Confused newly diagnosed Type 2

[gwalmsley]

Hi Robin. Thanks for your reply.

Just had a look at the Burgen Soya & Linseed bread, and it looks like it is 11.8g carbs per slice. Bread wise I am currently eating the Hovis Low Carb bread which is 9.9g carbs per slice. Is there something in the Burgen which makes it better for diabetics (slows absorption for example) or is it purely the carbs number?

I was reading an article yesterday regarding net carbs, saying you should subtract the fibre number from the total carbs number to get the actual amount of carbs your body will use. So that brings the Burgen down to 7.5 and the Hovis to 4.4 if I have my maths right.

Edit: Just looked at the numbers for the wraps again, and I think I can see the issue. Each wrap is 30.5g of carbs, but only 2.8g fibre so a net figure of 27.7g.

Graham

The problem with 'wholemeal' anything, is that it can still be quite refined, or contain white flour as well, to make it less heavy. I avoid it, it always gets into my bloodstream faster than my insulin. I usually eat Burgen, or something home made with rye flour and seeds in it, which seem to suit me better. It's all a question of trying things out to see what your particular body can tolerate.

 

[Bubbsie]

Hi Robin. Thanks for your reply.

Just had a look at the Burgen Soya & Linseed bread, and it looks like it is 11.8g carbs per slice. Bread wise I am currently eating the Hovis Low Carb bread which is 9.9g carbs per slice. Is there something in the Burgen which makes it better for diabetics (slows absorption for example) or is it purely the carbs number?

I was reading an article yesterday regarding net carbs, saying you should subtract the fibre number from the total carbs number to get the actual amount of carbs your body will use. So that brings the Burgen down to 7.5 and the Hovis to 4.4 if I have my maths right.

It is all so confusing.

Graham

I refuse to get confused gwalmsley...my approach now is...try it...test it...good numbers = good result...bad numbers = avoid...not convinced it is totally all about the carbs...it's also about how our bodies react...only way to tell sometimes...try it & see.

 

[gwalmsley]

A very good philosophy I think, and the way to go. The confusion was around the fact that I did the test with the wrap and they appeared to be fine, but the next time it wasn't.

I refuse to get confused gwalmsley...my approach now is...try it...test it...good numbers = good result...bad numbers = avoid...not convinced it is totally all about the carbs...it's also about how our bodies react...only way to tell sometimes...try it & see.

 

[grovesy]

I believe the net carbs is a US thing, when ours say carbs that is the number. Unfortunately we don't all respond to foods the same some can't tolerate Burgen.

 

[gwalmsley]

Of course it is, why keep it the same so it appears to be simple. Just looked it up and you are correct... so scratch that bit of maths.

I believe the net carbs is a US thing, when ours say carbs that is the number. Unfortunately we don't all respond to foods the same some can't tolerate Burgen.

 

[Robin]

Edit: Just looked at the numbers for the wraps again, and I think I can see the issue. Each wrap is 30.5g of carbs, but only 2.8g fibre so a net figure of 27.7g.

@grovesy is right, the carb total given on British labels is already net of fibre. Some people tolerate Burgen better because they find the soya flour and the seeds slow down the absorption of the carbs. Fibre does slow down the absorption, but again, Burgen has more, at 4.3g per 100g.

 

[pav]

Think I need to re look at bananas, I used to get away with them when just tuning to yellow, but last time I eat them levels went high for me, going through a phase of reacting very badly to the carb content in food.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Personally I think the effect of fibre can be overestimated, and as others have said there is no substitute for a bit of experimentation. Weetabix (as an example) has quite a lot of fibre, but the way the grains are all processed and squashed makes it fairly high GI even on the 'official' tables (which are derived from a fairly small sample and can't really be relied upon).

The other thing that it's important to recognise I think is that the whole business is not really as mechanical and predictable as we would like. There are lots of factors in play, and we are not in control of all of them. The same foods eaten at the same time on 2 different days won't necessarily provide exactly the same results. Even the BG meters themselves are subject to variation.

Essentially, I wouldn't be completely put off eating something by just one rogue result. I'd bank the info and then have another look another time (if it's something you'd like to keep eating of course!). After a couple of tries you can be relatively sure that something really isn't going to agree with you if you always get a massive BG spike, but one off results can be less reliable. No need to keep relentlessly re-testing everything, of course... but it's good not to back yourself into a corner feeling you can't eat anything at all.

