Type 2 diabetes and victory

[GrantM]

Carbon copy of yesterday except I hit a bit of a wobbly this morning after breakfast.
I woke up with the same bgl as the day before and followed the same procedure as below, with one difference, increased the Hulamog to 10 from 8 units.

Woke up with an 8.4bgl, a bit high but had some carbs at dinner.
8 units of Humalog (2 less than normal) + 1100 calorie breakfast of champions (76f:3c:21p) and as I write now 2 hours after eating bgl below 7.

I felt it was to low about 1 hour 20min later (after breakfast) and I had a 2.8bgl.
I had increased the dose by 2 this morning to bring the 2 hour after eating reading down closer to 5, did not expect it to plummet as much. bgl 7 ---> 2.8
No harm no foul, always have some sweets nearby that fixed that in a few minutes.

Carl, try that app on your phone I suggested a few posts up, even if just for a couple of days. Eat as you normally do and log the food/drinks (everything, spreads, sauces, etc). Its very quick and easy and it will provide a clear picture of the amount of calories you are eating and the composition thereof.
It will give you a good idea and perhaps insight on what to maybe avoid or eat less of.

I like Tim Noakes. He basically changed his more conventional tune about carbs a few years ago saying the evidence these days does not lie.
There is an attempt to kill the messenger at the moment with him facing a hearing by the HPCSA, (health professions council of SA) for a tweet he made.
He isn't in the least bit concerned and is chomping at the bit to get the research out there.
http://www.biznews.com/health/2015/11/2 ... ting-lchf/
The hearing has now been adjourned and will resume in the new year.

[Balkan boy]

This a bit on a tangent to the diabetes discussion, but Tim Noakes has been mentioned a few times.

A debate between Tim Noakes and Fred Brouns who successfully challenges Noakes, in my opinion.
https://youtu.be/av9cK-RQ5eY

[Carl Watts]

What I was really looking for is a study of a large group of people and then simply plotting the risk fact of body fat percentage against those with type 2 diabetes.

Since this is not specifically even an age related problem its even easier to get the results.


From this you could simply look at your body fat and then the risk. For exmple if you had a sample size of 5000 people and only a dozen had got T2DM with a body fat at 20% then I could pretty much stop worrying about it. If not body fat then something even simpler like the waist measurement.

I always remember during the St Johns medical training that we were told the risks of a heart attack begin to rise significantly after the age of 45 so it only makes sense that the risk of T2DM is going to sharply rise after a certain body fat level.

[GrantM]

This a bit on a tangent to the diabetes discussion, but Tim Noakes has been mentioned a few times.

A debate between Tim Noakes and Fred Brouns who successfully challenges Noakes, in my opinion.
https://youtu.be/av9cK-RQ5eY

A lot of that is admitably way over my head Balkan boy, and it was at times difficult to follow without the pointers on the slides shown but I tried to get as much out of it as I could. (lots of rewinding on youtube )

I am not an endurance athlete or ultra athlete, just a diabetic trying to improve my lifestyle and exercise regime. Perhaps these gents and the debate itself is focused in a completely different direction towards the elite.
Brouns during the debate at the end (1:00 mark'ish) emphatically agrees with Tim to reduce carbs in cases like this (diabetics, insulin resistant people).

The one thing I found odd was the slide Brouns selected to skip before making conclusions against something like a lchf diet
\
Completely dismissed it. Not enough, not long enough, must be bs?
Only 30 studies on people , just dismissed purely based on volume, not the 'evidence' is not there' whatever that may be, it wasn't interrogated?
I expect the shear volume of studies on current diets just weigh to heavily on the smaller volume?
He also is under no illusion that everyone is different and some can better use or benefit from carbs than others.

It was a neat video to watch, both gents made good points, agreed on many issues, including the agreement on my condition to reduce carbs. I see Noakes in a camp trying to prevent the prevalence of insulin resistance or onset of diabetes in the general population and Brouns in one with a mountain of data of people that have a largely perfect metabolism, benefiting from carbs.
All interesting none the less, thanks.

[Shawn Baker]

Carl if you've already demonstrated you are pre-diabetic then you are insulin resistant and should already be concerned regardless of body composition

http://diabesity.ejournals.ca/index.php ... le/view/19

This just published by some fellow Kiwis is worth a read

[GrantM]

Carl Watts wrote:
Interesting post, especially those blood sugar levels.

My last couple of blood tests have come back with a "Pre-Diabetic" result and I have been told to change my diet.


Carl Watts wrote:
Hi Guys, with all your experience and people you have seen with diabetes, weight seems to be a primary factor.

With this in mind, could you put a scale on the body fat vs risk of diabetes ?

What I was really looking for is a study of a large group of people and then simply plotting the risk fact of body fat percentage against those with type 2 diabetes.

Since this is not specifically even an age related problem its even easier to get the results.


From this you could simply look at your body fat and then the risk. For example if you had a sample size of 5000 people and only a dozen had got T2DM with a body fat at 20% then I could pretty much stop worrying about it. If not body fat then something even simpler like the waist measurement.
I always remember during the St Johns medical training that we were told the risks of a heart attack begin to rise significantly after the age of 45 so it only makes sense that the risk of T2DM is going to sharply rise after a certain body fat level.

Hi Carl
Pay attention to the bold bit of what you wrote yourself! There are overweight people everywhere that are not diabetic that have normal bloods. BMI will play a minimal role if you are already almost there. Being overweight with A poor diet and not having the disease would put people at higher risk for sure.
I'm a noobie here, and reluctant to offer advice as I was actually asking for it myself, but you have been told you are borderline, and what to do, it would not be in your interest to ignore that.

