Glycemic index and blood sugar levels

[rleathen]

I have been reading everything I can get my hands on about diabetes and glycemic indexes but have been unable to find an answer to my question so I thought I would post it here.

When managing your blood sugar what is more important, the blood sugar level attained or how quickly it rises. For example gievn the two following scenarios which one is worse:

Scenario 1 - food causes a rapid rise of blood sugar over a very short period of time but only attains a level of say about 121 mg/Dl (6.7 mmol/L)

Scenario 2 - a food causes a much slower rise of blood sugar over a longer period of time but attains a level of say 151 mg/Dl (8.4 mmol/L)

I am trying to get a complete understanding of my newly diagnosed condition so any insight is greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Rob L

[fgummett]

Hi Rob and Welcome to DF!

I suspect you will get range of answers as managing D is more of an art-from than a science but my take on it is that the least amount of time spent with Blood Glucose (BG) outside the normal range, the better for your long-term health.

[cyberus]

Sustained Blood sugar over 140 bad. This is where bad things start happening, like neuropathy.

That being said IMHO ...

Scenario 1 isn't and issue, 121 isn't an after meal number worth noticing.


Scenario 2 is an issue IMO because if it takes longer to get to 151 then it stands to reason that the level will spend more time over 140 on the way up and back down.

[Harold]

Rob L, Hi and Welcome.

Plot your scenarios on a graph with time as the X axis. Now which scenario has the largest area under the curve? The one with the largest area is considered the worst scenario.