Diabetes Education and Research Center
Back Chats
On Thu Jul 31 01:22:36 2003 Squats () said:
Bill: Let me say Neil's post is
a good one. Don't give up, your kids are worth it!
On Wed Jul 30 21:04:49 2003 Neil () said:
Willy - My thoughts are this.
First you see what you blood glucose levels are eating as you normally do. Then
you change your eating habits - less carbs and of course no sugar if possible
and check them again. Then you find a doctor who is willing to prescribe you
different medications to see what brings your levels down. Sometimes it requires
one or a combination of many things. With me I spike at night so I exercise in
the mornings - I also found carbohydrates affect my levels much more than sugar!
Then I found the medication which works. You have to regulate yourself - you
know your body better than anyone! You must face the fact that you have this and
deal with it or the problems slowly will occur. Check you blood sugars regularly
- Neil
On Wed Jul 30 20:54:18 2003 BILL WILLIAMS (WILLYWONKA1969@AOL.COM) said:
I
HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH DIABETES SICE 1995. I HAVE BEEN ON MULTIPLE TREATMENTS
INCLUDING INSULINE TREATMENTS THEN I WAS PUT ON THE PUMP. THEN I WAS PUT ON
PILLS THEN BACK ON INSULIN. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE HAS WENT THROUGH
THIS MUCH HELL AND KOW THEY COPED WITH IT. I HAVE TO SMALL CHILDREN AGES 8 AND 5
THAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE GROW UP BUT I GET SO FRUSTRATED THAT DEALING WITH
DIABETES SOMESTIMES DON'T FEEL WIRTH IT. PLEASE IF SOMEONE CAN SHARE THEIR
THOUGHTS PLEASE CONTACT ME.BECAUSE I FEEL I'VE LOST LL HOPE.
On Wed Jul 30 20:09:17 2003 Neil () said:
Amy - I am insulin resistant. This
means your body is resistant to the insulin it produces as opposed to not making
enough. I tried every oral medication as my wife is a nurse and had access to
try them all and I researched all of them. Glucophage is the only one that works
for me and it is the true and tried medication which has been around for many
years. The fact is as a Diabetic you need to regulate your blood sugar levels
with a combination of Diet, excersise and the medication that works for you - If
orals do not work than you are forced to inject insulin even though your body
produces it! The fact with oral meds also is of all of them there are about 3
that I found that actually state they are for resistant patients. Hope this
helps! Neil
On Wed Jul 30 17:37:44 2003 Amy () said:
Could anyone tell be something
about insulin resistence? My doctor didn't explain it to me. But I do have
another appointment in three weeks. Thanks
On Wed Jul 30 14:57:27 2003 Squats () said:
Don: See a doctor ASAP. It
appeaqrs that you have some of the symptoms of Diabetes. Will not guess about
the pain! A simple blood sugar test should answer the diabetes question!
On Wed Jul 30 14:29:11 2003 Don (donshur@uga.edu) said:
I am worried and
don't know if I have diabeties or something worse like cancer. I have lost 20
pounds over a period of about 4-5 months-- gone from 230 to 210. I have an ache
(not really any pain) in the right hip joint/groin area but have had this for 7
years but it has gotten worse the past year or so. Having this for this long
already, I was hoping that would rule out something like colon or prostate
cancer but the weight loss really worries me. I am constantly tired regardless
of the amount of sleep, I urinate frequently (this has increased recently), I
occasionally have a tingling in my right foot and hand, and am frequently
thirsty w/ dry mouth. I do seem to consume a lot more to drink than I used to so
maybe this would explain the frequent urination but it seems that an hour or so
after I drink something I'm having to urinate. I was wondering if any of this
sounds familiar to anyone and if such drastic weight loss is possible with
undiagnosed Type 2.
On Wed Jul 30 08:05:45 2003 Steve () said:
Neil: I've been told differing
values on BG levels. My current doctor is happy if I manage mine between 90 -
120. My last A1c was 6.2 and my doctor said he'd like to see me get it down to
6.0 and stay there. For me, I am comfortable with that.
On Wed Jul 30 08:00:39 2003 () said:
MARC.......MAYBE YOUR DEMON SEED DIDNT
TAKE. ARE YOU SURE IT IS YOURS????????????
