Branded - PREDIABETIC

[tmm99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha There is some evidence that time matters, and given equal work, intensity may in some respects be negative. See Krause, William.

Hi Haha,
Is this who you are talking about? Is there a good article to read that you know of?
http://research.duke.edu/stories/kraus
Thanks!

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmm99 Hi Haha, Is this who you are talking about? Is there a good article to read that you know of? http://research.duke.edu/stories/kraus Thanks!

Yes, this is the guy. Here is a Google link:


Krause William exercise and - Google Scholar

His group has a whole series of studies on the topic of exercise, blood lipoproteins, metabolic syndrome, etc. I have read than all, but I cannot remember which ones might be more to your specific interests. All are interesting, and most have free full text on the web.

Ha

[rgarling]

>>> "About frequent meals, I have hypoglycemic tendencies, but once I started the lowcarb, I do not get the lows like I used to"...

Are you measuring your blood glucose? If so, what is your blood glucose during a hypoglycemic episode?

>>> "I don't think anything is wrong with it ..."
someone acclimated to a proper low carb diet should be able to eat only 2 meals in a day without effort or cravings. Skipping an entire day might involve slight discomfort, but for many it is quite easy.

[TromboneAl]

I don't really want to comment on the significance of the total cholesterol number. I've concluded that the whole blood lipids thing is a mess, and that most docs don't have clue about what makes the different numbers go up or down.

[braumeister]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl I don't really want to comment on the significance of the total cholesterol number. I've concluded that the whole blood lipids thing is a mess, and that most docs don't have clue about what makes the different numbers go up or down.

And that's the heart of the problem (no pun intended) IMHO.
I wouldn't go so far as to say most docs, but certainly many of them are aware that it's a confusing mess, so they just focus (mindlessly) on one aspect: "LDL is bad, so take a statin to bring it down. Next?"

[Birchwood]

I have a slightly diff. issue. I am 61 yrs old and I did this Heart health test
($50) which include a CT chest scan, blood work, Blood pressure check.
I have a slight calcification in the heart, and Cholesterol 230, which according to the MD is borderline. My blood sugar is normal and blood pressure is borderline.

Physically, I am of normal built, and healthy.

I was placed on a "rigorous daily exercise regimen" and Simvastatin for cholesterol. I was encourage to eat moderately and avoid fatty and sugary food and drinks. Eat mainly fruits and vegatables, and little fish and meat.

I do Elliptical exercises 30 -35 mins 6 to 7 days a week and aimed to elevate my heart rate to 80-85% of my capacity. I now do 90% for 35 min which amazes me. I'm thin according to people who sees me.

I'm now 62, BP, cholesterol and blood sugar are all normal.

[Helen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl I don't really want to comment on the significance of the total cholesterol number. I've concluded that the whole blood lipids thing is a mess, and that most docs don't have clue about what makes the different numbers go up or down.

I agree, I don't think the blood lipid thing is understood yet. My LDL is 199, but I refuse to go on Statins. My doctor and I have discussed statins over the years and she accepts my reasons for not going on them.

I'm 5'3" and 115. I could lose a bit of belly fat, but my diet is pretty good. Not a lot of cheese/fat and no red meat or poultry since 1976. I eat a lot of fruit and veggies and a lot of salmon (daily).

[TromboneAl]

But fruits *are* sugary foods.





http://www.sugarstacks.com/fruits.htm

Years ago, when I still thought low carbers were crazy, I had a cholesterol test coming up. As you know I like to experiment on myself, so for three weeks prior to the test, I became a vegetarian. My numbers were worse than before.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl But fruits *are* sugary foods. How Much Sugar in Fruit? Years ago, when I still thought low carbers were crazy, I had a cholesterol test coming up. As you know I like to experiment on myself, so for three weeks prior to the test, I became a vegetarian. My numbers were worse than before.

I think there are many individual response patterns.

You seem to be very well suited to low-carbing.

Ha

[W2R]

Not meaning to disrupt the present discussions, but back to the original post,

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmm99 My questions: * How should I approach my doctor when I see her next time?

I think you should say straight out, "Doctor, do you think am I pre-diabetic? I'm concerned after seeing my blood test results."

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmm99 * How long should I wait until I get another A1C test? (some say a couple of weeks, some say 3 months. I waited 2 months since I started low/semi-low carb to take the test...)

"Doctor, when do you want me to get another A1C test?"

You and your insurance company are PAYING this doctor for her knowledge and experience as a medical expert. As long as you are paying for it, why not at least find out what she thinks and follow her suggestions? If you don't think she knows anything, why are you going to (and paying) this particular doctor? Just a thought and my questions are rhetorical.

