[MCS]

Wow, Cowboys, lets get back to the point. Sure didn't intend for this to stir up up a fuss of sorts.

Maybe if I clarify things a little better, communication sometimes isn't my strongest suit. I am trying to get a handle on whats going on with my body and D, and may use some radical ideas from time to time.

My problem of late was a late DP liver dump. I would wake up at 6:30am between 80-100, which is fine, but would soon go to 130 and have been as high as 150 with in a couple of hours if I didn't provide the right stimulus for my liver and pancreas to work in unison. I would fall back to 130 in a couple of hours but remain, 105-115 till lunch. This was not acceptable to me. The mornings I was able to eat potatoes, a fast acting carb, is the mornings I was able to achieve my best numbers.

It was this thought that urged me to try to use sugar in my coffee to facilitate the response I wanted. I repeated the situation using 25grams of sugar in lemonade and although I miss judged the amount of sugar needed, I did get the repsponse I wanted.

My doc was curious and so was I as what would be the amount needed to get a response. This AM I woke up at 88, went to 100 with in 20 minutes, drank my coffee only this time I reduced the amount of sugar to 12.5grams, 1 tablespoonful. Ate breakfast, maybe an additional 15crabs, but my BG never went over 135 and was back below 100 in 2.5hrs. Spent most of this day in the 80's. This is a definet YMMV situation. I do not want to advocate to anyone that they start eating sugar to cure thier DP problem.

A LIVER DUMP, is response your body has, regardless of the stimulus involved, of adding glucose to your blood stream. The stimulus can be of any nature, lack of food, illness, DP, hormones, Thyroid, stress, etc. This is a normal occurence with all people. The problem arises with people with diabetes is what are bodies due with the extra glucose it now has in its blood stream.

[MCS]

I take the regular Wal-Mart ALA, so not sure about the R-ALA. BUt I can tell about the B-12. If your body doesn't have the intrinsic factor needed to convert cyanocobalatom (B-12) to the Methylated version your body requires, you can swallow the whole bottle and never get enough B-12.

The sublinqual tabs are usually the Methylated version, thats why you do not swallow them, you let them dissolve in your mouth and the B-12 goes directly into your blood stream.

Originally Posted by Vicki NC

MCS, a quick question. Are you using the R-ALA, or the regular? Had a doc's appt last week, and he said the R-ALA and sublingual b12 were a waste of money-not paying him any attention about this, though.

[NewdestinyX]

Originally Posted by MCS

My problem of late was a late DP liver dump. I would wake up at 6:30am between 80-100, which is fine, but would soon go to 130 and have been as high as 150 with in a couple of hours if I didn't provide the right stimulus for my liver and pancreas to work in unison. I would fall back to 130 in a couple of hours but remain, 105-115 till lunch. This was not acceptable to me. The mornings I was able to eat potatoes, a fast acting carb, is the mornings I was able to achieve my best numbers.

It was this thought that urged me to try to use sugar in my coffee to facilitate the response I wanted. I repeated the situation using 25grams of sugar in lemonade and although I miss judged the amount of sugar needed, I did get the response I wanted.

My doc was curious and so was I as what would be the amount needed to get a response. This AM I woke up at 88, went to 100 with in 20 minutes, drank my coffee only this time I reduced the amount of sugar to 12.5grams, 1 tablespoonful. Ate breakfast, maybe an additional 15crabs, but my BG never went over 135 and was back below 100 in 2.5hrs. Spent most of this day in the 80's. This is a definite YMMV situation. I do not want to advocate to anyone that they start eating sugar to cure their DP problem.

A LIVER DUMP, is response your body has, regardless of the stimulus involved, of adding glucose to your blood stream. The stimulus can be of any nature, lack of food, illness, DP, hormones, Thyroid, stress, etc. This is a normal occurrence with all people. The problem arises with people with diabetes is what are bodies due with the extra glucose it now has in its blood stream.

Great "re-focus" post, MCS. I understand your experiment now and the data you posted in the WAKE UP thread better now. I'm 'fortunate' enough to have this work for me too at pretty much any time of day - I only for now use raisins to trigger the pancreas response or sometimes some mashed potatoes or carob/dark choc chips will do it too. But there is a direct cause and effect response by my adding these simple sugars or a fast acting carbs in lowering some spikes and/or preventing a liver dump from not eating for more than 4 hours. It's shown pretty consistent now for me too. Still experimenting though.