On Tue Jul 29 20:03:11 2003 Neil () said:
Thanks little toots for your
answer. My blood glucose runs at an average of 150, my problem is it spikes at
night. I would like to find out just what number you can really get away with
and not run into problems in the future. My HbA1c just came back at 6.3 which is
between 115 and 150. The endocronologist all have a different opinion of what is
O.K. and what is not. I would like to know what eveyone feels is good for them
(safe)
On Tue Jul 29 17:54:53 2003 Squats () said:
Marc W. Congratulations that you
and Julie will have a child. I hope the pregnancy goes well!
On Tue Jul 29 14:44:41 2003 Faith () said:
Marc and Steve, I'm doing my best
to get that girl to get herself to her doctor. Her boyfriend assured me he would
see her go, but I know how stubborn she can be. I've been conserned all her life
that she might become a diabetic. It was 35 years ago this month that while I
was expecting her they discovered I was a diabetic. She was born the next month
and I have worried ever since.
I will keep you posted!
On Tue Jul 29 03:32:24 2003 Little Toots () said:
Neil, to answer your
question. They are all dagerous to a diabetic, except maybe 70 to 120 or even
150 at a steady pace and that is almost impossable to achive. The lows are bad,
and the highs are bad, they all do damage over time. I myself would not stay
above 180 for a very long time without feeling guilty. We are all different and
treat our disease differently. i know others will answer your question also, but
that is my two cents worth. 14:27, WHY THE HELL START THAT SHIT AGAIN? People
didn't post here because of you. Have a good day!
On Mon Jul 28 20:56:34 2003 Neil () said:
I would like to know what all the
endocronologists say regarding what blood glucose levels are really dangerous?
How about 175 for example?
On Mon Jul 28 19:25:59 2003 Marc W () said:
Thanks Faith and Steve.Faith, I
can't see how a 366 ISN'T diabetes. I think a tolerance test is a must. Drag her
butt to the doc! Lets us know the outcome.....
On Mon Jul 28 16:21:51 2003 Steve () said:
Marc - congrats on the upcoming
new arrival. Best wishes for many years of happiness as a family. Faith - When I
was first diagnosed, my reading was 466 -- and that was about 6 hours after my
last meal. My doctor tells me my BG will shoot up shortly after a meal,
especially if I ate some "fast" carbs. If I overdo the carbs on a meal, it takes
me longer to come back down to a normal reading, but then I have meds in my
system to manage that. I would suggest your daughter talk to her doctor and
maybe ask about a HbA1c test to check average BG readings for the last 3 months
or so. That might be more informative than a single BG check. Just a
thought...
On Mon Jul 28 14:27:43 2003 () said:
FAITH TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WHAT
KIND OF MENTAL ILLNESS MEDICATION IS SHE ON????? IS SHE SEXUALLY ACTIVE???? HOW
OFTEN?????
On Mon Jul 28 11:11:28 2003 Faith () said:
Yesterday our daughter was
visiting and just after she ate, she wanted me to check her BG. It was 366. Two
hours later it was 126. My question, shouldn't her high one indicate a problem?
We tried to convince her to go and get checked for diabeties, but she said since
she had just eaten was why it was high. I tried to convince her that she
shouldn't have had a high like that if she didn't have diabeties. At a routine
doctors appointment recently she had a high reading, but they didn't do anything
about it. I think she should go and get a 2-4 hr. glucose tolerance test. Any
thoughts.
On Mon Jul 28 11:05:07 2003 Faith () said:
MarcW - Oh, congratulations! I'm
so excited for you and Julie! You've come a long way, so happy you are starting
a family! All the best to you both! A little girl, how precious!
On Sun Jul 27 12:19:48 2003 BUT.............. (Not Good For Type 1 Diabetics)
said:
Atkins diet is a good diet for losing weight bur consult your doctor
first and have him monitor you when on it. Atkins diet is not good for Type 1
diabetics EVER.(they rarely have a weight problem anyway) It creates ketones in
all people who follow it and it is not good for people with Type 1 diabetes to
have ketones.
