The DCCT and other long-term (decades long now) follow-on studies have shown that any lowering of average bg helps reduce the incidence of complications etc. There was no magic bg, or A1C, below which there were no complications. The curve flattens out for the lowest A1C/bg bins but never goes to zero. Now that was a T1 study but I don’t see why it wouldn’t be applicable to T2’s as well.
I think the “below 140 is good” comes from one specific study, on non-diabetics, that was not particularly long in duration.
Now, as to the possibility or realisticness of following such a strict rule that we feel like going over 100 means imminent organ rot… that’s not a good place to go. Just as a counterexample, I’ve been T1 for 30 years, had a bg shortly after diagnosis of 1800, have had plenty of high bg’s (not “100” or “140” but “300”) since then, and I’m still here today. But the overall goal of keeping bg’s in check all the time, and the ability to correct as we go along, I think that’s a good place to go.
I bet she is a hard core Bernsteinist. Bernstein’s philosophy is that “Diabetics are entitled to the same blood sugars as non diabetics”, but it isn’t “Diabetics must achieve non-diabetic numbers and seek-and-destroy anyone that doesn’t”. She might need to be reminded of that
Yes, and she was really putting down medicines, and insulin… and how the ADA had to come with two different names for diabetes because all the carbs were making everyone insulin dependent, and whatever… Seriously, she was talking like being on meds or insulin for D was a sin of some sort… and that our rotted diets do this to us… And that I was still sick, and didn’t know it. With what, I don’t know. lol
I second the vote that she needs to get a life! I am very happy with the 140/120 way. I am eating as low carb as I can, not just for now but for the long haul and there is no way I could be under 100 at all times. Eating protein and fats without carbs I still go up in the 120’s or highter assuming I am starting in the 90’s. I just look at food and my bgl’s elevate! LOL. Now excuse me while I get back to dreaming about mac and cheese!
Fanatic PIA! Heaven spare us from the newly converted on a mission. Would be lovely if we could all bat under 100 24/7 without meds or insulin, or with meds &/or insulin.
Paleo diet, raw diet, always something that will allegedly make us normal.
I would have whipped out my meter & tested her:) Would have told her that preaching & arguing is bad for her organs.
That’s interesting, I read that discussion also. It didn’t appear to be an argument except on your end. And I didn’t see any woman claiming your organs would rot. There were a few people citing well-documented facts and you responded with name-calling and profanity. Yes, all sides can cite studies which show information that supports their pet theory, however nobody seems to be disputing that higher BG levels can cause physical damage. Evidence shows that it’s possible to manage BG levels entirely through diet and even you claim you manage your BG levels through a low-carb diet. The paleo people just take it one step further and say that if you can lower your BG to 100-120 going low-carb, then imagine how easily you can manage it by going no-carb.
In addition, the post you referenced where she said she was “done with you” was when you referenced a website that didn’t even support the numbers you were using in your arguments in that thread.
I guess I just don’t understand why the vitriol against a few people in general and this woman in specific, when her own story shows that going no-carb can take the health benefits of a low-carb diet for diabetics to a deeper level. My only conclusion is that you know you don’t have the strength to maintain a no-carb diet and so you see these people as a threat to your way of thinking. They certainly don’t have a problem maintaining it, and neither did the rest of the world up until the late 1800’s.
I do also wonder why all of your respondents in this post are so quick to put down the woman without even reading the original debate you mentioned, when it was you who was responding to people using unwarranted name-calling and profanity. It would be nice on TuD if everyone was supportive of each other, since we’re all in the same boat here, and cyber-bullying doesn’t really have a place in a supportive environment.
Alex, I’m not looking to continue an argument from some other place in here, or to name people… I just want input from others… Others that can offer a more balanced approach to things.
I’m T1. I’m not managing my BG entirely through diet.
I’m no historian or anthropologist but I’m pretty sure the rest of the world was not on a low carb paleolithic diet up until the late 1800s.
I’ve had my difference of opinion with the no carb/low carb crowd on Tudiabetes but no one, not even a hard core high carb guy like myself, disputes that low carb diets are beneficial to diabetics. I’m not sure what the argument was elswhere, but the discussion brought to this board was regarding the ability, desire, and relative efficacy of keeping your postprandial BG below 100. If that’s the “Other level” you are referring to, best of luck in your endeavors.
We all have strong opinions, clearly. I’ve never seen anybody from this community be less than supportive of anybody else regardless of what opinion they may have.
Then that’s a good thing. However, in the original discussion I didn’t read anything that indicated people were ganging up on you. You entered into an existing discussion about how the game could be improved, and people simply responded to your comments, which, as I said, included name-calling and profanity.
It is interesting that you say you don’t want people to gang up on you. However, look at the comments people have left on this thread and see who is ganging up on whom. I think if you are concerned about people ganging up on others, you may want to think about the language you choose to use in your discussions and encourage others to not gang up when they comment. If you’re truly looking for objective input maybe you should be a bit more accurate in your posts about what really happened in the discussion you referenced. You changed several things around that the woman and others said, which was misleading. At the very least, if you wanted input you would be getting a false reading based on your inaccurate premise. At the worst, you’re just misleading everyone so that you can get the negative responses you’re looking for.
What exactly have I said that is inaccurate? She said my organs would suffer for it, and she agreed with every other premise the other guy stated (that meds are bad, and that the main reason people are on meds or insulin is because they’re on a high carb diet,) and was insisting that I needed to lower my A1C, and that it was not healthy… And shooed me away when I offered up Blood Sugar 101. Not her, and not the other guy offered any good links with any real proof, and actual scientifically supported facts… except for the guy’s own blog.
I wanted to know from people if this was going overboard… and I think I got the response I needed… Which is that it is…
