Blood Sugar

Z3Dreamer

Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,088
Location
Beach and Mountain
When I was still w*****g, stressed out, etc. my blood sugar reached 108 at age 53. Lost a bunch of weight, lived at the gym and RE'd. Over the years, blood sugar was at 95, then at 90. It has been in the 90-95 range for 4 years. I have one of those home blood sugar monitoring systems that I use about twice a year. Seems to track well with the doctors office. Anyhow, yesterday my fasting blood sugar reading was 78. Again, I think this monitoring system is pretty accurate.

From reading online and asking a medical professional the info I got was that: "anything between 60 and 100 is in the normal range."

My question is: Can any more be inferred from my reading of 78? For example, is 78 better than 90? Am I going too far with the reduction of carbs and increasing of exercise?

I am not going to start celebrating yet, but want to if I have another good reading in a bit.
 
78 is better than 90. From what I have been reading, there is a debate as to whether fasting numbers in the 90's are pre-diabetic. I think mainstream medicine seems to think 90's are ok, but I saw a couple of expert opinions online that fasting blood sugar should be below 85 or even 83.

I routinely tested between 92 and 98 for years and not one doctor ever mentioned it as even a potential problem. Then I got an A1C test about a year ago. The result was 5.7, or borderline pre-diabetic according to my PCP. So I started to cut down on sugar and my last two fasting glucose numbers have been 87 and 82. Diabetes runs in my family, so this seems like good news.
 
Everyone reacts differently to blood sugar levels. With your current blood sugar levels, go about living your life and forget about checking your levels. Eat and drink as you wish--and enjoy life.

But I warn you that getting too low on sugar levels is where diabetics have their most problems. My uncle was a type II diabetic, and he had a sugar low. His potassium went way up, and he lost all his mental and physical facilities while driving--mowing down a telephone pole. His blood sugar was up and down like a roller coaster--the worst. If blood sugar gets too low, the patient can forget to breath--and he's a goner.
 
Blood sugar levels are super volatile and vary throughout the day. Everybody's rise with meals and it's healthier when they drop back to baseline faster after meals. The key to blood sugar control is really weight control. Take the excess off, keep it off, control blood pressure, (and don't smoke!) and you should be okay.

Whatever diet that works for you to control your weight is fine as long as your cholesterol doesn't go wacky on it. Despite the certainty that some people on the internet have, there's absolutely no way to determine what "the best" diet is.
 
78 is better than 90. From what I have been reading, there is a debate as to whether fasting numbers in the 90's are pre-diabetic. I think mainstream medicine seems to think 90's are ok, but I saw a couple of expert opinions online that fasting blood sugar should be below 85 or even 83.

And I'm sure that none of those experts had any ties to the pharmaceutical industry corporations that make Metformin or insulin or whatever. Every time the numbers on these conditions are lowered, millions of people are swept up in the new definition. These people, with their already low numbers of whatever (BGL, cholesterol, BP, etc) are very low risk of even developing the condition.But they are then prescribed meds which often have side effects worse than the possibility of the condition they are supposed to be treating. Over-diagnosis and over-medication is a big problem in this country.

As far as 78 being better then 90, not so. Both are perfectly acceptable numbers in the normal range of fasting blood sugar levels. That would be like saying that being a normal weight of say, 175 lbs is better than being a normal weight of 190 lbs. Lower is not necessarily better, it's just other.
 
Obesity is an epidemic in this country. And diabetes is often a result of that obesity.

What's so sad is that there are so many undiagnosed diabetics without obvious symptoms. They'll not realize that when they get cut, wounds just don't heal well. When they get older, 2/3 of them will eventually have heart surgery. And the worse offshoot is their kidneys will play out, and they'll be on dialysis.

My father's cousin was a severe diabetic. My grandmother died as an undiagnosed diabetic. My uncle was type II that didn't properly take care of himself and lost circulation in his limbs (and his limbs) eventually on dialysis. And my father's kidneys also played out and he was on dialysis. My uncle's daughter is in a nursing home at age 59--ignoring her diabetes until her kidneys played out.

This stuff is inherited and anyone with diabetics in their family need to be closely monitored by a physician.
 
And I'm sure that none of those experts had any ties to the pharmaceutical industry corporations that make Metformin or insulin or whatever. Every time the numbers on these conditions are lowered, millions of people are swept up in the new definition. These people, with their already low numbers of whatever (BGL, cholesterol, BP, etc) are very low risk of even developing the condition.But they are then prescribed meds which often have side effects worse than the possibility of the condition they are supposed to be treating. Over-diagnosis and over-medication is a big problem in this country.

As far as 78 being better then 90, not so. Both are perfectly acceptable numbers in the normal range of fasting blood sugar levels. That would be like saying that being a normal weight of say, 175 lbs is better than being a normal weight of 190 lbs. Lower is not necessarily better, it's just other.

I am in total agreement with you that over-diagnosis and particularly over-medication are a big problem in medicine today. The experts I was talking about are definitely not shills for big pharma, if anything the opposite. Each recommended blood sugar control through diet and exercise to control weight, but mostly diet - limiting added sugars and fructose and getting enough dietary fiber.

I also agree that lower blood sugar isn't always better. All I can say is that my AIC came down from the pre-diabetic level of 5.7 to 5.5 as my fasting blood sugar came down from the 90's to the 80's. There was no medication involved, it was the result of improving the healthfulness of my diet. Left to my own devices I am a sugar junkie, and the effect of too much sugar is not confined to diabetes - see the other recent thread on this board. So for me, the lower end of the normal range does seem better.
 
Health Correlator: Blood glucose variations in normal individuals: A chaotic mess

I love statistics. But statistics is the science that will tell you that each person in a group of 20 people ate half a chicken per week over six months, until you realize that 10 died because they ate nothing while the other 10 ate a full chicken every week.

Statistics is the science that will tell you that there is an “association” between these two variables: my weight from 1 to 20 years of age, and the price of gasoline during that period. These two variables are indeed highly correlated, by neither has influenced the other in any way.
...
A case in point is that of blood glucose variations among normal individuals. Try plotting them on graphs. What do you see? A chaotic mess, even when the individuals are pre-screened to exclude anybody with blood glucose abnormalities that would even hint at pre-diabetes. You see wild fluctuations that, while not going up to levels like 200 mg/dl, are much less predictable than many people are told they should be.
 
My question is: Can any more be inferred from my reading of 78? For example, is 78 better than 90? Am I going too far with the reduction of carbs and increasing of exercise?

My blood glucose is only as low as 87 recently, and that is after avoiding the bad carb with a high glycemic index when I saw it going up to 103. So, I have not spent time to study the effect of low blood sugar, but I know the effects of the high numbers too well. My family and my wife's have a history of that.

Sadly, I can see that some in our families are addicted to the bad carb, and this addiction is no different than a drug or nicotine addiction. They know it is bad for them, but are willing to risk their health for it. Very, very sad.

I also know some unfortunate people who did all they could and could not control their diabetes. I was talking about the people who just do not care to exercise any restraint to see if it helps.
 
Let's just face it, the American diet is just too carb centered. We don't eat enough veggies, and even so many of those (even green veggies) are starches.

And most of the millennials I know are in dietary trouble. They don't even eat as well as us Baby Boomers, and we eat bad enough.

There are just so many of us that are destined for diabetes, heart conditions, etc. When the kidneys shut down, dialysis is the option and the lifespan is only about 4 years at that point.

And a proper diet is the place to start--but preparing one's own food is just not working in our fast paced lifestyles.
 
From RonBoyd:
I love statistics. But statistics is the science that will tell you that each person in a group of 20 people ate half a chicken per week over six months, until you realize that 10 died because they ate nothing while the other 10 ate a full chicken every week.

Statistics is the science that will tell you that there is an “association” between these two variables: my weight from 1 to 20 years of age, and the price of gasoline during that period. These two variables are indeed highly correlated, by neither has influenced the other in any way.


As the saying goes, correlation is not causation.

Years ago I worked at a combustion research facility. We were trying to correlate NOx emissions to oxygen supplied for combustion. I noted at the the time, since we ran 24/7 doing these tests, you could correlate the NOx emissions to the number of cars in the parking lot!:facepalm:
 
I just had my physical done last week, and discussed it with my doctor. She told me that sugar level under 75 is problematic. Low sugar can make you weak and confused. A lot of people also faint when sugar goes low. It is good idea to have hard candy or small snack to eat after workout or when you feel weak, for exemple when driving. It can be a lot of causes for low sugar: diet, to extensive exercise and drinking alcohol. Some people sugar goes up and down but they do not have diabetes.
 
