For the past few weeks that I have been checking my blood sugar I can never seem to keep it below 100.. I notice this during two occasions: when I have hypoglycemia and drink some milk, and a few hours after a meal. It's pretty frustrating. I would check my blood sugar because I feel that it is low (like 37 or so) so I drink about a cup of milk to raise it up, and it shoots all the way up to 198? What the heck. Ugh, it's so frustrating.... I don't know why this just started happening about a month ago and I have not had this problem for the last 5 months since my diabetes diagnosis.... could it be that my pancreatic beta cells are dying off, if there were any remaining functioning ones left? If so, how can I ask the doctor about which test determines the actual amount of remaining functioning beta cells left in my pancreas? I am aware that I am in need of an endocrinologist, but I can't afford one with my insurance... so I have to figure these things out myself... Back to another point, usually I check my blood sugar after eating a meal and my glucometer reads 54, then two or three hour later it will read 148... so should I just give up carbs? Meaning, no carbs included in my meals anymore? Money is pretty tight, so my family can't always afford the best, healthiest foods... processed foods such as packages of microwavable burritos seem to be what I survive on... I do try to fit in fruit but I can't always have meat balanced with vegetables and 1 carb serving such as half a potato... Does this mean I might be possibly going through the "honeymoon" phase, where the remaining beta cells are dying off, causing abnormally high blood sugar levels? 10-12 units of insulin can't seem to be enough to cover 45 carbs in a meal anymore like it used to... I think I should cut down my carb intake( about 30 or less) per meals? No more than that anymore, since my blood sugar can't be kept within normal range after eating anymore...
You will harm your body if you neglect his needs for carbohydrates. I recommend 90 to 100g of carbs per day - more for someone still growing. A healthy body will produce up to 20 units of insulin per hour if necessary. What insulins do you use right now? How do you use those insulins (the appplication pattern)?
Very likely your honeymoon phase is over. A GP can handle this situation but he must be really on top of things with T1 Diabetes. Actually I expect him to refer you to an endo because this is a lot of responsibility on his shoulders.
You will harm your body if you neglect his needs for carbohydrates. I recommend 90 to 100g of carbs per day - more for someone still growing.
This is often repeted, but has been widely disputed here before. Some members have been eating ~30g / day for many years. My own experience with this subject is limited, but I cannot find a single, verifiable case of one suffering from "carbohydrate deprivation".
I've been < 50 g/day for going on 3 years. Still waiting for predicted problems.
I find it curious that so much of nutritional advice does not seem to be based on science. Read Taubes about how the anti fat crusade started. Just read an article in the NY Times that says salt restriction seems to be bad, especially in folks that have had a heart attack. These are just the folks who it is supposed to help.
You will find heavy smokers aged 80 or more. But this does not validate the claim that smoking is not bad for your health. A scientific analysis would compare the life expectancy of huger groups of smokers with huger groups of non-smokers. In my opinion there are good reasons why nutritional experts do recommend higher amounts of carbohydrates. If you look at the amounts recommended for healthy people this can be jaw dropping. Of course we should moderate our input of carbohydrates if the aftermath for our glucose control is not good. But some diabetics can even manage higher loads of carbs very well with exogenous insulin.
Of course you will find negative aspects of "carbohydrate deprivation". The loss in muscle mass is a good example of that. No active human can maintain his muscle mass with 30g of carbs per day. The loss of muscles will have negative effects on the basic metabolic rate with all the negative effects for our glucose control. There are other negative side effects for brain and nervous system in general.
Rules for high life expectancy: 2000 calories per day for a man and 1500 calories per day for a woman. Combined with 30 minutes of sports per day. It is obvious that 30g of carbs per day is not enough (30g carbs = 120 calories). Otherwise huge parts of the calories would come from other sources making the equation unbalanced and more unhealthy in my opinion.
Not sure where you are getting your data. I'm usually under 30g day and almost always under 40g. Since starting low carb in March 2011, I've lost over 50 pounds of fat, while increasing muscle mass. Calories mostly come from fats & protein, working to lower the protein and raise the healthy fats.
My weight has remained constant for the last few months at around 225 while I've lost more than 2" from my waist line. The obvious explanation is that I'm losing fat and gaining muscle.
I'm shooting for 350 minutes of exercise a week, but travel often on business and often don't reach that goal. Not traveling this week, so had the luxury of a 6.7 mile walk this morning. Breakfast was an Western omelet - estimated around 5-6 carbs from the peppers and tomato. Lunch was liverwurst & butter on a rye Wasa - around 9g carbs. Probably too much salt in the liverwurst, but it's an occasional treat, not a daily indulgence.
Holger, I know you maintain excellent control with higher amounts of carbs. Here's a talk by Dr. Bernstein, I think he is doing a good job of maintain muscle mass after decades of low carbing. Pretty good biceps for a man in his late 70's.
Holger, I know you maintain excellent control with higher amounts of carbs.Holger: Can you briefly explain how to do this?
It is impressive. His shape and general appearance is more than remarkable: It is exceptional - and that is an important point:
It is known that people with reduced eating habbits have the highest longetivity. It seems the reduced nutrition can trigger some fail safe modes in cells. These modes cause the cell to operate with higher efficency than usual. Thus making more out of the available in starvation mode. For me Bernstein has the genetic prediposition to cope and adjust very well in this scenario. To my knowledge his rate of complications is also remarkably low - another effect of genetic predisposition and good control. Since these are side effects of good genetics I just question the generalization on the general public.
Can we really achieve what Bernstein has achieved by following the Bernstein rules? Have we not seen T1 with good control that despite of their effords developed complications? Have we not seen that people with bad control still managed to stay free of complications? Will our cells also benefit from reduced nutrition by working in a superior starvation mode? Or is Bernstein just the exception - someone that only represents 10% or even less of the general public? These are the big questions to me. Of course there are nuggets of wisdom in his rules. But you can also find fundamentalism about food - something I really oppose.
I have heard of accounts of diabetics without tight control living very long, healthy lives. Sadly, the reverse as well. You can find examples of both on TuDiabetes. Clearly, A1C levels are not the only factor in the well-being of diabetics, but I believe we can all agree that they are important.
According to Dr. Bernstein's own accounts, he developed several complications, including kidney and heart disease earlier in life. He was able to reverse them by obsessively controlling his BG. There are probably few if any non-diabetics who keep their levels as stable or as low as his. That probably has a whole lot to do with his longevity and fitness in his old age.
I would argue that Dr. Bernstein is not Superman. More of a diabetic Batman.
i think he just looks skinny....what biceps? Seriously, i dont get it?!
I think that for a dude in his late 70s, while slim, he has some definition in there? Not so much as to inspire me to stop eating bread, potato chips, beer, etc. Less bread, potato chips and beer maybe but not "stop". If you lined him up with others in his cohort, I think he looks pretty good?
I agree with the sharp rise but I disagree with the 'increase that lasts all day bit". It lasts until the fix starts working...