On Sun Jul 27 10:04:45 2003 Marc W () said:
Todd.... the answer is simply,
YES. too high a blood sugar will knock you out of sorts, I have anger issues
when I am high, but calm when my numbers are good. My wife will tell me to check
my sugar if I seem rather snappy, and usually I have spiked. Check out
www.minimed.com and just read. I am a 24 year diabetic, 36y/o and lost the
ability to control my diabetes, then some of the good folks here pressed me on
the pump, it changed everything for me. Check it out and if you want to talk
more, let me know. Funny thing on this fat thing, I went to my CDE last week. I
was complaining that I was eating too often and constantly hungry. After tearing
apart my diet and rates we found that I was only eating carbs, not many proteins
and virtually no fats. We lowered rates drastically and she added a bunch of
proteins and fats, and lowered my carbs. My rates are down 20 percent, numbers
are between 80-110 and I lost 5 pounds in a week. Plus I have more energy. And
here I thought carbs were my source of energy. It really is confusing out there,
my advice would be find a really good CDE and good books and learn what is
really going on. What may be so obviously wrong is really the right thing to
do....P.S.... to all my past friends here that may still read.... Julie is
pregnant! We are expecting a girl in November....
On Sun Jul 27 04:57:10 2003 even the study below has doctors fustrated
(wayne@searchtechjobs.org) said:
They are so brain washed on the low fat
thing that even in the face of scientific fact they still don't get it! I wonder
if they know that a dumb ass U.S. senator invented the low fat diet and if they
did would they be suprised and change their minds? We can only hope so.
On Sun Jul 27 04:44:56 2003 Fat is not your enemy carbo's are (dude@dude.com)
said:
Fat will not make you fat. But the lie was started by Senator Mcgovern
in 1978 regarding low fat BS without any substantial scientific evidence that
fat was bad for Americans. He and congress decided (against the advise of the
NSI" National Science Institute) you needed a lowfat diet and hence the lie
about fats has progressed without question you follow blindly as does your
doctor the advise of a Senator. How stupid is that!!! blind leading the blind.
Actually fat is good for you and you need at least 30% fat in your daily diet.
Excluding trans fats of course like the stuff in oreo cookies yuk! Here's the
skinny on fats you could eat a can of lard and yes your bad colesterol would
rise but get this your good colesterol would increase even higher making it a
net gain!!!!! These are credible studies mind you. Here's why your body was
evolved before 10,000 ago when we human's invented farming. We were never meant
to eat even 10% of our daily needs in carbs. You are killing yourself by eating
large quantities of any kind of carbs. This is as bad for you as smoking or
worse!! Dont be fooled by no science decisions made by politicians that are not
scientists!!! Read this ------>>> New research on Atkins diet
challenges 30 years of nutritional dogma By DANIEL Q. HANEY, AP Medical Editor
Reprinted with permission of The Associated Press. Is it just possible that Dr.
Robert C. Atkins was right? That his high-fat, low-carb plan, ridiculed for 30
years as dangerous nonsense, actually is a good, safe way to lose weight? The
dietary elite are not ready to change their collective mind, but a half-dozen or
so new studies have taken an objective look at the presumed evils of Atkins, and
the results have been little short of astonishing: During a few months on the
Atkins diet, people lose about twice as much as on the standard low-fat,
high-carbohydrate approach recommended by most health organizations. They do so
without seeming to drive up their risk of heart disease. Rather than going
kaflooey, their cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure and ominous
bloodstream inflammation generally improve, perhaps even more than on the
standard diet. They appear to lose more weight even while actually consuming
more calories than people on a so-called healthy diet. All of the experiments
were short and small. None by itself would make a big stir. But taken together,
they undermine much of what mainstream medicine has long assumed about the
Atkins diet. "Some scientists are dismayed by the data and a little incredulous
about it," says Gary Foster, who runs the weight-loss program at the University
of Pennsylvania. "But the consistency of the results across studies is
compelling in a way that makes us think we should investigate this further."