It can be a lot of causes for low sugar:[-] diet, to extensive exercise [/-]and drinking alcohol.
I knew if I kept looking I'd find a good reason to drink. My doctor says my fasting blood sugar is good and so was my A1C and I average a 6 pack a week.
 
Last edited:
I don't know why everyone is so worried about this. Why, I just got a banner ad on this page with a link to info on prescriptions that might bring down my blood sugar!;)
 
I knew if I kept looking I'd find a good reason to drink. My doctor says my fasting blood sugar is good and so was my A1C and I average a 6 pack a week.

Maybe that means you can increase your consumption, 6 pack every day:D
 
DW and I have been doing our variation on the "Eat Fat, Get Thin" style of eating for a bit over a month now. We're both doing well, without missing much of the carb-based foods that we used to crave, and also without falling off the wagon permanently the one time we went to Culvers with our friends and ate previously-but-no-longer delicious crap.

But the most important part has been our FBG levels. I'm diabetic and on meds, but where I used to average in the 140s-150s FBG, I'm around 100 now. I've decreased my insulin and still my numbers are coming down (even when I'm not drinking). I'm planning on lowering my insulin again, and hopefully onward until I'm off of it.

DW has never been diagnosed even pre-diabetic but was definitely headed that way with numbers (using my test kit) well into the pre range, and once or twice going over 126. Now she's testing in the 80s and 90s. Plus we've both lost 10+ lbs in the month.

I'm quite happy with our results. We're planning to make this our lifestyle moving forward. I've tried many diets in the ast, including low carb. Some resulted in weight loss, but none were something I was able to stick with. This one, which is based on avoiding carbs but eating plenty of good fats, and mostly vegetables with some meat, is incredibly satisfying. Our FBG has gone down, our weight has gone down, our grocery bills have gone down, and our feeling of martyrdom has pretty much gone away.

I'm looking forward to my next Dr. appt. in late March, to see what my cholesterol and A1c look like. I'm also planning to update this thread after 3 or 6 months, to let others know how it's going. This is rather exciting. Hope I don't get derailed.
 
Wow congrats!

Blood pressure down too?

What is your variant? Are there foods you added that aren't part of the diet!
 
The variants are that we aren't following the recommendations absolutely, we just learned from what we read and are making decisions based on that. For example, I'm not eating exclusively wild caught fish or free range chicken or beef, but since we've cut our meat consumption down I don't see it as a huge issue. We'll probably go that way over time. But we have added a few things that he makes a big deal about like coconut oil. Delicious enough that I lick the spoon after putting it in the pan, but it doesn't affect (IMO anyway) the taste of food like an omelet.

As far as BP, DW's has always been perfect even though she'd been significantly overweight for years. Just goes to show that genetics plays a part. Mine is pretty good too, although higher. I've started using my Zona Plus again, after ordering a part that had broken. Every time I use it consistently my BP drops into the 120/130 over 70/80 range, although that's with meds. Hopefully over time with the weight loss and quality foods that will go down too. But I doubt I'll ever get all the way off the meds. Genetics again.
 
Good to know. I have limited access to grass fed beef, although organic chicken is easy to come by. I've been making bone broth and forget finding grass fed beef bones. It's a challenge.

Coconut oil seems to be on everyone's super food list these days.
 
harley, thats great news! Can you give some examples of the carbs that you gave up, that you believe contributed to prior higher #s?
 
Well, the obvious ones, bread, pasta, pizza, any kind of bakery items. We started out eating a fair amount of fruit, but discovered that bananas sent DW's BGL sky high. And oranges. We still eat a fair amount of melons and berries, they seem to be OK in limited amounts. Beans are OK, but again, in limited amounts. Rice, potatoes, even limiting the starchy veggies (corn, lima beans, peas, etc). And ice cream. That was hardest for me, but when I had the chance to eat some week or so ago I was able to say no. Hooray!

