Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mnv99

sugar level question

24 posts in this topic

Hi,

I am new member and pre-diabetic. My A1C = 6.3

 

I had a dinner at 6:20 PM

- Went for a walk - 35 minutes

- Checked Sugar level at 7:20 PM = 140

- Checked Sugar level at 8:20 PM = 178

- Checked Sugar level at 9:20 PM = 159

 

I am worried about sugar level a 2 and 3 hours.

 

Fasting sugar level in the mornings are around 100-105.

 

So question to members. Is sugar level after 2 and 3 hours a problem?

 

Thanks a lot for your help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a problem if it's higher than you have set for yourself as your upper safe zone limit. Highly suggest getting and reading Jenny Ruhl's book Blood Sugar 101. My personal goal is to keep my BG <140 at all times with ideal <120.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did you have for dinner ?

 

How about that serving size ?

 

To me, those numbers look like pizza, pasta or Chinese take away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Bakerboy. When you see numbers get higher at the 2 and 3 hour mark, it's usually a sign of a meal that had a lot of carbs and fat (the fat delays digestion, thus delaying the spike of when the carbs hit your bloodstream).

 

If you're getting numbers that like that, I would consider that diabetic, not pre-diabetic. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respectfully disagree. I do not think with those numbers you are a "now diabetic". I think that you ate more calories than a normal dinner.

It all depends on what you ate for dinner.

 

****. I'd LOVE to have your A1c level. Shows that overall, you are in a good range.

 

Yes, if EVERY night, your 3 hrs postprandial is higher than the 2 hrs... and is higher than 200 (but your pre-meal are below 120 and fastings are below 100).. than maybe you want to talk to doc about adding a supper medicine.

 

But if you are basing it on one meal only... That one meal to me doesn't look TOO bad. Your 3 hr shows it is coming back down. Was 4 hrs under 120?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I respectfully disagree. I do not think with those numbers you are a "now diabetic". I think that you ate more calories than a normal dinner.

It all depends on what you ate for dinner.

 

****. I'd LOVE to have your A1c level. Shows that overall, you are in a good range.

 

Yes, if EVERY night, your 3 hrs postprandial is higher than the 2 hrs... and is higher than 200 (but your pre-meal are below 120 and fastings are below 100).. than maybe you want to talk to doc about adding a supper medicine.

 

But if you are basing it on one meal only... That one meal to me doesn't look TOO bad. Your 3 hr shows it is coming back down. Was 4 hrs under 120?

I respectfully agree to disagree with your disagree! While numbers in question may not be too bad by some definitions, for instance by lax ADA definitions, there is a substantial growing body of scientific evidence that organ damage begins BG >140. And that a normal non-diabetic person will have pancreas performance cable of keeping BGs under 140 1-2-3-4hr postprandial regardless what they eat. Further, recent studies highly suggest that FBG is less important than postprandial in diagnosing Diabetes because FBG numbers usually remain decent long after postprandial numbers start going high. For some the antiquated 7% A1c high end suggested as ok by the ADA is safe. However those that have kept up with research believe below 6% is needed to avoid diabetes organ damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am aware that you like the Blood Sugar 101 guidelines.

 

I also am aware that 140 would be very un-acheivable goal for myself right now.

That would either require me to starve myself, or increase my insulin to levels of unknown proportions. Then i would be in constant

need to watch the 6 -12hr post prandial for low blood sugars.

 

I want to control my diabetes, but do not want to be a slave to the meter.. a slave to the insulin pens.... a slave to the ever increasing "protein only" priced meat market... a slave to the market of BS testing supply costs...

 

I guess in my case, Its a choice of the dog wagging the tail... not the tail wagging the dog.

 

Yes, I know I am referring to myself as a dog.

 

It's great that you can control everything with just metformin, daily hours for excersize, and rabbit food.

 

I honestly can't. But, it's too late for me. I've probably already killed my kidneys, eyes & heart...just waiting for the liver to fail so that I get some relief from the foot nueropathy pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was diagnoised my A1C was 6.3, the same as yours. It had experienced a few readings over 200 and a couple of fastings readings over 125. I did not have all the symptoms of a diabetic, but I did exhibit some of them. Frequent kidney infections, a couple of yeast infections, sores were slower to heal, and I was hungry all the time. My last A1C was 5.6' but I am still a diabetic, just a diabetic with good control. Sorry, but I have to agree with Art and Mike. The good news is that you still have the opportunity to reduce the complications caused by diabetes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Well, alrighty then. Phew...

