Just found out I'm Type II

A

aggie76

Recycles dryer sheets
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
52
Location
College Station
I knew the day would come since the cardioquack has been telling me I'm Pre-diabetic for years. Finally hit me ( pretty damn fast) and now I guess my life has changed.
I've already lost over 20 lbs on the way to another 10-15. I really noticed something was wrong when my specs no longer worked, pretty large and sudden change in Rx, eye dr said to have my blood sugar checked quick.
I'm on metaforim and have done all possible to eliminate sugar and damn near all carbs. Its a lot harder than one thinks. EVERYTHING has carbs except meat, some veggies and cheese. My daily blood sugar check runs from 130-190 depending on time of day ..etc.
Question for the " veterans".
The literature is all over the map regarding what to and NOT to eat. A lot of folks say that some carbs , like pure wheat no sugar added bread , 80% cocoa chocolate ( sweet tooth) and other " good " carbs is OK in moderation. Others say that ALL carbs are bad and should be avoided.
What say you veterans of the type II wars say ?
Suggestions..what do I have to look forward to. Doctors just dont seem to be much help.
 
My grandfather did really well on the Rice Diet; the induction phase is all-you-can-eat white rice, white sugar, and fruit, but nothing else. That was "the" diet in the 50s and it worked really well for him, obviously with additional food added after the induction phase.

People will tell you that this diet or that diet is "the only" possible diet to control diabetes, but they're just making it up. Nobody actually knows what the "best" diet is -- except we do know that the diet that gets the weight off will control your diabetes. You have to be able to sustain the diet well enough to lose the excess weight and maintain the weight loss. If the diet that you choose is so restrictive that you feel hungry between meals or you feel like you can never have a "treat", you're unlikely to maintain your loss. Some people can convince themselves that food X is "toxic" and never eat it again, but some people do better knowing that they can have a little bit now and then. You have to figure out what works for you.

Other people are going to tell you that "studies show" that this or that diet causes "better" weight loss or blood sugar control. Technically, they may be right -- a study showed that one group lost a wee, tiny bit more than the control group, but there are literally plenty of studies that come to the opposite conclusion and no studies that show any meaningful difference.

If it makes it easier for you to lose weight, then choose a restrictive diet like vegan, Atkins, Paleo, Pritikin. If that doesn't work for you, then choose a calorie counting app like My Fitness Pal, Spark People, or Weight Watchers. You may have to try a couple of different approaches to find the method that is effective for you and that may not be what works for other people in your life.

My blood pressure and blood sugar started creeping up into the "pre-" ranges when my BMI hit 25 -- so not much excess weight. I tried the low carb diet for a couple of months, hated it, felt hungry and deprived all of the time, and gained weight. Calorie counting apps were a pain too, but did help me take off a few pounds -- very slowly. On the other hand, Weight Watchers "clicked" for me and I rapidly lost the excess weight.

I eat "carbs" at every meal and my blood sugar and blood pressure perfect. If you mean sugary, fatty treats when you say "carbs", then by all means, reduce them to very rare treats, but there's no reason to cut out root vegetables, whole grains (which is not the same thing as "wheat bread"), or blood sugar lowering beans, unless you don't like them.

You might want to try a couple of months on the Newcastle diet, if that's okay with your doctor, but then you still have to figure out the new maintenance diet.

Tl;dr message: Pick the diet that helps you take the weight off, there isn't any one specific one that is best. Be critical about your weight goals. If your numbers aren't better lose more.
 
Slow digesting carbs may be acceptable, however, anything white or out of a box is apt to be a problem, as are some fruits and juices. Look at the glycemic index and load and pick foods that are lower on those scales. That said, diabetics all respond differently, so testing is the best way to know what to eat. It sounds like you are taking this seriously which you should, as if left unchecked, it can progress rapidly for the worse.

I was in the same situation as you, ignored Drs warnings for years when I was in the pre-diabetic range, and then one day I went over the limit and was declared type 2. Anyhow, I am also taking metformin, watching what I eat and exercising and despite being diabetic for the past 8 years, I've managed to keep my A1Cs in the 5.6-5.7 range. My biggest problem is dawn phenomena where my BS spikes in the morning. I have also discovered that walking 15 minutes directly after each meal, helps lower my BS. Good luck and keep taking it seriously.
 
Is 130 your fasting level? If your blood sugar runs between 130 and 190 you are likely still eating way too many carbs. You are right, they hide in ALL processed foods. Stick with full fat diary, meat, non-starchy veggies, salads, fish, avocados - no fruits for now until you understand how your super readings respond to them.
 
To put it simply, try to limit your diet to green things and not white things.