F. and I have fasting blood glucose levels that are about the same (105-115) when untreated. Actually his score tends to be a little higher than mine. His doctor has never seen any problem with these results for him and has never even ordered an A1C for him. On the other hand, my doctor says I am a pre-diabetic and has been treating me for that for the past two years. The reason for this disparity is that the blood sugar tests are not assessed in isolation from tests for other variables, and various other information.

[Free To Canoe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl I don't really want to comment on the significance of the total cholesterol number. I've concluded that the whole blood lipids thing is a mess, and that most docs don't have clue about what makes the different numbers go up or down.

Sounds like you just did (comment).
Thanks for that.

[rgarling]

>>> W2R: "F. and I have fasting blood glucose levels that are about the same (105-115) when untreated. "

seriously, with fasting numbers like that, you should not consume any non-vegetable derived carbohydrate. Currently, the medical establishment doesn't get excited by those numbers, but you should.

[TromboneAl]

Quote:

F. and I have fasting blood glucose levels that are about the same (105-115) when untreated. Actually his score tends to be a little higher than mine. His doctor has never seen any problem with these results for him and has never even ordered an A1C for him. On the other hand, my doctor says I am a pre-diabetic and has been treating me for that for the past two years. The reason for this disparity is that the blood sugar tests are not assessed in isolation from tests for other variables, and various other information.

This is a big problem that I see. The disparity probably just results just from the fact that you guys have two different doctors. The advice that one gets from "discuss this with your doctor" depends on the luck of the draw.

Internet research has its pitfalls, but at least you can see a range of opinions, and not suffer if your physician happens to be uninformed.

From an article on What is a Normal Blood Sugar?

The reason that your doctor or lab might consider much higher numbers as "normal" is because doctors rely on "diagnostic criteria" set by the American Diabetes Association decades ago to define what are normal and abnormal blood sugar levels

The science used to define these diagnostic levels is outdated and inaccurate. The ADA resists changing these diagnostic criteria for reasons that are almost entirely political. You can read the grim details of how these diagnostic levels were set and why they avoid diagnosing people with diabetes until they have already developed diabetic complications: HERE.

The research described on the Research Connecting Organ Damage to Blood Sugar Level web page will make it very clear what blood sugar levels are normal and what levels are associated with the development of early diabetic complications.

If your reason for wanting normal blood sugars is to avoid all diabetic complications and the blood sugar swings that make you hungry and exhausted, shoot for blood sugars that are truly normal. Not the ADA recommended levels that are high enough to damage your organs.

[TromboneAl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmm99 It was excellent (I added bacon) Cauliflower Mac and Cheese Casserole Recipe : : Food Network

We made that last night -- very good -- thanks.

These cookies are better than any peanut butter cookies you've ever made:

https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0A...k8qoD&hl=en_US

[eytonxav]

Quote:

Originally Posted by W2R F. and I have fasting blood glucose levels that are about the same (105-115) when untreated.

As others pointed out this could be a problem, but I did notice you prefaced this by saying untreated. Does that mean you are now treating and getting lower #s or may be addressing via exercise and diet?

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DFW_M5 As others pointed out this could be a problem, but I did notice you prefaced this by saying untreated. Does that mean you are now treating and getting lower #s or may be addressing via exercise and diet?

Yes, all of the above.

[tmm99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl We made that last night -- very good -- thanks. These cookies are better than any peanut butter cookies you've ever made: https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0A...k8qoD&hl=en_US

Cool! I'm glad you enjoyed the cauliflower dish. I will definitely try your cookie recipe. I see that the cookie recipe is with pecan. Do you bake yours with peanut butter?

[tmm99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl But fruits *are* sugary foods. How Much Sugar in Fruit? Years ago, when I still thought low carbers were crazy, I had a cholesterol test coming up. As you know I like to experiment on myself, so for three weeks prior to the test, I became a vegetarian. My numbers were worse than before.

Kind of related to this (or not).... I saw Robin Williams on Ellen the other day. Evidently, he had some kind of heart surgeries, and he is now on the vegan diet. I remember Bill Clinton saying he was mostly vegan (I beileve he has had a couple of heart surgeries too.) I imagine they are on vegan diet because their doctors recommended it, but I wonder what they eat? I don't think they eat just green leafy vegetables either, which probably means their BG is not low.

[TromboneAl]

Yes, it's a good bet that Bill Clinton and Robin Williams are following the advice of their doctors, and it's a good bet that they each have the best doctor that money and power can buy. So, maybe I'm wrong and they are right.

[tmm99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl Yes, it's a good bet that Bill Clinton and Robin Williams are following the advice of their doctors, and it's a good bet that they each have the best doctor that money and power can buy. So, maybe I'm wrong and the are right.

Or you and Taubes are right?

I know people like that are told to lower their cholesterol to a very very low level by use of drugs, so their approach sees to be hugely different from the approach used for regular folks. I couldn't be a vegan anyway. (That would be way too boring.)