You are already (from what I have seen on the forum) bouncing that erg around a lot and no slouch by any measure, but 'diet' (reducing the amount of carbs/sugar consumed day to day) is without doubt going to be the quickest and most sure fire way to reduce that bgl number, without chronic medication that is, which I am sure you do not want.
Trust me, I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy.

Irrespective of your current bmi, or how overweight or thin you or others are for that matter now, is pretty much inconsequential In your current state. You have results.
If you are overweight it helps to reduce that, sure.
If you don't exercise, and you do, it helps a lot, also with the weight and metabolism, definately.
Diet, now there's your huckleberry, if you really want to try and avoid the onset of worse conditions, (and you have a darn good chance at it) you need to focus on that area, because that's where the high bgl's are now emanating from!

[jag]

I like Tim Noakes. He basically changed his more conventional tune about carbs a few years ago saying the evidence these days does not lie.
There is an attempt to kill the messenger at the moment with him facing a hearing by the HPCSA, (health professions council of SA) for a tweet he made.
He isn't in the least bit concerned and is chomping at the bit to get the research out there.
http://www.biznews.com/health/2015/11/2 ... ting-lchf/
The hearing has now been adjourned and will resume in the new year.

I looked at that link then did a little math. According to your link, he is trying to push the LCHF diet onto babies. Not seizure-prone babies, or diabetic babies, but ALL babies. My conclusion is that Tim Noakes is a dangerous so & so, and should not be allowed near any child anywhere. From the article: "Earlier this year Noakes advised a mother to wean her child on low carbohydrate, high fat foods – commonly abbreviated as LCHF. The Tweet read, “Baby doesn’t eat the dairy and cauliflower. Just very healthy high fat breast milk. Key is to wean [sic] baby onto LCHF.”

Is breast milk high in fat - sure it is. But it is ALSO high in sugar. A baby who is being breast-fed is consuming 68g sugar (carb) per day from breast milk; or about 40% of his calories. That's right - a baby gets 40% of its calories from sugar. That is the diet that babies have evolved to eat - but he thinks mothers should replace that with a diet that is significantly less than 10% carb. And people buy this moron's books? Apparently he is unaware that children who eat the LCHF diet (such as those who end up on the keto diet because of uncontrollable seizures) have been shown to have significant less growth and end up shorter and less healthy than children fed a normal healthy mixed diet.

But I guess that's OK, if it will sell him a few more books. Like I said, there is a special place in hell for these nonsense diet-book authors.

[Carl Watts]

^^^^^ What he said, I think I will stick to a balanced diet and not add sugar to anything and read a few more food labels in an effort to try and minimize my sugar intake.

Will get retested in October 2016 and if the level is the same or lower then I'm really not going to panic.

[Shawn Baker]

Best thing anyone can do is educate themselves the best they can, draw their own conclusions, put them in place and see what works best- Noakes is recommending babies start on puréed vegetables, puréed meat and some puréed fruit as opposed to cereal and /or other high sugar foods not a ketogenic diet just to set the record straight in that regard. Carl it will be interesting to see how both you and Grant fair with the different approaches, I hope you keep us posted.

[left coaster]

Carl, any change is good if that's what you think needs to happen. From my experience doing lifestyle 'interventions' with folks, small, sustainable, and incremental change is the way to go. Picking something small that seems like no big deal, such as never drinking soda pop again, is easy to maintain. Do that for a couple months then pick something else like committing to a whole food breakfast, or whatever else seems to be small and easy to knock off the list.

My most recent 'incremental' change was getting a rowing machine. That one has stuck well! I use it at least 4-5 times a week and have been doing so since the day I got it -- SUCCESS!

[hjs]

Re body fat % and health. Ofcourse there is No direct relation between the two. Its about How you achieve you weight nd bodycomposition. What carbs and fats you eat.

With fats its the omega6 that is the problem, cheap and unstable. In the west we eat those in big amounts, as a reward half the population after 50 is on al kind of medicine. Bizar...
Eat those fats in combination with insuline spiking food and you are well on your way a kind of trouble.

The inuit are certainly not very lean, but hardly eat omega6, but lots of fish, omega3 and saturated fats. Heartfailure and stuff does hardly excist...

Weight, being relative high is fat % is simply not handy, you drag that dead weight around 24/7. It will wear down your joints.

[Carl Watts]

Actually being overwieght and a high body fat is directly related to your health. If your classified as obese, for which the number is all over the place from 25% upwards (personally I tend to think of it at 35% and above as if your heading for this category then its this or above) it leads to all sorts of health related issues that simply do not affect people with less body fat. That fat is accumulating on your organs and actually begins to push everything around inside your body.

Anyway after a bit more searching on a UK site....

HbA1c test for diabetes diagnosis

An HbA1c test does not directly measure the level of blood glucose, however, the result of the test is influenced by how high or low your blood glucose levels have tended to be over a period of 2 to 3 months.

Indications of diabetes or prediabetes are given under the following conditions:

Normal: Below 42 mmol/mol (6.0%)
Prediabetes: 42 to 47 mmol/mol (6.0 to 6.4%)
Diabetes: 48 mmol/mol (6.5% or over)

This probably puts my test result of 41 into better perspective. Will retest next year and will post the result.

[hjs]

I am out, pointless.

Good luck Grant.

[left coaster]

Carl, another option might be to just get a glucose meter and start tracking your levels. One can be had here for 35 bucks or so. Relying on one reading, once a year, is not something I would do. About every 6 months I take a string of readings at different times of the day, following meals, after a sugary drink etc., to stay on top of things. It's inexpensive and informative.

[Shawn Baker]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ihx3yrAvD3g

Wonderful little documentary on the power of lifestyle intervention on diabetes and obesity- just aired on BBC this Thursday, wish we could do this will all our patients