Until now, the opinion of the medical world on this subject has been essentially
unanimous: Any diet that emphasizes meat, eggs and cheese and discourages bread,
rice and fruit is nutritional folly. The American Medical Association set that
tone a year after the book, "Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution," came out in 1972. Its
sarcastically worded critique dismissed the diet as "potentially dangerous." It
called its scientific underpinning "naive" and "biochemically incorrect." And it
scolded book publishers for promoting "bizarre concepts of nutrition and
dieting." On the Atkins diet, up to two-thirds of calories may come from
fat—more than double the usual recommendation—and that violates everything
medical professionals believe about healthy eating. Carbohydrates are the
foundation of a good diet, most say. Eating calorie-dense fat is what makes
people fat, and eating saturated fat is what kills them. Despite this, Atkins'
books have sold 15 million copies, uncounted millions have tried the diet, and
practically everybody has heard of someone who dropped a ton of weight on the
Atkins plan. Finally, several research teams around the country have put Atkins
to the test, driven largely by weariness at having nothing solid to tell
patients and, in some cases, a desire to prove Atkins wrong. One study was even
sponsored by the American Heart Association, long an Atkins skeptic. None has
been published yet, but summaries have been given at medical conferences. "They
all show pretty convincingly that people will lose more weight on an Atkins
diet, and their cardiovascular risk factors, if anything, get better," says Dr.
Kevin O'Brien, a University of Washington cardiologist involved with one of the
studies. This is not the end of the story. The studies say nothing about how
much people lose when they stay on Atkins more than a few months, whether they
keep the weight off for good and whether their cholesterol rebounds when they
stop losing weight. Nevertheless, three decades of dietary gospel are in doubt,
and those questioning it include some of the most prominent names in obesity
research. For instance, one of the new studies was conducted by Foster with Drs.
Samuel Klein and James Hill, the current and past presidents of the North
American Association for the Study of Obesity, the premier professional group.
"I'm part of the obesity establishment," says Foster, who has published more
than 50 scientific papers on the subject. "I've spent my life researching ways
to treat obesity, and 100 percent of them have been low-fat and high-carb. Now
I'm beginning to think, it isn't as it has appeared." His Atkins study was
intended to "show it doesn't work," yet after three months, the overweight men
and women had lost an average of 19 pounds, 10 more than people on the standard
high-carb approach. The big surprise was cholesterol. The Atkins dieters'
overall profile changed for the better. Although their bad cholesterol went up
seven points, their good cholesterol rose almost 12. (Changes in the high-carb
dieters were less dramatic. Their bad cholesterol went down slightly while their
good cholesterol remained unchanged.) The largest difference was in
triglycerides. The Atkins dieters' dropped 22 points. The low-carb dieters'
didn't budge. "It was unexpected, to put it mildly," Foster said. "It made us
think maybe there is something to this." Despite these data, the Atkins diet
still gives many health professionals the willies. It encourages people to eat
bacon, butter, prime rib and lots of other things loaded with saturated fat. And
it lectures against such mainstay carbohydrates as grains, pasta and starchy
vegetables, especially in the diet's first cold-turkey stage; plenty of other
healthy things, including many low-carb green vegetables and olive oil are
allowed. "There are many principles in the Atkins diet that go against what we
know," says Dr. Robert Eckel of the University of Colorado, senior author of the
heart association's policy on high-protein diets. "It keeps people away from
staples of the diet that we know are associated with less heart disease."
Volumes of research suggest that people have the best chance of avoiding heart
disease, high blood pressure and cancer if they eat a varied diet with plenty of
fruits, vegetables and grains. "It's scary if people leave out these very
important food groups and just depend on high-fat, high-protein foods," says
Wahida Karmally, nutrition director at Columbia University's clinical research
center. Furthermore, people on the Atkins plan may get a quarter of their daily
calories from saturated fat, more than double the heart association's
recommendation. Animal experiments and studies of large groups of people long
ago convinced many experts that too much saturated fat clogs the arteries and
leads to heart attacks. Mainstream scientists wave off the Atkins camp's answer
to this—that saturated fat is bad only if eaten with large amounts of
carbohydrates. Otherwise, it's harmlessly burned off. "When carbs are the
primary fuel source, there are certain risks in excessive fat consumption," says
Colette Heimowitz, the Atkins organization's research director. "But in a
controlled-carb setting, when fat is the primary fuel source, the rules change.
