You can measure your own Insulin Resistance !

[CherryAA]

That doesn't work the same. You can't use use the same conversion principles for trigs and BG even those both are in mmol/l. I know that sounds illogical., but it gives a different amount than the Unitslab converters.

Using the same BG figure of 5.4 I entered this in both converters.
The BG one said 92.2864
The trigs one said 477.9
A huge difference.

I seem to recall in the dark recesses of my mind that the American trigs are calculated in a peculiar way.
@Art Of Flowers

I just used the MG/DL converted figure as per the original formula.

 

[Bluetit1802]

I just used the MG/DL converted figure as per the original formula.

So did I. The one suggested by @Art Of Flowers doesn't work and gives silly results for the Trigs.

 

[Mr_Pot]

So did I. The one suggested by @Art Of Flowers doesn't work and gives silly results for the Trigs.

So what do you think are the conversion factors for Trigs and BG?

 

[Bluetit1802]

So what do you think are the conversion factors for Trigs and BG?

As per the Unitslab I expect. Have you any other ideas?
The Unitslab one for BG is the same as the one on this site http://www.diabetes.co.uk/blood-sugar-converter.html

 

[CherryAA]

I am sceptical about this calculation (admittedly I am sceptical about most things). It seems very convenient that it is BG x Trigs without any weighting factor so they must have equal significance. If you were tending towards diabetes then your BG might increase from say 5 to 7 but the normal range of Trigs is 0.45 to 1.82 ( a factor of 4) so the calculation is largely affected by Trigs.
If for example your Trigs were 1.0 then you could have to have a BG of 13.73 and your IR would still be normal according to this calculation.

I guess the question would be - do people actually have fasting Trigs of 1 and fasting BG of 13.73 ? maybe its unlikely that you would have very little carb conversion going on in your bloods and have a high amount of glucose in there at the same time ?

Also - one thing I have realised about these so called " normal ranges" used in blood tests is that normal is nowhere close to optimal - it is simply what the average of the population is.

i.e normal range insulin - 2-25 - optimal 2-6 - reason - high carbs in diet increase trig
normal trigs 0.45 to 1.82 - optimal the lower the better - ie 0.45 - reason high carbs in diet increases trigs

 

[CherryAA]

As per the Unitslab I expect. Have you any other ideas?
The Unitslab one for BG is the same as the one on this site http://www.diabetes.co.uk/blood-sugar-converter.html

http://unitslab.com/node/53
http://unitslab.com/node/1

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

There is then a "normal range " which takes on the characteristics of the normal population range 7.22 to 9.3 and a cut off point above which you either already are, or are likely to become diabetic

I have an insulin resistance number based on normal being equal to 1(no resistance), my IR is 2.5. No need to reply yet, I've got to go and see how they get the figure that was given to me last January by Genova Diagnostics (www.gdx.net).

 

[Bluetit1802]

I guess the question would be - do people actually have fasting Trigs of 1 and fasting BG of 13.73 ? maybe its unlikely that you would have very little carb conversion going on in your bloods and have a high amount of glucose in there at the same time ?

He is using the wrong conversion for the Trigs.

 

[Mr_Pot]

As per the Unitslab I expect. Have you any other ideas?
The Unitslab one for BG is the same as the one on this site http://www.diabetes.co.uk/blood-sugar-converter.html

To convert BG from mmol/L to mg/dL multiply by 18.
To convert Trigs from mmol/L to mg/dL multiply by 88.5.
18 x 88.5 = 1,593 but the original formula divides by 2
1,593/2 = 796.5

 

[Guzzler]

.
Psychiatrist - Georgia Ede MD
https://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/georgia-ede-md
This Insulin Resistance ( IR ) Test is not recommended by the Diabetes Sciences
Worldwide as by such as the NIH.Gov the worlds medical reference !
http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/insulin-resistance-tests-rev-3-15-17.pdf
( It is just as a self-made interpretation matter by some MD )

Here The Facts From NIH.Gov
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-in...iabetes/prediabetes-insulin-resistance#tested

Any OGTT Test combined with Peptide-C Test Is A Reference, the Georgia Test Not !!

Please do not mislead the forum.

.

To explore the use of a newly discovered tool by a particular member is, in my opinion, not misleading. The member is not advocating that the undiagnosed should demand treatment based on an algorithm that the member is using to further her knowledge of her own history pre diagnosis.

 

[Ch.R.]

I don't think I am misleading anyone.

Just because a GP made some self made interpretation- that does not make her wrong . It probably means she looked at this statistic for her patient database and she saw a pattern which she thinks is worth pointing out.

If people do not want to look at it they don't need to - in my own case it resonates entirely with my own data.

In the end I already know i have diabetes, thus this is not a question about self diagnosis, simply looking at what things do I know about my own body and whether I can see if the things I am doing to it seem to be beneficial or not with the information I have.

I agree entirely that of course an OGTT and a Peptide -C test would have been helpful to diagnose me and of course they should be used. Had I known that one could do the simple maths I outlined here back in 2014 I would also have known to ask for those things.

I would also have spotted a worrying upwards trend dating right back to 2001- which would have showed how these figures changed when I put weight on and what happened when I lost it. It would have put some "concrete" info alongside the doctors fairly woolly statements about - "you will get diabetes if you don't lose weight"

In my own case no doctor ever thought to give me either of those tests and I never knew to ask. What I do have is my fasting glucose and my trigs - and this method seems to have some sensible correlation to those things. even if it simply alerts one to think about asking the question about diabetes if trigs go up .

