diabetes question

[lyra]

Date: 6/1/2009 2:09:48 PM
Author:

Date: 6/1/2009 12:15:12 PM
Author: lyra
I'm diabetic. I would never want to sit through the actual fasting glucose tolerance test, where you have to sit in the clinic for hours. No, I'd insist on the A1C test instead, even if I had to pay for it myself. I don't know if it is considered the definitive test, but who wouldn't rather have one simple blood test which gives you your average blood glucose level over the last 2-3 months than sit in a clinic for possibly nothing. If the A1C proved to be high, okay, then you'd have to force yourself to do the GTT I suppose. Hope that helps a bit. BTW, I have excellent glucose control, but mornings are always my high time, usually 108-120 no matter what. Good luck.

Hi Lyra, the fasted glucose test only entails fasting and walking into the lab for a blood sample, no waiting - similar to a fasted lipid panel.
Currently the diagnosis of diabetes is not based on an a1c. You diagnose it based on two separate fasting blood glucose samples (or the randoms)

I believe you are thinking of the oral glucose tolerance test which does entail a couple of hours time and is not routinely done. It is useful in pregnancy where the blood glucose changes are too quick for an a1c to be helpful (if you waited for the a1c to change, you would be treating an old value long after the damage is done and the baby born - the value in the beginning would reflect the prior 3 months and so on)

Hope this clarifies.

Yep, I was referring to the GTT, which is the defining test here in Canada right now. I did the fasting tests then later the GTT. I didn't realize however, that in the US just asking for a certain test might affect your insurance later. That's insane. The value of the GTT is that it measures how your body actually reacts to excess glucose at specific intervals one and two hours after consumption, whereas a fasting test is merely a point in time test, much less valuable unless your numbers are extremely high. I do the A1C a couple of times a year now as I'm in fine control.

Asscherisme, mainly I want you to be less frightened. Being told you are pre-diabetic is a good thing really. It gives you a chance to turn things around possibly. I was pre-diabetic for a couple of years before my diagnosis, but diabetes is prevalent in my family, and I'm on a medication that is prone to making insulin resistance worse. Not everyone can stave off diabetes by diet and exercise, and in fact in my family the "worst" diabetics (those that had the worst complications) were actually very thin people. The value in very early detection these days is that a diabetic will get faster treatment and will be able to avoid the worst complications *completely* in most every case. My life has not changed that much. So I have dietary restrictions, no big deal. Otherwise, I'm completely healthy. I understand it's scary though. I agree that some doctors are not good with their delivery and tend to be very cold. I hope that's not the case for you, and I'm sure you will be okay. Take care!

 

[asscherisme]

Date: 6/1/2009 2:09:48 PM
Author:

Date: 6/1/2009 12:15:12 PM
Author: lyra
I''m diabetic. I would never want to sit through the actual fasting glucose tolerance test, where you have to sit in the clinic for hours. No, I''d insist on the A1C test instead, even if I had to pay for it myself. I don''t know if it is considered the definitive test, but who wouldn''t rather have one simple blood test which gives you your average blood glucose level over the last 2-3 months than sit in a clinic for possibly nothing. If the A1C proved to be high, okay, then you''d have to force yourself to do the GTT I suppose. Hope that helps a bit. BTW, I have excellent glucose control, but mornings are always my high time, usually 108-120 no matter what. Good luck.

Hi Lyra, the fasted glucose test only entails fasting and walking into the lab for a blood sample, no waiting - similar to a fasted lipid panel.
Currently the diagnosis of diabetes is not based on an a1c. You diagnose it based on two separate fasting blood glucose samples (or the randoms)

I believe you are thinking of the oral glucose tolerance test which does entail a couple of hours time and is not routinely done. It is useful in pregnancy where the blood glucose changes are too quick for an a1c to be helpful (if you waited for the a1c to change, you would be treating an old value long after the damage is done and the baby born - the value in the beginning would reflect the prior 3 months and so on)

Hope this clarifies.

Interesting info. I had the oral glucose tolerance test during my 4th pregnancy because my routine glucose test was borderline high. (they had given me a bottle of sugar drink to drink one hour ahead at home). For the lab test, I had to wait until I got to the lab, drink the sugar drink and literally sit there for a few hours while they took my blood every so often. It was beyond boring but thankfully I passed that test and had no issues.

