Chocolate

[Chris1980]

Just wondering.
I took a prick test, it showed 4.5.
Decided to test this out, I ate a small piece of chocolate 20 min later. It went up to 5.3. Is it the chocolate fault?.
15 min later 3,9.

 

[ColinUK]

Just wondering.
I took a prick test, it showed 4.5.
Decided to test this out, I ate a small piece of chocolate 20 min later. It went up to 5.3. Is it the chocolate fault?.
15 min later 3,9.

Nothing is ever the fault of chocolate!


Well not in my world anyway 🙂

 

[ColinUK]

Seriously though what chocolate did you have and how much of it?

Also those figures don’t seem bad at all so I’d say not to worry - I’ll caveat this by saying I’m very new to this but it does seem that they’re OK figures.

 

[Chris1980]

85% coco. I spoke to a helpline diabetes and he said those fluctuations are normal....for non diabetics.
Just wondering why the rapid fluctuations.....
Freaked me out so I won’t eat it

 

[rebrascora]

It may be that you haven't seen the full spike from the chocolate as the fat content can delay it and it will depend on the type of chocolate as some contain a lot more sugar than others. The big problem is usually sticking to one small square and not getting into the habit of having another and another.

 

[rebrascora]

Since it was 85% chocolate and just one square I think that is a reasonable response and I would not be overly concerned about doing it again but it depends on your self restraint. I don't find dark chocolate as moreish as milk, so I can usually restrain myself to just one square, whereas, if it was Cadbury's Dairy milk or Marvellous Creations the whole 200g bar would be gone before I realised and I cannot afford to do that anymore!

 

[Chris1980]

I will not eat it again, freaks me out.
Maybe you know.
If a non diabetic ate food, the Glucose level went from 4.5 to 5.9. if a diabetic ate the same amount and same food, would that person have a higher reading?.

 

[rebrascora]

Everyone will spike after eating food, even non diabetics. It is the level of the spike and the length of it which is important, so do not get hung up on this. A spike of 2 to 3 mmols is not unreasonable after a meal. You want to avoid anything higher than that and longer than a couple of hours if you can, but don't stress if it happens, just adjust that meal so that there are less carbs for next time.
If any size spike freaks you out then I would suggest that you are being unrealistic or obsessive and perhaps testing may be less than beneficial for you and you might be wise not to use it.

 

[Chris1980]

Thank you for your response.
Just trying to figure out what it all means.

 

[Andy HB]

Just to utterly confuse you .....

Don't forget that all meters are not extremely precise. Not sure what the error is but seem to recall it can be 10% or so out. On that basis, the 4.5 could be anywhere between 4.0 and 5.0. The 5.3 could be anywhere between 4.8 and 5.8. The 3.9 between 3.5 and 4.3. So, over those readings you could just have easily got 4.9, 4.9. 4.3. Practically no difference at all. 🙂

The point I am making is that you can't judge your BG response by a single set of readings. You need to do multiple tests and come to a general assessment over time (Yay! More chocolate). Of course, if your meter goes from 4.5 to 7.8, then you can make a more informed assessment of what is going on.

Also, to save strips, it is generally considered more efficient to test before, 1hr or 2hrs later (I always just tested 2hrs after though). Testing at smaller intervals will give you a bit more information but it is generally unhelpful in my opinion (which can most definitely be wrong!). 🙂

 

[Chris1980]

Just to utterly confuse you .....

Don't forget that all meters are not extremely precise. Not sure what the error is but seem to recall it can be 10% or so out. On that basis, the 4.5 could be anywhere between 4.0 and 5.0. The 5.3 could be anywhere between 4.8 and 5.8. The 3.9 between 3.5 and 4.3. So, over those readings you could just have easily got 4.9, 4.9. 4.3. Practically no difference at all. 🙂

The point I am making is that you can't judge your BG response by a single set of readings. You need to do multiple tests and come to a general assessment over time (Yay! More chocolate). Of course, if your meter goes from 4.5 to 7.8, then you can make a more informed assessment of what is going on.

Also, to save strips, it is generally considered more efficient to test before, 1hr or 2hrs later (I always just tested 2hrs after though). Testing at smaller intervals will give you a bit more information but it is generally unhelpful in my opinion (which can most definitely be wrong!). 🙂

I’ve been told about the discrepancies with prick tests but if I can get it between 4.5 and 6, I am happy

 

[Chris1980]

It may be that you haven't seen the full spike from the chocolate as the fat content can delay it and it will depend on the type of chocolate as some contain a lot more sugar than others. The big problem is usually sticking to one small square and not getting into the habit of having another and another.

1 hour later it is down to 4.9

 

[rebrascora]

I think it is safe to say that you can get away with treating yourself to a square of 85% chocolate occasionally with those readings then.
This is for life, and you need little treats every now and then to make it enjoyable, as long as you are able to moderate those treats.... as I said, I struggle with the off switch once I start with chocolate and one square often just isn't enough. If you can have just one square and enjoy it, then don't deprive yourself.

 

[ColinUK]

Thank you for your response.
Just trying to figure out what it all means.

It’s early days. I know I’ve panicked when I’ve seen the meter give me a figure higher than I expected to see but it goes down quite quickly. Also when I’ve mentioned the stats on here folks have been very quick to reassure me that it’s OK.
It is a learning curve for us newly diagnosed folk, especially if we opt to have a BG monitor and test. But if I get hung up on each reading then it’s going to drive me bonkers! Trend is more important than the odd random spike. But it’s all about learning what my body can tolerate and what I need to be wary about consuming.

 

[Chris1980]

Thanks. We will see what the test says in few weeks time. I understand what you eat will have an affect on you but those rapid readings freaked me out.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

I understand what you eat will have an affect on you but those rapid readings freaked me out.

They're just not real, though. These meters are much more precise than they are accurate: they're showing 4.5 (or whatever) but really it's more like 4 or 5ish, presuming you did everything right. And blood glucose varies a bit even if you don't eat anything or do anything else that you think might change it.

 

[Chris1980]

100 dark chocolate montezuma
has anyone tried this one

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

100 dark chocolate montezuma
has anyone tried this one

I can’t get on with 100% chocolates apart from in cooking. Too intense for me!

 

[rebrascora]

There has to be pleasure in eating chocolate rather than it being some sort of eating challenge or trial. There is a balance between looking for minimal carbs foods and actually enjoying foods, especially with a product like chocolate which is essentially a treat. For me I would rather have 1 square of 75% chocolate as a bar of 85%. Anything beyond that is no longer a treat for me and not worth wasting carbs, calories or cash on.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

I can’t get on with 100% chocolates apart from in cooking.

I agree. I like adding it to coffee, or to cooked apple. Gives an intense flavour without sweetness which can be nice. On its own I don't like it. (I like dark chocolate generally, but 100% is just too much.)