A1C and process protein normally. How is this possible? Your theory does not fit the facts. I know that many of these people do not become diabetic. I know that these people are some of the people who have sugar problems in pregnancy. I do not know if all people who have problems in pregnancy have this GTT (doubt it). I do not know if there are sub groups of these people (probable). I assume evolution would do its thing and if it doesn't correct the sugar problems in pregnancy without creating the normal GTT then it could at least, if the situation called for it, make these people less susceptible to diabetes and allow them to lose weight without an immediate rebound (that's what seems to be the case). Yes this may be the (a) "thrifty" gene. It may be the way all humans originally processed sugar until farming raised its head.

Click to expand...

No, you're presenting the same theory with different details, some of which are factually incorrect.

You and the people you know have a normal HbA1C because the lows they have even out the highs. For some, their HbA1C is normal but on the higher end of normal.

My 'theory' isn't a theory. It's based on facts. The only theory bit is the thrifty gene.

Gestational diabetes is linked to Type 2 in that women who develop it have a higher risk of Type 2. This does NOT mean all those women at higher risk will develop Type 2 - some will, some won't. More women from S Asia get GD because they are already at higher risk of Type 2. I've already explained that.

The processing of protein isn't relevant to this discussion, and so the fact 'these people' process protein normally is irrelevant.

I don't understand your sentence about evolution making ladies with GD less likely to develop diabetes. This simply is NOT true. Some women are more susceptible to Type 2. One early sign of this is the fact that they develop GD in pregnancy. The pregnancy hormones are enough to push them into a temporary diabetic state as their bodies cannot process glucose normally during pregnancy.

The reason evolution hasn't corrected this fault is, as I have already explained, that in some circumstances it is an advantage.

Also, evolution works extremely slowly so even if it were going to correct this, it would take a long, long, long time.

yetta2mymom said:

Hi

You are doing what I find many people do. A theory is a theory. It is not true it is a guess as to the real reality. I present a different theory because it better fits my facts. My facts are I know of people who have a glucose tolerance test which rises for more than 2 hours and sometimes later crashes. These people have a normal A1C and process protein normally. How is this possible? Your theory does not fit the facts. I know that many of these people do not become diabetic. I know that these people are some of the people who have sugar problems in pregnancy. I do not know if all people who have problems in pregnancy have this GTT (doubt it). I do not know if there are sub groups of these people (probable). I assume evolution would do its thing and if it doesn't correct the sugar problems in pregnancy without creating the normal GTT then it could at least, if the situation called for it, make these people less susceptible to diabetes and allow them to lose weight without an immediate rebound (that's what seems to be the case). Yes this may be the (a) "thrifty" gene. It may be the way all humans originally processed sugar until farming raised its head.

Click to expand...

I have normal fasting levels, I have normal hba1c levels, I have no prediabetic condition, I'm not diabetic, I have no gene that dictates my endocrine functions.

RH has nothing to do with pregnancy, where you came from or what tribal background you come from.
It is a metabolic condition where your insulin does not turn off after eating susceptible intolerant foods!
That's it!

I have normal blood glucose levels but weird pancreas!
This has been proved by a few prolonged glucose and fasting tests, all done in the last few years.

May I just add about gestational diabetes: your risk is still relatively low if you have only one pregnancy with the condition. That may not have been understood so well 40 years ago when your relative's doctor said she would likely develop diabetes. When I had my first pregnancy, my doctor told me it would really depend on future pregnancies. Each pregnancy with the conditions ups your chances. I have had friends who had the condition for one pregnancy, but not subsequent. I got it all three times and at that point, it is pretty unavoidable. Also, a lot of people can generally avoid it until they are much older anyway. These people in India, you should talk to them when they are in their 60s and 70s. India is one of the places in the world where diabetes is starting to thrive. It is a game of wait and see. And as we know, so many are left undiagnosed because they are not even tested.

@yetta2mymom You and people like you struggle to lose weight because of insulin resistance. There are many people like yourself.

I do get what you're saying, but you're not correct in many of the things you say.

Also, you are overcomplicating a relatively simple process.

yetta2mymom said:

Hi

You have stated the medical professional theory. I have said they are somewhat wrong as there is a population of women who are naturally simulating type 2 diabetes. How can this not be so if they have no trouble processing protein and do not store sugar as fat. Look at their GTT. What explains there GTT? The diet doctor was flabbergasted (my paraphrase) that these people had normal fasting blood sugar and normal A1C but had this strange GTT. He said, they do not lose weight on his weight loss diet. What is your explanation of these facts? Yes this is/was an advantage when there is very little food. Yes they gain weight not by eating more but just naturally. I have anecdotal evidence that many of these women are not likely to become diabetic. I guess that these are women who have come from families(me) who originally were susceptible to diabetes about 10000 to 20000 years ago but by natural selection are no longer such. That explains the Indian man's diatribe. It also is true that not all populations had the stress of mostly grain in there diet. We still have hunters, are these populations still very susceptible to becoming diabetic? I understand your point of view but I do not understand why you do not see my point of view.

Click to expand...

I seriously think you're not listening. You say or ask something, I reply and answer your question, but you just carry on saying the same thing!

GD is a symptom of a propensity to develop Type 2 diabetes.

That's not a mad theory - it's a fact.

azure said:

I seriously think you're not listening. You say or ask something, I reply and answer your question, but you just carry on saying the same thing!

GD is a symptom of a propensity to develop Type 2 diabetes.

That's not a mad theory - it's a fact.

Click to expand...

The OP is not listening at all. OP has a refusal to actually look at normal biological factors like *most* people will only lose a small amount of weight on any given diet (insulin resistance or not). And he continues to rely on a theory that was debunked by the man who thought it up. OP please look towards current medical thought, that is at the very least, closer to the truth than your 'hunter' gene that has been refuted time and time again. Please listen. The person who thought this up admitted he was wrong, that his theory did not work. He moved on. So should you.