Those risk factors do not show up." So how do the traditionalists explain the
cholesterol improvement seen in the Atkins dieters? Weight loss. Slimming down
reliably improves cholesterol levels, and they say its benefits probably
overshadowed any damage done by all the unhealthy fat that people ate. Why
people lose more weight on the diet is also not clear, although some researchers
say they buy one of Atkins' arguments: People stick with it because they are not
constantly hungry. Fat and protein satisfy the appetite, the theory goes. But
eating lots of carbohydrates raises insulin levels, lowers blood sugar, and
eventually makes people ravenous. But another of Atkins' ideas on the subject is
far more contentious. He argues that people lose more weight on his plan even if
they actually eat more calories. That's a violation of the laws of
thermodynamics, skeptics say. "A calorie is a calorie as far as weight reduction
is concerned," says Dr. Michael Davidson, director of preventive cardiology at
the Rush Heart Institute in Chicago. Or is it? Some of the new studies suggest
otherwise. Dr. Stephen Sondike of Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City
put overweight teenagers on comparison diets for two months. The ones on Atkins
lost twice as much as those on the low-fat diet. Yet they appeared to eat about
700 more calories a day than the others. Less dramatic but still startling
results came from another study at the University of Cincinnati. Women on Atkins
lost twice as much while eating the same number of calories as the low-fat
dieters. "Surprised? Definitely," says Bonnie Brehm, a registered dietitian. "We
really don't know what the answer is." And the Atkins weight loss was not simply
dehydration, as Atkins critics often contend, since the Cincinnati dieters also
lost twice as much body fat. But even if the diet is reasonable for a few months
of slimming down, what happens when people level off during the maintenance
phase of the program? Does their cholesterol soar if they eat all that fat
without losing weight? None of the research so far answers that. However,
Atkins-sponsored studies by Jeff Volek, an exercise and nutrition specialist at
the University of Connecticut, offers some hints. He put fit men on an Atkins
regimen for six weeks with orders not to lose weight, and nothing bad seemed to
happen. Their good and bad cholesterol went up proportionately, and their
triglycerides fell. "I'd like to see more data," Volek said, "but ours provides
evidence it doesn't have a negative effect on your heart." But for now, even
many of the researchers who did these studies are reluctant to recommend the
Atkins diet. They know too little about its long-term effects. A large new study
just under way could settle these doubts. This federally sponsored project will
randomly put 360 overweight men and women on the Atkins plan or the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's standard high-carb, low-fat diet, then watch them in
painstaking detail for at least two years. The study will try to answer three
questions about Atkins, says Hill, who directs the University of Colorado's
Center for Human Nutrition. "Does it produce weight loss? Is it a safe weight
loss? And is it any better in the long run than anything else that has come
along?" Scientists will analyze the volunteers' blood and cholesterol in every
way they can think of, as well as check their bone density, kidney function,
body composition, exercise tolerance and more. Despite the professions' unease
at the findings so far, some of the researchers involved expect that if the
Atkins approach proves safe and effective in larger, longer studies, those
opinions will eventually change. "It's difficult to swallow," says O'Brien, "but
the data are the data, even if they go against 30 years of dogma." EDITOR'S
NOTE: Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special correspondent for The
Associated Press.
On Sun Jul 27 00:58:10 2003 Jill Crockett (jillann_us@yahoo.com) said:
I
have been attempting to control type 2 diabetes for a year now using strict
diet, exercise, and vitamin therapy. Thus far, I want to delay the use of drugs
and have done relatively well. It is, however, a hard discipline. I am
frustrated with so many aspects of this disease. I am also frightened. My family
is tired of hearing about it. This is very lonely. Prior to this diagnosis, I
experienced severe pain in my upper stomach area (just below the ribs). The pain
would take hold for fifteen minutes or so, then release and I was fine. This
happened, perhaps, once a week or every two weeks. This hasn't happened since
the diagnosis and drastic diet and exercise changes and lowered glucose
levels.
On Fri Jul 25 23:13:43 2003 Squats () said:
What does your doctor say about
this? 300-400, as you well know is dangerous. Are you spilling ketones? On
insulin, it is risky not to eat, since even that can force glucose levels up. v
Another consideration: bodyfat percentage, especially around the middle. That
can cause insulin resistance, which you may have. Obviously, consult the
doc.
On Fri Jul 25 20:07:51 2003 Todd Huehn (t4736@msn.com) said:
Diabetic 23
years. Blood sugars constantly in the upper 300 to lower 400 with spikes of 500
plus. On Humilin. little effect. My question is this. The past six months and
progressing worse every week, when I get hungry.... I get ornery as hell. Check
bloods and neither are way up or way down. Whats this goofy chemistry causing me
to get really hard to deal with until I eat somthing.? Todd
Copyright © 2003 Diabetes Education and Research Center