 

mnv99, I agree with everyone here who sees a problem in your numbers. I would not be thrilled with any of them including the 1 hour. The A1c...okay but you are "pre-diabetic." I'd want it lower.

 

Chelle, for the record, calories have nothing to do with raising bg. Carbohydrates raise bg. Also, exercise is free and rabbit food is cheap and low carb. Eggs are cheap protein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether you think you can or you think you can't, you are right.

I am aware that you like the Blood Sugar 101 guidelines.

 

I also am aware that 140 would be very un-acheivable goal for myself right now.

That would either require me to starve myself, or increase my insulin to levels of unknown proportions. Then i would be in constant

need to watch the 6 -12hr post prandial for low blood sugars.

 

I want to control my diabetes, but do not want to be a slave to the meter.. a slave to the insulin pens.... a slave to the ever increasing "protein only" priced meat market... a slave to the market of BS testing supply costs...

 

I guess in my case, Its a choice of the dog wagging the tail... not the tail wagging the dog.

 

Yes, I know I am referring to myself as a dog.

 

It's great that you can control everything with just metformin, daily hours for excersize, and rabbit food.

 

I honestly can't. But, it's too late for me. I've probably already killed my kidneys, eyes & heart...just waiting for the liver to fail so that I get some relief from the foot nueropathy pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am aware that you like the Blood Sugar 101 guidelines.

 

I also am aware that 140 would be very un-acheivable goal for myself right now.

That would either require me to starve myself, or increase my insulin to levels of unknown proportions. Then i would be in constant

need to watch the 6 -12hr post prandial for low blood sugars.

 

I want to control my diabetes, but do not want to be a slave to the meter.. a slave to the insulin pens.... a slave to the ever increasing "protein only" priced meat market... a slave to the market of BS testing supply costs...

 

I guess in my case, Its a choice of the dog wagging the tail... not the tail wagging the dog.

 

Yes, I know I am referring to myself as a dog.

 

It's great that you can control everything with just metformin, daily hours for excersize, and rabbit food.

 

I honestly can't. But, it's too late for me. I've probably already killed my kidneys, eyes & heart...just waiting for the liver to fail so that I get some relief from the foot nueropathy pain.

 

Well with an attitude like that no wonder your disease is winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes... I'm sorry to y'all. I was crying when I posted it.

 

It's very frustrating hearing people say that it is easy for them to keep blood sugars under 150 ALL the time.

 

Yes I am ecstatic when my fasting is 74. I'm ecstatic when my fasting is 90. BUt...When I can't eat anything & my stomach is feeling extremely hungry and my blood glucose is 220 before a meal.... Yes, I'm upset. But.. I might be not ecstatic, but would be very happy with a post prandial glucose of 140.

 

Edit... and btw.. that last sentence about failing organs & liver, etc, was a failed attempt at bringing humor to my stressful attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes... I'm sorry to y'all. I was crying when I posted it.

 

It's very frustrating hearing people say that it is easy for them to keep blood sugars under 150 ALL the time.

 

Yes I am ecstatic when my fasting is 74. I'm ecstatic when my fasting is 90. BUt...When I can't eat anything & my stomach is feeling extremely hungry and my blood glucose is 220 before a meal.... Yes, I'm upset. But.. I might be not ecstatic, but would be very happy with a post prandial glucose of 140.

 

Edit... and btw.. that last sentence about failing organs & liver, etc, was a failed attempt at bringing humor to my stressful attitude.

 

I'm glad you came back and explained. :) Thank you. This makes sense. I'm sorry you are having a diffictult time.

 

Chelle, I don't know who said it was easy. It's not easy for me. It takes max effort each and every single day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chelle, really am sorry you're having such challenges. Have no idea what your meds or regimen is since not in signature, maybe time to see an endo' and re-evaluate your plan of attack. If strictly on oral meds and not getting the job done, keeping BGs even keeled 20-40 max swings, maybe insulin is in order. I understand that one of the causes of feeling hunger is large BG swings.