So this is not my first diabetes scare. I had the gestertional diabetes scare and then the second test turned out to be normal. Hoping for the same results today. But like I have said in the thread, HUGE wake up call for me. I''m turning 40 this month and I''m not a kid anymore so its time to watch more closely how I take care of myself.

I don''t want to request any test that may alarm my insurance company at this point.

 

[Maisie]

The levels are measured differently here in the UK. My first test was 10.9. Normal is 5.5 and under. My second test was 5.9.

 

[Black Jade]

As Lyra said, finding this out is a good thing.
You can take steps. You might need medicine, as she also mentioned. But then again, you might not. I was a diet-controlled diabetic for 8 years. Recently I lost weight--went from 155 lbs to 135 lbs at 5 ft 3. Lo and behold, the diabetes went away.

THEN the doctors told me that 50% of people who have type II diabetes will not be diabetic anymore if they lose enough weight. I wish they had told me that 8 years ago. So be sure you''re within your BMI, even a little overweight can do this to some of us genetically. I did not appear fat at all at 155 and so the doctors did not even bother to tell me this weight/diabetes connection. One actually told me last week that it was pointless to tell people--because ''they don''t lose the weight anyway" !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Abril]

Date: 6/1/2009 5:13:52 PM
Author: Maisie
The levels are measured differently here in the UK. My first test was 10.9. Normal is 5.5 and under. My second test was 5.9.

The UK measures glucose in millimoles/liter (mM). To convert to the U.S. units of mg/dl, just multiply by 18. So a normal of 5.5 mM in the UK is 99 mg/dl in the U.S.

 

[icekid]

asscher- any news? Crossing my fingers for you...

 

[asscherisme]

UPDATE:

I broke down and bought a blood glucose meter. I picked one up for $19 at my local pharmacy. The one touch ultra mini. I figure its a good idea to see whats going on and certainly can''t hurt.

So I had breakfast at 9am this morning. I also had 2 cups of coffee with half and half and spenda in them at 9:30 and 10:30. Have not worked out yet today since the kids are off school. Going to fit that in this afternoon when I let them watch a movie on dvd.

So I just took my blood glucose and it read 99. I have not had lunch yet. Is that good, bad, normal?

And since I JUST tested and am about to eat lunch, when should I test again today and what is the ideal number I want to see?

I am really curious what my morning number will be since I have been eating very normal (for me) lately.

 

[lyra]

Eep. Asscher, I think you're stressing too much here! I only test twice a day. When I wake up in the morning before any food/drink. Then two hours after dinner at night. Your meter will probably give you a 2 week "average" in time, that I find is usually pretty close to what my A1C measures at. I wouldn't test any more than that, really. You have no reason to.

Everyone will have highs and lows within a month too. Stress alone can make your glucose rise, so worrying a lot is going to show up. Exercise can make glucose go up, then down. If you feel you must test, just do it at these times and see what you come up with. The after meal measurement is always 2 hours. It's called post-prandial reading.

PS: only Type 1 diabetics test before and after meals generally speaking, as they must make adjustments to their insulin intake. You should be eating at regular hours, with snacks in between, including at night. This helps keep your glucose level steady. Also, drink lots of water!!!

 

[asscherisme]

lyra, you are probably right. But I figured that it was easier to check myself than wait 2 weeks and worry. So testing actually makes me worry less since I''m doing something.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Try testing right in the morning. Then two hours after breakfast. You can also try right before eating lunch and then two hours after that. Just to see what's going on. . .maybe test for one week.

Keep in mind that if you're eating a lot of protein or fatty foods, it'll take longer for your food to digest, which lowers your numbers. If you eat eggs and bacon for breakfast, you'll have much lower numbers than if you instead have cereal and orange juice.

I had slight gestational diabetes - diet controlled - and what raised my levels were potatoes, milk, cereals, fruit, carrots. When I wanted to have crackers, I always added in cheese and the protein/fat from that kept my levels in check.

Okay, all that rambling aside, 99 is good!

 

[icekid]

Date: 6/3/2009 2:07:42 PM
Author: asscherisme

So I just took my blood glucose and it read 99. I have not had lunch yet. Is that good, bad, normal?

asscher- for some reason I thought you were getting the repeat blood glucose done already! The finger stick monitors are not QUITE as accurate, but they are pretty good. 99 sounds great!