My point was that, from what I read, the most common 'liver dumps' happen when we don't give our bodies needed glucose after a prolonged period of not eating. I'm sure those other instances could trigger it too.

[Grunch]

Originally Posted by NewdestinyX

You're dead wrong. Consult the sources you've noted and you'll learn easily of how a normal person (non-diabetic)'s blood sugar rise and return creates a 'normal' bell curve. When our blood sugar's are controlled they rise in the first hour or so and then should rebound to a fasting level after 2 hours thus creating a bell curve. Please do not call 'tosh' something that is simple proven endocrine physiology, Bunbury. The bell curve of normal and controlled BG levels is one of the 'basics' of endocrine science. And should be understood and striven after by all diabetics. To call it 'nonsense' would deprive someone of the knowledge required to stay healthy.

Have you ever studied basic statistics? You have absolutely no idea what a "normal bell curve" is and it would be better for all of us if you stopped making absolute statements about things you clearly don't understand. Why do you have such a strong need to make other people believe you are an expert in subjects that you don't even grasp?

[NewdestinyX]

Originally Posted by Grunch

Have you ever studied basic statistics? You have absolutely no idea what a "normal bell curve" is and it would be better for all of us if you stopped making absolute statements about things you clearly don't understand. Why do you have such a strong need to make other people believe you are an expert in subjects that you don't even grasp?

O for pete's sake. Just read the simple definition.

bell curve or bell-shaped curve (blshpt)
n.
The symmetrical curve of a normal distribution. Also called normal curve.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

bell curve
A symmetrical bell-shaped curve that represents the distribution of values, frequencies, or probabilities of a set of data. It slopes downward from a point in the middle corresponding to the mean value, or the maximum probability.

That definition doesn't put a 'minimum' on the amount of data points that create the bell. Though I will admit the more data points the better for a 'curve'. Here's an article that speaks of the 'bell curve' in the manner I have made the association. On 2nd thought -- Nah --- Let's just drop it.

[Grunch]

Originally Posted by NewdestinyX

O for pete's sake. Just read the simple definition.

That definition doesn't put a 'minimum' on the amount of data points that create the bell. Though I will admit the more data points the better for a 'curve'. Here's an article that speaks of the 'bell curve' in the manner I have made the association. On 2nd thought -- Nah --- Let's just drop it.

Have you even read the link you posted? That is an actual bell curve. The blood glucose of a person does not follow a bell curve after eating. That's extremely obvious to anyone that has even the most basic understanding of what a normal distribution is. You keep trying to pretend you know this hoping that people that don't know this stuff will think you're an expert. The problem is that people who do understand it can see clearly that you have no idea what you're talking about. Can you show one scientific source stating that the blood glucose follows a normal distribution after eating?

[NewdestinyX]

Originally Posted by Grunch

Have you even read the link you posted? That is an actual bell curve. The blood glucose of a person does not follow a bell curve after eating. That's extremely obvious to anyone that has even the most basic understanding of what a normal distribution is. You keep trying to pretend you know this hoping that people that don't know this stuff will think you're an expert. The problem is that people who do understand it can see clearly that you have no idea what you're talking about. Can you show one scientific source stating that the blood glucose follows a normal distribution after eating?

If you read carefully I stated that the blood glucose of a 'normal person' follows such a curve. Baseline after a fast period rising to a higher point 1hrPP then rebounding to a fasting level (often 2hr-3hrPP) with several other points after the peak before landing at a fasting level again. This is about as basic a concept of blood sugar as you can conceive. Why don't you contact me in PM if you want to challenge me further, Grunch. This in MCS's thread and this is 'not' one of the opinions he needs. Drop it -- or contact me in PM.

[Grunch]

I know what you said and I maintain my agreement with bunbury that you don't even know what a bell curve is. A normal person's BG does not follow a bell curve. I can't let you lie on a public forum and stay quiet when there's people reading that might believe the things you say. Contacting you in PM would accomplish nothing, people need to know that your statements are absurd. If you're so worried about MCS's thread then you should stop using it to state absurd things expecting people not to react. Create your own thread when you wish to make such statements.

[NewdestinyX]

Originally Posted by Grunch

I know what you said and I maintain my agreement with bunbury that you don't even know what a bell curve is. A normal person's BG does not follow a bell curve. I can't let you lie on a public forum and stay quiet when there's people reading that might believe the things you say. Contacting you in PM would accomplish nothing, people need to know that your statements are absurd. If you're so worried about MCS's thread then you should stop using it to state absurd things expecting people not to react. Create your own thread when you wish to make such statements.