Equally importantly, though, IMO, is the increase in fats. We eat plenty of olive oil and coconut oil, butter, and ghee and switched to full fat versions of anything we ate that was low fat, like salad dressings, because going low fat almost always meant going high in HFCS. We never drank sugary sodas, so no change there. Mostly we're trying to follow Dr. Hyman's suggestion of having 70% of our plate be veggies, and using meat more as a condiment than a main course. It's not that hard to do, since we do love vegetables, and it seems that eating plenty of good oils, butter, and cheeses fills us up and keeps us satisfied in a way that just cutting out carbs never did before. And using them to make delicious sauces for the veggies and meats keep it interesting.The most amazing part is not having any real cravings for the stuff we used to practically live on. You've just got to make sure to avoid the oils you've been taught to use in the past, the polyunsaturated oils (soy, safflower, sunflower, any of the clear-ish oils that remain liquid even when cold). And still avoid the trans fats. But saturated fats, previously thought to be evil, tend to be better for you than the processed oils.

Even eating out isn't too hard. We can go to a Mexican restaurant nearby and get Pollo Rojo (Chicken with a spicy red pepper sauce) with grilled zucchini instead of beans and rice. Seafood restaurants are easy, especially here in FL where we can get something like a big salad with a piece of grilled grouper. We did have a difficult time going out with our friends the other day to am Italian place. Everything had either pasta or risotto, and they said no substitutions. So we just didn't eat the risotto. And if we're by ourselves we tell them not to bring bread.

It's definitely a change, but just doesn't seem as much of a sacrifice as it always was in the past when we were counting calories or dropping carbs without replacing the calories with fats. So far, so good. And so far we haven't made any changes to our exercise level (basically nothing), so when we do start walking and exercising more hopefully that will help too. Not so much with weight loss as with improving muscle tone, flexibility, balance, and strength.
 
Last edited:
I've been successful in getting my A1Cs to the normal range, by taking a short walk after each meal, however, I still struggle with my fasting BG. Carb wise, probably the most common ones I eat are breakfast cereal (special k, cheerios), apple, orange, popcorn, greek yogurt, and brown rice. I do not know if cutting out these would drop it or whether I am just genetically destined to have a high fasting number (typically in the range of 112-117). Cholesterol, triglycerides, and BP are all excellent, so at least some things are going well, but I do get some help from metformin, statin, and lisinopril. Perhaps its not enough fats, but we do use olive oil and I'm a cheese eater as well, but possibly may need more good fats.
 
Last edited:
You guys are all doing what I started December 29th. Very low carb. I've lost 15 lbs so far and my BP is down, with some calorie restriction-1400/day, more or less . Had my labs done last week-all normal, slightly higher cholesterol than before. I'm keeping my carbs under 30 gm/day. My hemoglobin A1C was normal too. I have many more pounds to lose, but I'm confident I can maintain this diet virtually all the time as my way of life, which is really important.

I found two books by Stephen Phinney and Jeff Volek really enlightening. The books explain the biochemistry behind the low carb ketogenic diet.The biochemistry makes sense (I majored in biochemistry and am a retired pediatrician). Also dietdoctor.com is a useful resource.

So, I consume no carbs except what I get in vegetables. There are some great no carb bread recipes, using psyllium husk powder, almond and coconut flour, and egg whites, and they're easier than regular bread. I'm not hungry, I'm not grumpy, I can have some wine and hard liquor, but I've lost all interest in alcohol, in addition to most of my food cravings. have a lot more energy, and my mood is way better. Very low carb can be beneficial for type 2 diabetes, it's worth researching and considering. I love being able to eat my chicken skin, steak, butter, cream in my coffee, in addition to a reasonable amount of olive oil. I love to use coconut oil in foods as well, and eat high omega-3 fish 1-2x per week.

By the way, I got the diet recommendation from a fellow physician on this board, who did a keto diet to lose weight-and lost a lot.

I keep telling myself, "Nothing tastes as good as being thin and healthy feels."
 
Coconut oil seems to be on everyone's super food list these days.

Indeed. DW is using it as a mouthwash to help decrease her gum disease issues. https://draxe.com/oil-pulling-coconut-oil/. No idea if it works. She says it's a bit nasty for a few seconds when you start (when the oil is still solid), but it melts at mouth temperature almost immediately. I've never tried it, but I like the taste of coconut oil, so I think I could easily do this if I needed to.
 
Back
Top Bottom