 

I'm with Hooters, constant vigilance and monitoring BG 6 to 9 times a day does not equal easy, relatively simple regimen including daily exercise maybe but not necessarily easy. Not necessarily hard either, more a conscience choice to do whatever it takes for me. For instance had a lot to do today and did not feel like power walking. Got a relatively short 32min 2+ miles power walking in anyway. Because it's part of what I believe is necessary and healthy for me. THEN I attacked day one of Cleaning The Garage! FWIW something like my 49th consecutive day without a miss power walking, have to check. Not bragging, it's just part of my "medicine" and seems to be one of the keys for my Big D control. And I've been torturing the same left hand little pinky exclusively, feels like a pin cushion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

I am new member and pre-diabetic. My A1C = 6.3

 

I had a dinner at 6:20 PM

- Went for a walk - 35 minutes

- Checked Sugar level at 7:20 PM = 140

- Checked Sugar level at 8:20 PM = 178

- Checked Sugar level at 9:20 PM = 159

 

I am worried about sugar level a 2 and 3 hours.

 

Fasting sugar level in the mornings are around 100-105.

 

So question to members. Is sugar level after 2 and 3 hours a problem?

 

Thanks a lot for your help

Try walking at a different time of day. Exercise has been reported to raise bg's, then add on what you ate, plus a delay in digestion due to exercise and you could be seeing those type of results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are some saying that her numbers are diabetic numbers? Her fasting is 105 or less, her hba1c is 6.3, and she had no readings over 200. Just curious if those who say she is diabetic could explain exactly what numbers would classify her as diabetic (as I am sure the OP would like to know why she just jumped from pre-d to diabetic)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are some saying that her numbers are diabetic numbers? Her fasting is 105 or less, her hba1c is 6.3, and she had no readings over 200. Just curious if those who say she is diabetic could explain exactly what numbers would classify her as diabetic (as I am sure the OP would like to know why she just jumped from pre-d to diabetic)

Whether labeled pre or diabetic isn't what's important. Bottom line what's important (to me and seemingly others in the know) is research reveals organ damage begins >140 BG. While a 6.3 A1c is below the antiquadated ADA standard of 7 for A1c, 6.3 equates to an average BG level of 147. Research also indicates that the FBG is the least accurate diagnosis number for early diagnosis of diabetes since it remains low while postprandial numbers are already going high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are some saying that her numbers are diabetic numbers? Her fasting is 105 or less, her hba1c is 6.3, and she had no readings over 200. Just curious if those who say she is diabetic could explain exactly what numbers would classify her as diabetic (as I am sure the OP would like to know why she just jumped from pre-d to diabetic)

 

I didn't say that she's got diabetic numbers but I sure do think it. I think she should behave and treat herself as a diabetic. She got a compromised system there. If she wants to turn this thing around she may be able to but she would need to do some serious work.

 

Are you really using 200 mg/dl as the bar for being diabetic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I guess I am using 200 as the bar if she has not hit diabetic levels in other areas (fasting, a1c) I'm not diabetic so I am not saying I am right etc, I am just trying to learn and was wondering what made it seem like the OP was diabetic rather than prediabetic. (i'm not saying that she is not, just trying to find out WHAT makes her in that range) I see more now with mike's explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I guess I am using 200 as the bar if she has not hit diabetic levels in other areas (fasting, a1c) I'm not diabetic so I am not saying I am right etc, I am just trying to learn and was wondering what made it seem like the OP was diabetic rather than prediabetic. (i'm not saying that she is not, just trying to find out WHAT makes her in that range) I see more now with mike's explanation.
I don't like the term, pre-diabetic. I think it's misleading. If one is at "pre-diabetic" levels it's time to act as a diabetic, IMO. It's not time to simply cut out "sweets" and eat whole grains as many people want to think. It's time to cut carbs and get serious about regular exercise and weight loss if one needs to lose weight. It's time to do what it takes to get those numbers well within normal people numbers and out of so-called pre-diabetic numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to give you an update. Hopefully this might help others

 

- I made bit change in my walking after the dinner.

 

- Have dinner

- Wait for 50 minutes and then go for 35-40 minutes of walk.

- Check BG 2 hours from the dinner

- BG #s are in the range of 150 (instead of 180s)

 

my Fasting numbers are now in 90's

 

Will see how A1C number comes.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites