I'm not starting a discussion of whether or not "brittle" or labile diabetes exists. Some have argued that with all the technology available to monitor BG, variability in BG among diabetics can be virtually controlled, and I have argued that it's a little like saying if you live in a high crime area, but wear body armour and carry a loaded weapon, your chances of becoming a crime victim are low.
True, but aren't the dangers still there? Aren't the CGMs just continuously doing what most diabetics don't have the time, or thick skin for?
Could it be perhaps that artificial insulin is a little like fuel? You have your unleaded regular, premium blend, and jet and rocket fuel? Plus, instead of having standardized combustion engines, we have different, individual physiologies...or "us?" I'd like to hear other comments.
I definitely think there is a huge range of variation. I think that a majority of the people o this site would stay between 70-140 and have A1c's in the 5s if it were achieved with the same level of effort for everyone.
I do think brittle exists, though some regard the term as pejorative. I feel very 'brittle' and i do not regard the term in pejorative sense. If not brittle than what ? Because I know the racing blood sugars between 240 and 40 are exhausting.
I have argued that it's a little like saying if you live in a high crime area, but wear body armour and carry a loaded weapon, your chances of becoming a crime victim are low.
I feel this is a poor analogy. I've known way too many good people killed by guns, enough to know that folks carrying around loaded weapons and body armor are not part of the solution.
Exactly how I feel, rick. I'm either "brittle" and dealing with unexplained erratic changes in blood sugar, or I'm missing something that most others grasp, which I don't believe is the case.
I think there is some value in helping educate people (maybe even those in the medical community) that insulin is part of the solution but even the slightest deviation in absorption rate of insulin or food results in high bg's or low bg's. I've ended up in the hospital a couple time because of hypos, and comparing to a self-inflicted gunshot wound is not completely wrong because a hypo is life threatening (maybe even more so than a simple gunshot wound). At same time not taking insulin at all is a certain 100% death too.
I am sure overall that there are far more ER visits from out of control bg's than gunshot wounds, but they are all too common in any event!
I feel this is a poor analogy. I've known way too many good people killed by guns, enough to know that folks carrying around loaded weapons and body armor are not part of the solution.
Fair enough. What I'm saying is that those tools don't necessarily solve a problem, like home security systems, gated communities, perimeter fences, or surveillance systems, but they can keep risks at bay.
Some have argued that with all the technology available to monitor BG, variability in BG among diabetics can be virtually controlled, and I have argued that it's a little like saying if you live in a high crime area, but wear body armour and carry a loaded weapon, your chances of becoming a crime victim are low. I understand what you are saying, and I think its spot on. ( I understand what Tim is saying too, though, in regards to this analogy)
I wrote an article for diabetes daily a few days ago regarding the bionic pancreas, and in response to a comment I wrote:
"even with this amazing new technology, the contract of diabetes doesn't change. the only thing what will change the "contract" of the disease in how its related to me (or anyone with it) is when a biological cure is found."
I never thought of the disease in that way before, but to me at least, it seems like a spot on analogy, that I think holds true for what you bring up here, too.
This disease has a contract (terms) that it comes with, and those terms don't change with any technology (well, except for insulin itself. right?)
This disease has a contract (terms) that it comes with, and those terms don't change with any technology (well, except for insulin itself. right?)
I agree with that, and I will add, even with the miraculous invention of insulin and especially the analogs, if we have developed insulins that are more potent and convenient for the diabetic, while not necessarily inventing insulins that are more similar to the actual one found in the body?
I realize I'm way out of my league on this, but I wonder if in our quest for lower and less damaging BG numbers, which benefits were sanctified by the DCCT, we're putting more enriched substances in our bodies, some of which are not fully capable of safely utilizing?
Well dad, I can tell you from experience that I am not worried Abbot insulin issues. I started off on beef and pork insulin as did many long term type 1's. I used U-80 shot loads that woudl choke a horse and my mom used U-40 that would choke a bigger horse. U-100 Human like insulin is a fantastic invention and allows the use of pumps.
I have no desire to go back and no I am not worried about increased potency, new insulin's or the quest for more flat control. Frankly anyone who has seen the alternative and the effects of the alternative cannot logically complain about today's items which are available for use. Instead of worrying I thank God they are available.
Frankly anyone who has seen the alternative and the effects of the alternative cannot logically complain about today's items which are available for use. Instead of worrying I thank God they are available.
Oh, I didn't mean to be complaining, maybe just questioning. I did my time with R and N, and I know things are better. But all drugs usually have side effects, and since insulin's m If main one seems to be rapidly lowering BG levels, I wonder if any research is really done on what may be "too low," or "too rapid?" If the main side effect was a rash or dry throat, I wouldn't be concerned, but we all know how dangerous a hypo can be.
