Comment

Comment by JaninaWalker on April 10, 2012 at 7:28pm

Here is the most succinct explanation
http://www.joslin.org/info/plasma_glucose_meters_and_whole_blood_me...
So the old range we were given was 80-120 and now it is 90-130, but I am saying it is not making things easier for us, but just more accurate. They didn't raise the range so it could be easier to achieve.

Comment by Natalie ._c- on April 10, 2012 at 6:49pm

Janina, meters used to read in whole blood numbers, which are lower than plasma numbers. So they added in an algorithm to make meters read as if it were plasma to make it easier to compare lab readings to meter readings. That makes it easier to check your meter against the lab reading to make sure your meter is functioning adequately. Is there any other reason that concerns you that I'm not aware of?

Comment by JaninaWalker on April 10, 2012 at 4:55pm

Put the below into a search engine and you will see why they raised the hoped for range.....it was not to make things easier. Try this in google.....
whole blood vs plasma glucose levels

Comment by BadMoonT2 on April 10, 2012 at 11:05am

Re targets: it's a cruel joke to set targets higher just so patients can reach them and then have them develop complications because the targets are too high. Just give it to me straight doc I'm an adult after all.

Comment by muleman on April 10, 2012 at 10:46am

You know. Your all right. I just read all these and your all right! Badmoon makes a great (sadly) case.
I seriously thought of printing an A4 sheet in Spanish I would hang on a card around my neck when visiting doctors. It would state:.
"I am neither stupid, expendable or invisible or a statistic. I can read, and I can surf the Internet! So I have accessed to writings of the greatest medicals minds in the world. I know you could if you cared enough; stop me going blind, or losing one or more of my feet and legs. You could stop my daily pain and the instant risk of my death from heart failure due over consumption of miss prescribed non compatible medicines. You could get me back to a normal life by providing the therapies at your disposal. You could refer me to a wide assortment of specialists. But then you don't expect me to survive anyway do you!
Albert Vickers,2012 Dying with the help of to many Physicians.

Comment by Hana Rous on April 10, 2012 at 10:18am

As to what is a Normal blood glucose; I found figures on the leaflet which comes with the test strips for my meter. My T1 husband has similar info with his strips. The numbers are a bit lower than those recommended by Diabetes UK and probably the ADA too.
I cannot see any reason for the bg TARGETS! for diabetics to be higher than NORMAL blood glucose numbers. I appreciatee tha some people cannot hit these targets, buts that's no excuse for making the targets EASIER. To suggest an archery analogue; not everyone will be able to hit the gold, but everyone can aim at it. There's no point in having another bigger/nearer target. It won't improve your aim.
Hana
Hana

Comment by BadMoonT2 on April 10, 2012 at 10:17am

As far as T2's are concerned it's a self fulfilling prophecy. They never see anyone doing a good job controlling their blood sugar because patients never get advice on how to effectively do it. Then all patients deteriorate because they are not controlling their blood sugar. And around and around. It's hard to break this cycle as long as they insist we need carbs to fuel our brains, and that our #1 enemy is fat. Oh well preaching to the choir I guess.

Comment by Natalie ._c- on April 10, 2012 at 8:22am

I don't think it's because they don't care. I think it's because of what they've seen -- a LOT of people with T2 cannot be convinced to take care of themselves -- they don't even test, because they don't really understand what they can do to help themselves, or they simply can't accept the dietary restrictions and need to exercise. And when medical professionals have seen enough of these people, they get discouraged, and being human, start to overgeneralize. They are also cautious about information until it's been scientifically well supported -- Bernstein's biggest mistake was not recruiting some of his colleagues to do a genuine head-to-head study of a true LC diet. The only studies I've seen were NOT genuinely low carb -- they considered up to 120g of carbs a day to be low carb.

And you have to remember, we are a select group here -- very self-motivated and intelligent, and able to read and make decisions for ourselves. Also able to sort out the garbage from the reasonable (at least most of us, LOL!)We are NOT characteristic of the vast majority of people with DM -- especially T2s who are able to ignore their disease with no immediate drastic effects.

So I think it's important to get docs and scientists looking at what CAN be done, rather than letting the mass of bad experiences get them down.

Comment by BadMoonT2 on April 10, 2012 at 6:39am

Hana, I think you've hit the nail on the head, this attitude is at the root of why T2's get such poor care. The statement "I even have had doctors tell me that having better control only postpones these complications" seems a bit odd. While I agree with you that logically if we can maintain normal or near normal levels we should halt complications from ever developing, even if that is not true and we can only postpone the onset, isn't that a good thing? Since it's my eyesight and my kidneys and my feet I would take that if that's the best I can get. Even in this light, giving up potatoes, sweets, bread etc. is still a very worthwhile thing to do.

Comment by Hana Rous on April 10, 2012 at 6:08am

I am so concerned about the way the medical professions accept the deterioration of diabetic health. They see eye troubles and foot troubles as part of the disease and I'm sure many of them think those happenings are unavoidable,thus they don't even try to help people avoid them. I even have had doctors tell me that having better control only postpones these complications. I DON'T believe it. My gut tells me that if we keep bg at or very near NORMAL, we should avoid complications. I have no evidence, but it makes sense. It's known that non-diabetics with high A1cs get conditions like diabetic complications and that people with Normal A1cs DON'T.
Thus I'm sure that if diabetics maintain NORMAL glucose levels, they shouldn't develop complications. I've no evidence, but I've applied a 150 IQ's worth of logic.
Only Bernstein and a very few others seem to think the diabetic condition right through to a conclusion. For example, I think T2 may be a result of "Thrifty Genes". In times of starvation, T2 could be a survival factor. No energy intake going to waste.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 13
• 14
• 15
• 16
• 17
• …
• 80
• Next ›
• Page