Any diabetics out there?

[Rich]

This is of course not heart related, but I'm hoping there may be some diabetics out there who may be able to shed some light on my wife's problem.
Some of this is a big reason why I havn't been around much lately.
If you can offer any advice or answer some questions, please PM me when you can. Your help will be greatly appreciated.
Rich

 

[Superbob]

Hi Rich,

Are you talking Type 2 (adult-onset) diabetes? If so, that's me as of a few years ago, and I'd be glad to talk either in PM or here. Actually I think a number of vr.com members are diabetic and might appreciate a discussion on the forum. Uncontrolled diabetes certainly has a bad effect on the heart, so I think it qualifies as heart-related.

Cheers,

 

[Rich]

Thanks Bob,
I just sent a PM to another member, but you may be right about starting a discussion. I just wasn't sure if people wanted to discuss their other personal ailments here.


Well here is the story. First we don't even know or understand type 1 or 2.
My wife is in her mid-sixties so I am assuming this is type 2 (or old age diabetes as some call it), but I sure could be wrong.
She was on a beta-blocker for about three years or so, and was taken off it earlier this year to try and solve another problem. Our research showed us that a beta-blocker can mask the early symptoms of diabetes. She has been getting quarterly blood tests for several years because of a cholesterol issue.
Glucose levels are always included in these tests.Her readings out of ten tests have been anywhere from 98 to 117 except for one time when it was 142.
The range given by the lab was 65-125 for a few years, now it is 65-99. Everyone we talk to that is a diabetic says thier normal range is about 130.
Looking at webmd the information there says 65-130, and that's put out by the Cleveland Clinic.
So now her PCP says she is a full blown diabetic, because her last test was 108. He wanted to start her on medication or even insulin but she refused until we are sure about this.
So he prescribed a test unit and told her to test one day in the morning, and every other day after dinner.
So far her results are 121 and 128 in the morning, and 118 and 127 after dinner.
We are both very confused and personally I don't think she is a diabetic.
What do you think?
Rich
__________________
Rich
AVR 7-29-96

 

[geebee]

Ranges for people without diabetes:

Before breakfast 70-105
Before lunch or dinner 70-110
1 hour after meals Less than 160
2 hours after meals Less than 120
Between 2 and 4 AM Greater than 70

Your wife's levels are a little high in the morning which does indicate a problem of some kind but it might be other issues. For example, thyroid problems can cause high glucose levels. The readings she is getting after meals are not really all that high which lead me to think there might be something else going on.

I am considered pre-diabetic as my levels stay high after eating if I don't watch what I eat however they are not high enough to warrant medication. I am not a doctor but I would say the same thing about your wife's levels.

 

[Superbob]

Blood Sugar Numbers

Blood Sugar Numbers

Rich,

First a big caveat: I am not a medical person or a medical expert. So I would seek further medical analysis of your wife's blood sugar numbers.

Having said that, I will say I am confused, too, about any definite diagnosis of type 2 diabetes from the numbers you've cited.

I'll pass along what the official diabetes association statistics say:

When the result of a blood sugar screening (testing a single drop of blood from a finger prick) is more than 126 mg/dl, another test is scheduled -- a fasting blood sugar. (That's when you have fasted overnight, or not eaten for at least 8 hours. If the confirmed result of fasting blood is 126 or higher, the diagnosis is diabetes. If the reading is 110 to 125, that's considered "prediabetes" and a yearly fasting blood test is recommended.
A normal fasting blood sugar is 80 to 110.

The most important test (often administered after a diagnosis of diabetes) is the A-1C, which measures the average blood sugar over the past 3 months. The higher the reading, the greater the risk of diabetic complication (which can include heart problems). The target is keeping one's A-1C at 7 or below. (when I was diagnosed, mine was 7.7. Through a lot of change in diet and added exercise, I now have it down to 6.2, which my doctor says reduces chances of future diabetic complications by 67 percent).

Some of the numbers you cited for your wife sound too low to be in a diabetic range. However, what's missing is whether any of these were fasting blood sugars. You said there were "morning" readings of 121 and 128. If those were fasting blood sugars, they could be interpreted as either in the diabetes or pre-diabetes range.

I hope this helps. I can suggest some reference materials, if that would help. If you believe your doctor is being too aggressive in the diagnosis or is just plain wrong, I would not hesitate to seek a second opinion from another doctor -- perhaps a diabetes specialist.

Best wishes,

 

[davidfortune]

Rich,

I have also been diagnosed pre-diabetic. Weight, Diet, and Exercise play a huge role in managing Pre-diabetic or Type 2 diabetes. Proper combinations of the three key metrics (Weight, Diet, Exercise) can reduce or prevent the need for insulin and/or other diabetic complications.

Go to the ADA website http://www.diabetes.org there is a ton of info.

I personally don't think the official diagnosis of diabetes or pre-diabetes matters based on the numbers you cited for your wife. Treat and manage it as if she had diabetes and she may be able to avoid insulin and other bad things. WEIGHT - DIET - EXERCISE - CONSISTENTLY!!!

David

 

[Rich]

Thanks for your replies

Thanks for your replies

We have learned a lot from what you have said.
Gina thank you for the chart numbers, her test first thing this morning was 101.
Rob I guess you can understand our confusion.
Except for the last 4-5 days, the numbers I quoted were from quarterly fasting blood tests. I guess the plan right now is to test at home daily, one day in the morning after fasting for at least eight hours, the next day in the evening after dinner, and keep alternating like this for three months. Then calculate the average for this 90 day period.
She has had those quarterly blood tests for several years to check her cholesterol levels, but the sugar numbers were always included.
Funny thing is though her numbers still remain in the same range, nothing was ever mentioned about diabetes until now. And Rob I'm glad you brought the heart thing to our attention, because she does have some heart disease.
David we try to exercise daily if nothing more than a long walk.
She has been following a diet for some time for the cholesterol problem.
I sometimes wonder about their lowering the upper range of these tests in recent years. It sure reminds me of the cholesterol and blood pressure tests.
If they lower these ranges then we all have to start taking a lot more pills.
Sounds like big dollars for these companies......can't help but wonder.
Rich

 

[geebee]

Rich,
I wonder about all the studies out there, too. I read an article today that indicates many of us are suffering from a Vit. D insufficiency causing bone loss and some of our abilities to fight certain cancers. The feeling is this is a direct result of the warnings about sun exposure. Now it seems we need sun exposure to get the correct amount of Vit. D. It just seems it is impossible to win.
I often think there are way too much studies going on. Things sure seemed to be simpler in the past.
Maybe modern medicine is allowing us to live longer but it is also creating problems that may have the opposite effect.

 

[Rich]

Gina,
I agree totally. It's like eggs used to bad for you, now maybe they aren't so bad after all.......and the list goes on and on.
I just always wonder about all the drug companies raking in billions at our expense.
If we still used the old numbers for cholesterol for instance, then must of us wouldn't need the drugs....hmmmm I wonder.
Rich

 

[Superbob]

On the Other Hand. . .

On the Other Hand. . .

. . . When you consider the variety of devastating maladies that uncontrolled or poorly treated diabetes can cause, such as

* loss of vision

* kidney failure

* heart and blood flow problems

* nerve damage

* serious foot problems, leading sometimes to amputations

* circulatory problems

Well, you may come to appreciate and support an aggressive approach in diagnosing and treating diabetes and thus preventing complications.

I was initially skeptical when my GP prescribed glucophage, but it has helped me (along with diet and exercise) keep my blood sugar under better control and thereby hopefully I will avoid some of those complications down the road.

Diabetes is not a trivial disease. Personally, I don't think diabetes management is just a big conspiracy by the drug companies. In some cases, lifestyle changes, such as weight control, suffice to get it under control, but in some cases diabetes medicines are a big help.

Just my opinion.

 

[Rich]

Thanks Rob,
Believe me we are not taking this lightly.
My wife is one of nine children, she is the second youngest.
The rest are in thier seventies or alraedy passed on.
She has one brother and a sister who recently passed away who are/were diabetics.
Her father was also a diabetic and did lose a leg up to his knee from diabetes.
So we knew she could be at risk for this disease but she wants to be sure.
So I believe a second opinion from hopefully a diabetic expert, may help put her mind at ease.
Rich

 

[sue943]

I was diagnosed as diabetic, type 2, more than six years ago. I am afraid your 'numbers' mean nothing to me, in the UK we tend to use different measurements. I aim to keep my blood sugar at less than 7.0 prior to food, if it drops to under 5.0 I feel light-headed, under 4.0 is definitely not good and requires immediate food or sugar boost. Over 10.0 is not good, far too high.

So far I have managed to control mine with diet alone. On the plus side, my blood sugar levels are a good indicator to whether I have any illness, it was way out of control when I had endocarditis.