A person who would ignore a definition from the dictionary placed before them is being obtuse. I can't change your thinking once you're on a roll, Grunch. Ask anyone that's tried to challenge you. You've got the 'public attention' now. Enjoy it!

For those who wish to 'learn' about the natural normal bell curve of blood sugar read this article.

Here's the pertinent clip that shows my use of the term in direct regard to a blood glucose response, specifically here, to a carbohydrate ingestion:

You get a bell-shaped curve when you eat food containing carbohydrates; the blood-glucose rises and as your body produces insulin it pushes the glucose out of the blood and into tissues, and then you see the blood-glucose level falling." McMillan-Price explains that when eating high GI foods, you get a very high bell curve response with a dramatic drop. With a low-GI food, there is a slower and steadier rise in the blood-glucose level.

Some people here prefer to appear 'dominant' over others. I share only, and EVER, what I learn from reading sources. I guess you haven't been introduced to this concept yet, Grunch. Read and learn.

If you have no sources to refute me then please, back off. Or open another thread to refute it.

[warrenav]

The "bell curve" of a "normal distribution" in statistics and a "normal" "bell-shaped" time-series (which may describe BG levels after eating) are quite different things. While 4 samples may be enough to fit a curve to describe the time-series, it would be a uselessly small sample to describe a statistical bell curve.

[bunbury]

Originally Posted by Grunch

I know what you said and I maintain my agreement with bunbury that you don't even know what a bell curve is. A normal person's BG does not follow a bell curve. I can't let you lie on a public forum and stay quiet when there's people reading that might believe the things you say. Contacting you in PM would accomplish nothing, people need to know that your statements are absurd. If you're so worried about MCS's thread then you should stop using it to state absurd things expecting people not to react. Create your own thread when you wish to make such statements.

Hi Grunch, NewdestinyX is the Forum's problem child. I suppose all families have one.

You could just as plausibly take that 4 point data-set he used for his Bell Curve, apply a standard meter variation of +/- 20% and argue that MCS actually flat-lined at about 120 for the duration of the alleged Bell Curve. Which would be an equally daft thing to do.

You'll find that NewdestinyX has to have the last word, and that he'll misrepresent your argument and shift his own position to get it. You'll note that in his reply to you he's no longer addressing the original critisism. This happens in too many threads.

[MCS]

FBG this morning 91, 106, 30 minutes later. Decided the coffee thing was not good for my heart, so I just drank a glass of water with 12.5grams of pure sugar. Proceeded to make breakfast. 1 egg, cheese, Arnolds flat bread toasted, Mayo. Now my recent history tells me this breakfast would not be enough to stop my DP problem. The theory here is to use the sugar as the off switch for my liver.

1hr PP: 150
1.5 PP: 130
2.0 PP: ??
2.5 PP: ??

So the coffee has its own effects as well on my BG level and insulin release.

I will know in 2 - 2.5 hrs if this worked. I am thinking tomorrow I will is use 6grams of sugar, so half the amount in plain water, see if that will work, and lower the spike to 135-140 range.

[fgummett]

I wouldn't personally ever read too much into a single set of data... I'd want to see repeatable patterns over several days... but that's just me I guess.

[NewdestinyX]

Originally Posted by warrenav

The "bell curve" of a "normal distribution" in statistics and a "normal" "bell-shaped" time-series (which may describe BG levels after eating) are quite different things. While 4 samples may be enough to fit a curve to describe the time-series, it would be a uselessly small sample to describe a statistical bell curve.

But that distinction was never the issue, Warren. I was being told that my use of the 'term' did NOT apply at any level. Obviously, as you've pointed out, there is more than one application of the term. I used the term correctly as do other medical scientific writings use it the way I used it. Some people maybe aren't as well read. I'm used to this treatment though around here.

Originally Posted by bunbury

Hi Grunch, NewdestinyX is the Forum's problem child. I suppose all families have one.

Actually there are several of us who are marginalized around here. Remember ADSOFT who's no longer here? When you're constantly swimming upstream with people who only see things one way you'll end up eventually leaving here. Sad.

[MCS]

I have been using Hash Browns and large breakfast to stop my liver for 3 months now off and on. The Pure sugar thing I started 5-6 days ago, each day worked fine, better with coffee, that with out. So there is a definet trend here.

Originally Posted by fgummett

I wouldn't personally ever read too much into a single set of data... I'd want to see repeatable patterns over several days... but that's just me I guess.