Dr Unwin himself said in a recent lecture that he had never got any idea of what to tell his patients when their trigs went up and now through LCHF he does - i.e reduce carbs and your trigs will go down. reduce carbs and your hba1c will go down too. Ergo it appears entirely reasonable that there would be some connection between the two- that is precisely why I tried to see if anyone had done any work on it and came across this.

In my case it is quite clear my trig/ diet and diabetes are correlated - as such I choose to look at the data I do have ,

In the end we can all divide what ever numbers we have on our blood tests by any other numbers if we feel like it - none of that changes the basic need to get the proper tests done by the medical profession at the proper time by a fully engage health professional who looks very carefully at your blood results as presented to him as opposed to completing a box ticking exercise which sadly has been my own experience. .

.

Changes or influences on the Lipids, Triglycerides or Cholesterols
can have many different causes ! Just ask any Doc. or Prof.

I don’t like to disappoint you, to me is just objectivity important
and for that reason we need to be carefully how we apply any
Internet Search !

For example and just as a tip, I always put in the search NIH.Gov
With The Matter and if there is not anything coming out of the US
NIH as connected with the National Library of Medicine the biggest
in the world and where the NIH is internationally functioning by
all its cooperation’s, sponsoring, etc. with any reliable certified
Institutions or R&D Clinical Centers, then it means it could not
been of any value or reference to consider, as simple as that.


.


.

 

[Bluetit1802]

To convert BG from mmol/L to mg/dL multiply by 18.
To convert Trigs from mmol/L to mg/dL multiply by 88.5.
18 x 88.5 = 1,593 but the original formula divides by 2
1,593/2 = 796.5

Right. Apologies. I was still dividing by 2.
Thank you.

Many apologies also to @Art Of Flowers

Maths never was my best subject!

 

[CherryAA]

.

Changes or influences on the Lipids, Triglycerides or Cholesterols
can have many different causes ! Just ask any Doc. or Prof.
.

I am sure it does - having said that - for me - in my " steady" state of health other than having diabetes and high bp , each of these three things has responded in pretty much exact correlation to each other and the adoption of an LCHF diet inc 70% fats and 22% sat fats .

If other people find the same thing using similar proportions - then maybe when one's figures do not do that- then that could be indicative of something else - good or bad either in terms of diet or health.

Maybe these figures look different for the med diet - maybe the my look better, or worse ?

maybe someone else eating my diet has an entirely different set of ratios or pattern, who knows in the absence of data.

In the absence of knowing anyone eles's figures I can only correlate it with myself which I just did for 20 odd years and for me it works.

 

[CherryAA]

To explore the use of a newly discovered tool by a particular member is, in my opinion, not misleading. The member is not advocating that the undiagnosed should demand treatment based on an algorithm that the member is using to further her knowledge of her own history pre diagnosis.

Thank you.

Having seen my own post diagnosis figures and compared them to my prediagnosis figures, I concluded that my trigs were closely correlated to my diabetes. I deliberately went searching on the internet to find if someone had looked into this correlation and found it.

Having found it and found it also correlated closely to my own figures, it would have been remiss of me not to bring it to others attention here.

If it so happens that my figure correlate by pure random chance then I apologise to anyone who wasted their time looking. For me personally I will be looking very closely at what things I can do to get my trigs low as well as my hba1c, if somehow that involves anything different from what I am already doing,

 

[Guzzler]

Thank you.

Having seen my own post diagnosis figures and compared them to my prediagnosis figures, I concluded that my trigs were closely correlated to my diabetes. I deliberately went searching on the internet to find if someone had looked into this correlation and found it.

Having found it and found it also correlated closely to my own figures, it would have been remiss of me not to bring it to others attention here.

If it so happens that my figure correlate by pure random chance then I apologise to anyone who wasted their time looking. For me personally I will be looking very closely at what things I can do to get my trigs low as well as my hba1c, if somehow that involves anything different from what I am already doing,

You are welcome. As you are strides ahead of me in your endeavour to understand Diabetes and all its bewildering array of possible causes/effects I find your posts intriguing. However, my lack of knowledge means that I first have to fully understand the basic machinations in order to stem any damage I may already have caused. No use allowing the car to go over the cliff whilst researching the possible causes of brake failure!

 

[CherryAA]

That is entirely true - for me the very fact that I've been recording so much data for so long - to so little practical effect in the past - is what drives me to see if any of it is of any use as to what I am about to do next !

 

[Fleegle]

I confess to being a bit confused.
I now have a number of 8.37.

Now I have a number - what is the range of numbers I am looking for?

 

[Mr_Pot]

I confess to being a bit confused.
I now have a number of 8.37.

Now I have a number - what is the range of numbers I am looking for?

I agree with your calculation and according to @CherryAA 's original post the normal range is 7.22 -9.30

 

[Fleegle]

I agree with your calculation and according to @CherryAA 's original post the normal range is 7.22 -9.30

Thank you.
Well that is indeed, potentially, good news, and on a day where that seems in short supply I am going to take it.
Which, if the above holds true, then it means my problem is lack of insulin production - which means a bit of intermittent fasting or the dreaded VLDC for 8 weeks...

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

I confess to being a bit confused.
I now have a number of 8.37.

Now I have a number - what is the range of numbers I am looking for?

"Men with values over 8.82 and women with values over 8.73 are most likely to be insulin resistant and have double the chance of developing type 2 diabetes in the future."