Re: Diabetes Treatment Risk Not Found in 2nd Study

[Guest guest]

One thing I wonder about is the limits of BG.

My test ref is <100, but there is a criteria of 120 for type 2.

What's between 100 and 120?

I have one relative that has run 120 her whole life and her father is 120,

but they do not take medication, have not been prescribed medication.

They're not obese, and the lady certainly gets enough exercise.

They seem to have a " natural " level of 120.

Regards

[ ] Diabetes Treatment Risk Not Found in 2nd Study

Speaking of conflicting studies:

One week after U.S. researchers announced that pushing down blood sugar

levels as close as possible to normal might be dangerous for high-risk

diabetes patients, a preliminary analysis of a similar international study

has found no such risk.

The seemingly conflicting findings, released yesterday, stoked the

uncertainty about the best strategy for treating Type 2 diabetes, one of the

most common health problems in the United States and elsewhere.

" This unfortunately just makes things more confusing, " said Kahn of

the American Diabetes Association. " I think patients will be confused. I

think doctors will be confused. So I think the message is: 'Don't do

anything until we get this sorted out.' "

[Guest guest]

Hi JW:

As I understand it all these reference ranges have changed

dramatically in the past few years (in the same way that 300 total

cholesterol is no longer considered OK - even if it is not far

from 'normal')

Based on blood glucose, diabetes used to be defined by a much higher

number than it is now. Below 100 is currently supposed to

be 'good'; 100 to 120 is described as " pre-diabetic " ; while over 120

is defined as diabetes if it is associated with a list of other

symptoms typically present in people who have diabetes.

The advantage of the new lower numbers is that it enables doctors to

prescribe pills sooner than before ; ^ )))

Rodney.

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@...>

wrote:

>

> One thing I wonder about is the limits of BG.

> My test ref is <100, but there is a criteria of 120 for type 2.

> What's between 100 and 120?

>

> I have one relative that has run 120 her whole life and her father

is 120,

> but they do not take medication, have not been prescribed

medication.

> They're not obese, and the lady certainly gets enough exercise.

> They seem to have a " natural " level of 120.

>

> Regards

>

>

> [ ] Diabetes Treatment Risk Not Found in 2nd

Study

>

>

> Speaking of conflicting studies:

>

> One week after U.S. researchers announced that pushing down blood

sugar

> levels as close as possible to normal might be dangerous for high-

risk

> diabetes patients, a preliminary analysis of a similar

international study

> has found no such risk.

>

> The seemingly conflicting findings, released yesterday, stoked the

> uncertainty about the best strategy for treating Type 2 diabetes,

one of the

> most common health problems in the United States and elsewhere.

>

> " This unfortunately just makes things more confusing, " said

Kahn of

> the American Diabetes Association. " I think patients will be

confused. I

> think doctors will be confused. So I think the message is: 'Don't

do

> anything until we get this sorted out.' "

>

[Guest guest]

jwwright wrote:

>

> One thing I wonder about is the limits of BG.

> My test ref is <100, but there is a criteria of 120 for type 2.

> What's between 100 and 120?

>

[snip]

Hi jwwright,

I assume that these numbers you listed are fasting glucose numbers. If

this is the case, here are a few caveats:

1) Home glucose meters are notoriously inaccurate - one study showed

they can be off by +/- 30% depending on the temperature, amount of blood

used, type of meter, and other factors. But if the result of 120 was

consistent after several readings, I would be inclined to believe it.

2) Circadian variations in several hormones (cortisol probably the most

important) cause a rise in blood glucose during the early morning

hours. This is exacerbated by getting up and moving around for several

minutes before taking the measurement. It is possible that their BG

runs around 90 all night and then with the morning cortisol spike rises

to 120. Stress, lack of sleep, and depression can all raise blood

glucose during morning hours as well as during the rest of the day.

3) " Fasting " glucose is really only fasting if the person has eaten

nothing for at least 8 hours. Some physicians use 12 hours. I suspect

that it depends on how large and/or carbohydrate-rich the last meal

before bed was.

4) Technically, the definition of frank diabetes is a fasting glucose

more than 126 mg/dL on two or more occasions - or, a random glucose more

than 200 mg/dL plus symptoms (polyuria, polydipsia, unexplained weight

loss, visual changes, etc.) - or a glucose more than 200 mg/dL 2 hours

after drinking a standardized glucose load (oral glucose tolerance test).

There is a diagnosis thrown out there for people with fasting glucose

between 100 and 126, and that is " impaired fasting glucose. " A large

percentage of the population (at least in the US) fits this criterion.

The meaning is uncertain. It used to be that above 110 was impaired

fasting glucose, but the cutoff was revised downward. Having impaired

fasting glucose may indicate a predisposition to developing type 2

diabetes, or it may be a normal variant, or an artifact of testing due

to morning cortisol, not fasting long enough, inaccurate meter, etc.

I'm a medical student - not that this makes me an expert by any means -

but I have some experience caring for people with diabetes.

Hope that helps.

Best wishes,

[Guest guest]

Thanks,,

It was dr office BG fasting.

I took my own for a while because others in CR suggested it, but I found it

unrewarding.

" A normal variant " ? I wonder how many normal variants we have in other

things.

EG, I have what has been described as a " genetic " low HDL (and TC).

Maybe a lifespan to 100yo is a variant?

How many treatment risks are there?

Regards.

Re: [ ] Diabetes Treatment Risk Not Found in 2nd Study

Hi jwwright,

I assume that these numbers you listed are fasting glucose numbers. If

this is the case, here are a few caveats:

....

The meaning is uncertain. It used to be that above 110 was impaired

fasting glucose, but the cutoff was revised downward. Having impaired

fasting glucose may indicate a predisposition to developing type 2

diabetes, or it may be a normal variant, or an artifact of testing due

to morning cortisol, not fasting long enough, inaccurate meter, etc.

I'm a medical student - not that this makes me an expert by any means -

but I have some experience caring for people with diabetes.

Hope that helps.

Best wishes,