And keep opting for brown things, as they will *probably* be better, but you can't rely on that absolutely. And there may well be brown things that act faster than other non-brown things, despite the fibre.

 

[gwalmsley]

Thanks for your comments Mike.

I guess one question I haven't asked is what constitutes a spike? I have managed to get my number down so I am testing in the 5-6 range before meals, and expecting increased to 8-9 after meals. I am worrying when I see 10 or 11 after meals, am I just being too sensitive?

Thanks

Graham

Personally I think the effect of fibre can be overestimated, and as others have said there is no substitute for a bit of experimentation. Weetabix (as an example) has quite a lot of fibre, but the way the grains are all processed and squashed makes it fairly high GI even on the 'official' tables (which are derived from a fairly small sample and can't really be relied upon).

The other thing that it's important to recognise I think is that the whole business is not really as mechanical and predictable as we would like. There are lots of factors in play, and we are not in control of all of them. The same foods eaten at the same time on 2 different days won't necessarily provide exactly the same results. Even the BG meters themselves are subject to variation.

Essentially, I wouldn't be completely put off eating something by just one rogue result. I'd bank the info and then have another look another time (if it's something you'd like to keep eating of course!). After a couple of tries you can be relatively sure that something really isn't going to agree with you if you always get a massive BG spike, but one off results can be less reliable. No need to keep relentlessly re-testing everything, of course... but it's good not to back yourself into a corner feeling you can't eat anything at all.

And keep opting for brown things, as they will *probably* be better, but you can't rely on that absolutely. And there may well be brown things that act faster than other non-brown things, despite the fibre.

 

[grovesy]

General Type 2 targets are before meals 4-7and 2 hours after meals less than 8.5.

 

[Bubbsie]

Thanks for your comments Mike.

I guess one question I haven't asked is what constitutes a spike? I have managed to get my number down so I am testing in the 5-6 range before meals, and expecting increased to 8-9 after meals. I am worrying when I see 10 or 11 after meals, am I just being too sensitive?

Thanks

Graham

gwalmsley we should be aiming for no more that a 2-3mmol rise two hours after eating...you could try testing one hour after eating.....this shows you how high the food you have eaten has raised your BG...the 'optimum peak'....then test after another hour (so two hours in total)..this will demonstrate how your body has reacted to that rise...lowered that peak...I do that occasionally when I have a surprise reaction (higher than expected BGs) to foods I usually tolerate...worth a try?

 

[Mark Parrott]

I did an experiment with my wife at testing after 1 hour. After eating something I really shouldn't, we both peaked in the 9's after 1 hour, but wifey dropped back to normal levels after 2 hours, whilst I remained higher. I dropped back down to normal levels after 3 hours. So I personally don't bother with the 1 hour test anymore. I think 1 hour testing is worth doing when newly diagnosed though.

 

[Chief Cook Bottle Washer]

I did an experiment with my wife at testing after 1 hour. After eating something I really shouldn't, we both peaked in the 9's after 1 hour, but wifey dropped back to normal levels after 2 hours, whilst I remained higher. I dropped back down to normal levels after 3 hours. So I personally don't bother with the 1 hour test anymore. I think 1 hour testing is worth doing when newly diagnosed though.

I assume you are still talking Blood Testing 😉 if not ! well done to you and your lady wife xxxxxxx

 

[gwalmsley]

Ok, back to confused. Yesterday I did a long distance paddle (over 8 miles) burning over 2500 kcal. As a treat I thought I would try a pizza so went for a medium dominos meteor thin crust (lowest carb numbers) and ate half of it.

Before 5.6
1 hour 8.8
2 hour 6.7

Excellent I thought, I can have that.

Today after more exercise (another 1,000 kcal burnt) I decided to have the other half as it had worked out ok yesterday.

Before 5.0
1 hour 6.8
2 hour 10.2!
4 hour 6.4

So totally confused. Better starting number, exactly the same food, but a huge increase at 2 hours.

How do you eat to your meter if the same food in very similar circumstances gives totally different results?

Graham

 

[Ljc]

Ok, back to confused. Yesterday I did a long distance paddle (over 8 miles) burning over 2500 kcal. As a treat I thought I would try a pizza so went for a medium dominos meteor thin crust (lowest carb numbers) and ate half of it.

Before 5.6
1 hour 8.8
2 hour 6.7

Excellent I thought, I can have that.

Today after more exercise (another 1,000 kcal burnt) I decided to have the other half as it had worked out ok yesterday.

Before 5.0
1 hour 6.8
2 hour 10.2!
4 hour 6.4

So totally confused. Better starting number, exactly the same food, but a huge increase at 2 hours.

How do you eat to your meter if the same food in very similar circumstances gives totally different results?

Graham

That's diabetes for you, it can be so b***dy contrary

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

For insulin users pizza is notorious for being slow to hit the system. The fat slows down the metabolism of the carbs. People sometimes have to spread their insulin delivery over several hours to get it to work well.

As @Ljc says - diabetes is just contrary sometimes, and is more art than science.

Looking at it another way... the 8.8 is nearly 9, and the 10.2 is nearly 10. So the results pretty much overlap given the potential errors in SMBG values. Doesn't explain the different timings, but over the years I have tried to encourage myself not to get too focussed on particular hard number limits - because the data feed is really not that precise.

Of course I rarely manage it, and we all have our own limits where we feel a BG result has gone 'too far', and 5 to 10 is a shift of 5 points, which you might consider to be too much for a regular meal. Having said that, deciding to eat pizza 5 days a week is probably not the best plan either - so as an occasional food I'd still count it as usable.

You may have a stricter approach though. 🙂

 

[gwalmsley]

Thanks for the post.

I am trying to keep below 8.5 where possible, as that appears to be the approved numbers. Not planning on eating pizza 5 days a week, it was for an occasional treat if I could. The answer to that appears to be 'maybe' 😉

I was looking for the 'fat effect' to slow down the carbs and prevent the spike. Seemed to work the first day but not the second.

You mention errors in SMBG values... how accurate are the meters supposed to be? I am using the SD Codefree meter as that seemed to be the one recommended the most on the forum.

For insulin users pizza is notorious for being slow to hit the system. The fat slows down the metabolism of the carbs. People sometimes have to spread their insulin delivery over several hours to get it to work well.

As @Ljc says - diabetes is just contrary sometimes, and is more art than science.

Looking at it another way... the 8.8 is nearly 9, and the 10.2 is nearly 10. So the results pretty much overlap given the potential errors in SMBG values. Doesn't explain the different timings, but over the years I have tried to encourage myself not to get too focussed on particular hard number limits - because the data feed is really not that precise.

Of course I rarely manage it, and we all have our own limits where we feel a BG result has gone 'too far', and 5 to 10 is a shift of 5 points, which you might consider to be too much for a regular meal. Having said that, deciding to eat pizza 5 days a week is probably not the best plan either - so as an occasional food I'd still count it as usable.

You may have a stricter approach though. 🙂

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

BG meters have to conform to an updated ISO standard that required them to provide values within 15% of a lab test 95% of the time (provided they are used correctly and there are no contaminants on the skin etc). 5% of the time they can read absolutely anything, allowing for occasional strip errors etc.

This grid shows that (particularly as values rise) there is quite a lot of overlap between neighbouring values. Of course, many meters perform very well, but it is not uncommon to see 2 different results if you test again immediately... and for all the illusion of decimal point accuracy they are really offering more of a 'guide'. They give plenty reliable enough information to guide decision-making, but it pays to remember their limitations if you feel you are getting too stressed by relatively small differences.

You may find this table interesting:

 

[gwalmsley]

Interesting!

That is quite a wide range. So a result of a 10 could actually be an 8.5, and my starting 5 could be anything from a 4 to a 6...

BG meters have to conform to an updated ISO standard that required them to provide values within 15% of a lab test 95% of the time (provided they are used correctly and there are no contaminants on the skin etc). 5% of the time they can read absolutely anything, allowing for occasional strip errors etc.

This grid shows that (particularly as values rise) there is quite a lot of overlap between neighbouring values. Of course, many meters perform very well, but it is not uncommon to see 2 different results if you test again immediately... and for all the illusion of decimal point accuracy they are really offering more of a 'guide'. They give plenty reliable enough information to guide decision-making, but it pays to remember their limitations if you feel you are getting too stressed by relatively small differences.

You may find this table interesting:

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Strictly speaking, yes. It's why meter instructions always say you should re-check if a reading doesn't match how you are feeling.

Meters provide invaluable information, and we'd be lost without them, but it's important for us not to beat ourselves up over one-off rogue readings which might be a few decimal points off where we'd ideally like them to be.