Are you on regular insurance? If so, I suggest switching to insulin and getting a pump. It will minimize any ups and downs in your blood sugar and you can eat fairly normal. Medicare doesn't like to pay $6800 for a pump, however.

I'm a stable Type II running about 150 all the time. I check my blood sugar before meals and enter it and the carbs projected into the pump. It automatically sends insulin through a tiny tube to a port stuck to my stomach. I change port and refill the pump every 5 days.

See if your local hospital has seminars for new diabetics. They'll go over suggested diets and give you general knowledge about the subject.. There are also a bunch of diet books on the subject.

The whole goal of controlling our diabetes is to protect your kidneys. Diabetics that go into renal failure have a strong chance of future dialysis, and those that go on dialysis only live about 4 years before throwing a clot. And it's a terrible lifestyle.

I also strongly suggest being under the care of an endocrinologist instead of your regular doctor. He can teach you how to handle your condition so much better.
 
euro said:
Stick with full fat diary, meat, non-starchy veggies, salads, fish, avocados - no fruits for now until you understand how your super readings respond to them.
Click to expand...

Correction ( can't seem to edit original post anymore?):

.....avocados - no fruits for now until you understand how your [-]super[/-] sugar readings respond to them
 
Last edited:
euro said:
Is 130 your fasting level? If your blood sugar runs between 130 and 190 you are likely still eating way too many carbs. You are right, they hide in ALL processed foods. Stick with full fat diary, meat, non-starchy veggies, salads, fish, avocados - no fruits for now until you understand how your super readings respond to them.
Click to expand...



If you were hungry on low carbs, you might be taking in too much protein, which your body will turn into glucose for energy. You need enough energy for your body to work. The other source of energy is fat. Fat is not the big monster. Eating low carb, high fat, and moderate protein may work and you won't feel hungry. It is an adjustment. I just switched to this and continue to read and research the best way to do it. The fats you choose are important. More saturated than you expect. I'm using an app called Track by Nutritionix. It tracks carbs, protein, fat, and calories. You can even scan labels to record your food.

Euro's post describes my diet. The diet has actually made cravings disappear, because I was actually craving the fat. Many cool recipes are out there. I do under 30 net carbs per day, will work up to 50 when I hit goal weight next year.

Check out the books by Stephen Phinney, MD PhD and Jeff Volek, PhD RD. It won't work for everyone but I think it likely will help most. You're doctor may or may not approve. Most of us physicians were poorly trained in nutrition. We were taught dogma, not science.
 
I liked this video, which teaches a plant-based, high-carb, low-fat solution to Type 2 diabetes, with no downsides.

As explained, everything/anything that helps you lose weight will help Type 2 diabetes (even, for example, gastric bypass). The trick is finding an approach you can follow for the 'rest' of your life.

My choice is drug-free and plant-based:
https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/.../the-latest-scams-from-the-diabetic-industry/
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the club, it's really not the end of the world.

From my experience, I would suggest you get diabetic counseling from a local hospital. Your insurance should cover this, just ask your doctor for a referral.

You'll find some folks who can really help you understand how to watch your lifestyle and control the disease. It's really not that hard.

No foods are off limits, but I'd recommend counseling by a diabetic dietician so you can understand the relationship between food, medicine, exercise and the effects on your health. There is no one correct program, it depends on your personal situation.

HTH

_B
 
This thread is what I expected when I saw the OP. Do what I do, it's the only way. I second the idea to read Phinney and Volek. These people do research not in books but in various sample spaces and they give evidence for their ideas. Phinney also treats sick patients.

However there are poles on this topic, one various iterations of low carb, the other various iterations of low fat. These are irreconcilable positions, and to me at least, this suggests that they may be individuals who respond best to one or the other approach.

Ha
 
Steven Phinney and Jeff Volek are exercise physiologists, not diabeticians. There is better advice available. OTOH, you should consult them for improving your sports performance.
 
I agree with Haha. You can't really do low carb and low fat and expect to have a life worth living. I've been type II for about 12 or 13 years now. I've tried many things, as I expect the OP will. There's a lot to learn, and plenty of time to do it. Diabetes isn't a death sentence (at least any more than life is), and if you take your time and don't freak out you'll find a way to live a rewarding life with it (or without, if things work out for you).

One thing I didn't see in the OP's information was an A1c number. That's at least as important as the FBG levels. I've always been in the high normal/low diabetic numbers in A1c, but my fasting numbers have been as high as the 200s. Even with careful diet and exercise I couldn't get my FBG numbers under control, especially following the incredibly bad nutritional information that the medical profession was pushing (whole grains and low fat). Finally my doctor put me on insulin, one shot at night before bed. Immediately my FBG numbers dropped to more or less pre-diabetic, but my A1c didn't change that much. Obviously there's more going one than what the textbooks say.

For me, eating to my meter (using testing to see how various foods affect me) was a good start. Recently I read "Eat Fat, Get Thin" by Dr. Mark Hyman, as well as "The Obesity Code" by Dr. Jason Fung. Following Dr. Hyman's advice has allowed me to drop my insulin level by 1/3 while still keeping my FBG levels in the pre-diabetic range, or lower. I've got hopes of getting off both the insulin and the Metformin as my body changes and adapts to this new lifestyle. I've lost 15 lbs in 7 weeks, without any calorie restriction or increase in exercise. It's a very satisfying (to me) way of eating. I don't feel hungry anymore like I always did when I was eating carbs. It's amazing how dramatic the change in the way my body works is. Obviously, even after 60 years an old dog can learn something new. DW has also been eating that way, and while her FBG was always OK, she's also lost nearly 15 lbs.

I've found something that works well for me, and I suspect the OP will too, if he is willing to put the time and effort in. My main point is to not go crazy. Type II takes a long time to develop, and also takes a long time to kill you. You're just as likely to die of something else completely unrelated. Read, learn, try, and see what happens. Nobody gets out alive anyway. JMHO, of course.
 
Interesting info for me as diabetes seems to have a higher incidence due to genes more so that with weight, from supposedly eating too much of the "wrong" foods. I'm in the pre stage right now. Strong family history for me. I think I,m only one of 5 siblings without diabetes and i,m the second oldest. I am and have been more active than the rest of my family. This thread and imbeded links have helped me do more reseach witch i sorely needed. Been testing mainly when first get up, but didn,t start doing the post meal glucose at 1 and 2 hrs until just recently. Still trying different foods to see what spikes my numbers post meals. Exercise does have a positive effect for me so that is good. I will start incorporating quick exercise post meal as was mentioned in an earlier post. Sounds like a good idea. Since my fasting glucose is higher i think I might try a more heavy protein mix for breakfast to not spike it any further. Have just scratched the surface here on diabetes info but feel good about getting a handle on it. I asked my doc for a referral to a diabetic educational class and dietition, he reluctantly said ok but remarked that I'm not going to look like any of the other people in the class. I said if that is because they are blind or have lost a limb due to the disease then that is why i want to go now to avoid ending up like that. Knowledge is power.
 
Also found out that there is a link between not being able to sleep and higher incidence of diabetes. I'll need to reseach this more fully as I don,t sleep very well at all and have not for the last few years. Golden years are not so golden right now but I do still feel fortunate in life!
 
harley said:
One thing I didn't see in the OP's information was an A1c number. That's at least as important as the FBG levels. I've always been in the high normal/low diabetic numbers in A1c, but my fasting numbers have been as high as the 200s. Even with careful diet and exercise I couldn't get my FBG numbers under control, especially following the incredibly bad nutritional information that the medical profession was pushing (whole grains and low fat). Finally my doctor put me on insulin, one shot at night before bed. Immediately my FBG numbers dropped to more or less pre-diabetic, but my A1c didn't change that much. Obviously there's more going one than what the textbooks say..
Click to expand...

A1c can be a helpful number because it "chronicles" total glucose levels (fasting, peak and in-between), over time. So, it will note someone with really high postprandial ("after eating") glucose but who has normal fasting glucose.
On the other hand, A1C also depends on how quickly red blood cell turnover happens, and this turnover depends on the individual person. Some people have fast turnover and some have slow or medium. If you have average turnover then the recommended range for A1C is useful, but if your turnover is very high, then the A1C number will underestimate the problem (conversely, with very slow turnover, your A1C may be out of normal range but your glucose is just fine).
Bottom line, as you say, and just like everything else in medicine, things vary from individual to individual
 
harley said:
For me, eating to my meter (using testing to see how various foods affect me) was a good start. Recently I read "Eat Fat, Get Thin" by Dr. Mark Hyman, as well as "The Obesity Code" by Dr. Jason Fung. Following Dr. Hyman's advice has allowed me to drop my insulin level by 1/3 while still keeping my FBG levels in the pre-diabetic range, or lower.
Click to expand...

I think this really hits the nail on the head! "Eating by the meter". Eating food that will not induce high blood sugar spikes is the answer. Period. What that food is varies to some extent from person to person and therefore, measuring before, and 2hours after a meal (better yet, 1,2, and 4 hours) really WILL tell the story. While I do find these measurements a bit tedious (I don't like finger pricks at all...), they can be done by anyone with a $5 glucose test meter from Walmart. The test strip do cost something too, but are affordable for most folks.
Also, once you know which foods and how much works for you, then testing less frequently will be fine.
 
euro said:
A1c can be a helpful number because it "chronicles" total glucose levels (fasting, peak and in-between), over time. So, it will note someone with really high postprandial ("after eating") glucose but who has normal fasting glucose.
On the other hand, A1C also depends on how quickly red blood cell turnover happens, and this turnover depends on the individual person. Some people have fast turnover and some have slow or medium. If you have average turnover then the recommended range for A1C is useful, but if your turnover is very high, then the A1C number will underestimate the problem (conversely, with very slow turnover, your A1C may be out of normal range but your glucose is just fine).
Bottom line, as you say, and just like everything else in medicine, things vary from individual to individual
Click to expand...

Have you got any good references for this? I saw something once years ago, but it was just a comment in a thread on Jenny Ruhl's site. I asked my doc about it as it might explain my A1c/FGL conundrum, but she poo-pooed it . I am somewhat anemic, and that's actually what led to my diagnosis as diabetic when I suddenly stopped being able to pass the drop of blood sinking in the tube test when donating blood. I'd love to see some more about this. I figure the more I understand, the better I can manage things based on my own physiology. And it would be a good question to ask when shopping for a new doctor. It's very hard to find one that is willing to go outside the (not so good, IMO) AMA recommendations for treating Type II.
 
harley said:
Have you got any good references for this? I saw something once years ago, but it was just a comment in a thread on Jenny Ruhl's site. I asked my doc about it as it might explain my A1c/FGL conundrum, but she poo-pooed it . I am somewhat anemic, and that's actually what led to my diagnosis as diabetic when I suddenly stopped being able to pass the drop of blood sinking in the tube test when donating blood. I'd love to see some more about this. I figure the more I understand, the better I can manage things based on my own physiology. And it would be a good question to ask when shopping for a new doctor. It's very hard to find one that is willing to go outside the (not so good, IMO) AMA recommendations for treating Type II.
Click to expand...

Depends a bit on how scientifically inclined you are. Here are a couple that are more general, and one that has more biology details.

BTW: Sadly, I think you are right on with your skepticism of AMA - they are disturbingly behind the times

General:

And:

Glycated Haemoglobin (HbA1c). Test information; diabetes | Patient

more detailed:
Pediatric Research - Accelerated Red Blood Cell Turnover Can Invalidate the Use of Hemoglobin A1c as a Diagnostic Test for Cystic Fibrosis Related Diabetes
Sorry - abstract only, rest is paywalled. Try this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2581997/

Sorry, wasn't sure how to make the links live...somehow seems to be different on my iPad from what I'm used to on my desktop - hope I didn't mess it up
 
Last edited:
euro said:
On the other hand, A1C also depends on how quickly red blood cell turnover happens, and this turnover depends on the individual person. Some people have fast turnover and some have slow or medium. If you have average turnover then the recommended range for A1C is useful, but if your turnover is very high, then the A1C number will underestimate the problem (conversely, with very slow turnover, your A1C may be out of normal range but your glucose is just fine).
Bottom line, as you say, and just like everything else in medicine, things vary from individual to individual
Click to expand...

Doesn't abnormal turnover occur in people that have other underlying conditions or on medications that can bring that about?
 
DFW_M5 said:
Doesn't abnormal turnover occur in people that have other underlying conditions or on medications that can bring that about?
Click to expand...

Yes, there are a number of conditions that can affect turnover of blood cells ( many are listed in the links I pasted), but there is also inherent variability among different individuals. The proposed "normal" A1C is based on some assumption of average turnover rate but an individual can (naturally) have slower or faster than average turnover, so their A1C can be off significantly in either direction.
 
euro said:
Yes, there are a number of conditions that can affect turnover of blood cells ( many are listed in the links I pasted), but there is also inherent variability among different individuals. The proposed "normal" A1C is based on some assumption of average turnover rate but an individual can (naturally) have slower or faster than average turnover, so their A1C can be off significantly in either direction.
Click to expand...

While there can be variability as you suggest, I suspect the A1C test is a good indicator of average blood sugar for the majority, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
CGM - Continuous Glucose Monitor
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
imjustawarrior
imjustawarrior
B
New cardiologist not care about my cholesterol
2 3
Replies
57
Views
3K
Koolau
Koolau
R
Healthcare Gap Support Recommendation
Replies
11
Views
381
badatmath
B
C
Retiring this year & appreciate any feedback on HMO experience in 2022 and 2023
Replies
1
Views
696
ratface
ratface
Amethyst
High Cholesterol despite correct weight, diet, exercise...What to do?
3 4 5
Replies
111
Views
10K
orbops
O

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom