[sweetcheeks]

actually there's more of a chance he'd get type 2 than type 1, since the majority is type 2, IMO

to me type 1 is a hit or miss type thing, either it works correctly or it doesnt, and we all know type 1 rarely has anything to do with genetics, not saying it doesnt but its rare that it does and only 5 to 10% of population has type 1

that means 90-95% has type 2. Regardless of the what they weight.

More and more children are becoming type 2 diabetics at an earlier age.

Its something that doesnt hurt to keep a check on from now and then, in the same time not to be obsesive about.

And its great that you just randomly test as a parent. Doesnt hurt the child one bit. I randomly test my husband just to keep an eye on him. But this could be no more than just a DP type thing too, thats why its good to test at other times just not fasting. I probably wouldnt take no more readings than a couple a week, just to get info for doctors just in case there is a checkup in the near future.

I hope the child doesnt get it, but kudos for you for being concerned parent.

[Funnygrl]

I've heard of type 1 onsetting slow, especially if it's caught early. I read a blog of someone who has type 1 and her daughter does also. Her daughter takes a unit of insulin a day and has had diabetes since October now.

[DeusXM]

110 fasting is clearly abnormal.

No it's not, it's at the higher end of 'normal'. Children also tend to run at higher BGs too - that's part of the reason why A1C targets for children tend to be more flexible than those for adults.

Can I be blunt here? I really wish people with diabetes would stop testing the blood sugar of people in their family. It doesn't ever prove anything and it causes unnecessary panic whenever there's a reading over 5.5mmol/l. Seriously, if you're actively looking to diagnose someone with T1 (and I'd ask why on earth you'd want to do that anyway), then wait until they're symptomatic. There's no benefit in getting someone on insulin when they're right in the preliminary stages - you'll just give them loads of hypos because they're guaranteed to cock it up, since their pancreas will be only partially 'off' and it'll give them a nightmare honeymoon period.

[Funnygrl]

A normal fasting reading is defined as one under 100. HOWEVER, with the range of accuracy home meters have, it could easily be under 100.

Children are allowed to have high a1cs simply because a1c isn't generally measured until diabetes is already diagnosed, and running higher is acceptable for children because they can't report and promptly treat hypoglycemia on their own.

I agree with you on the not testing people (especially children) randomly to look for trouble.

[DeusXM]

Children are allowed to have high a1cs simply because a1c isn't generally measured until diabetes is already diagnosed, and running higher is acceptable for children because they can't report and promptly treat hypoglycemia on their own.

Children are also allowed to have higher heart rates and higher blood pressure levels than adults too. Not because it's medically 'safer', but because their bodies are different. They're also allowed to have a wider range of BGs, for much the same reason.

[Erin]

I wouldn't stress about a few high-ish numbers for your son... Any number of things could have caused it (him drinking soda when you didn't know... or him having dirty hands seem plausible)

If he starts drinking A LOT of drinks (particularly sugary ones) and loosing weight, going to the bathroom a LOT... then go to the doctor ASAP.

Yes... drinking lots of soda can contribute to developing Type 2 diabetes DOWN THE ROAD, but very few children who are not obese develop that type of diabetes. Right now in your son's development Type 1 is the risk, and he does not have Type 1 right now.

I think catching T1 in the preliminary stages is a FANTASTIC idea. I was diagnosed after a routine follow up to kidney surgery... I think my bg was 180 or so at the time. I had a beautiful honeymoon period while taking very low amounts of insulin, and never had to experience that wonderful thing called DKA.

That said, I wouldn't have liked having my BG tested all the time, or having my mother obsessed about my potential diabeticness. I plan on checking my kid's urine for sugar of order of once a month. That is, once I have kids. Normal kids blood glucose fluctuates, and I don't want to obsess over those normal fluctuations... but pretty much the only reason to have sugar in your urine is diabetes.

[Funnygrl]

Originally Posted by DeusXM

Children are also allowed to have higher heart rates and higher blood pressure levels than adults too. Not because it's medically 'safer', but because their bodies are different. They're also allowed to have a wider range of BGs, for much the same reason.

Children definitely run higher heart rates, but I've never heard of a child running a higher bp. But that is getting off topic for now.

Deus, I think our opinions on this matter differ simply because I was diagnosed WAY earlier than I would have been because I had a glucometer and could test at home. And I feel that earlier diagnosis helped me to have a longer honeymoon, and avoid DKA.

[SueM]

Originally Posted by Funnygrl

A normal fasting reading is defined as one under 100. HOWEVER, with the range of accuracy home meters have, it could easily be under 100.

Children are allowed to have high a1cs simply because a1c isn't generally measured until diabetes is already diagnosed, and running higher is acceptable for children because they can't report and promptly treat hypoglycemia on their own.

I agree with you on the not testing people (especially children) randomly to look for trouble.

You are joking arn't you? I could tell my Mum at the age of 5 I was low and also ask for something to eat to correct it. I am not unusual either most kids know when they are low. Parents just have to listen and understand a childs terms I used to tell my Mum I was funny in the head(no rude comments please)

It has always been the case that Childrens bs are higher then an adults. That is why a childs A1c's target is higher then an adults.

[Funnygrl]

I guess this is just one place where I'm gonna have to agree to disagree.

I'm not saying that the original poster should be stressing. It was a home meter. I could be any one of things. However, a lab drawn glucose any pediatrician would probably recommend further monitoring at the very least. And of course, everyone has flucks. Hence the "one two occassions" stipulation to diagnosing pre-diabetes.

In school, and in all my reading on diabetes I've never heard of children's glucose levels naturally running higher. I have heard of a1c targets being higher, but only because of what I already mentioned. Sue, maybe all children aren't as good at that as you were.

I checked my pediatric's textbook to make sure I wasn't missing something. I only found some place that says diabetes is diagnosed over 125 on two occassions (same as adult). Nothing about pre-diabetes, or kids running higher. If anyone can find me a source, I'd really me interested in reading about it.

[Funnygrl]

Ok, Appendix J. Found it!

Glucose (serum)
Newborn: 50-90 mg/dl
Child: 60-100mg/dl
Thereafter: 70-105 mg/dl

(Potts, Mandleco, 2007, p. 1277)


It didn't specify fasting or not.