BG readings rising, without any food intake?

[zoombapup]

Hi all,

Just trying to understand something, wonder if you guys could help me.

I'm doing an 800 calorie a day diet right now. Previously I was simply doing low carb and my BG levels were as stable as they can be I think. I was mostly hovering around 5.5 ish with lows around 4.5 and highs around 6.

Anyway, since starting the 800 calorie, I'm seeing lower lows (4.2) and some strange highs. Like today I was 5.9 this morning, then I just tested myself at 11am and I'm 6.1, where usually before I'd have gone down to 5.2 or even less. So my BG is rising presumably due to liver reacting to the lack of BG from food?

But last night I had a 7.1 which was very strange, although it was after some food and I'd been around 5.3 in the afternoon.

I know those aren't dangerous numbers, but it does feel kind of worrying that being on a diet would lead to these very erratic readings and consistently high spikes in number from my previous highs.

Am I really correct in thinking that you can have no food and yet still have BG rises be normal? I guess you Type 1's don't have this issue? But do other type 2's see this if they diet?

 

[Eddy Edson]

I guess an obvious question is what are you eating/drinking for the 800 cals?

 

[Kaylz]

As has been mentioned many times, food isn't the only thing that's going to have an impact on BG so there could be many number of reasons

My partner isn't diabetic, hadn't eaten anything and required paramedics a month ago, they tested his BG and he was in the low 6's, were any of us worried? Not at all, even non diabetics have fluctuation in levels

I don't mean to offend but I highly suggest you seek some sort of help for your anxiety around your diabetes, it isn't good for your mental health to constantly be focusing on miniscule differences that could be down to meter tolerances etc

 

[zoombapup]

I don't mean to offend but I highly suggest you seek some sort of help for your anxiety around your diabetes, it isn't good for your mental health to constantly be focusing on miniscule differences that could be down to meter tolerances etc

I hear you Kaylz, but I'm not suggesting this is a big rise or anything. Just curious about the mechanisms that might kick in during a diet that could change levels upwards. My understanding is that the liver might be doing it, but what if it keeps going up? I'm seeing a wider range than I've had for months, so want to understand the mechanisms that might be at play. I agree this isn't a big deal in the scheme of things, but I'm the curious type and want to understand it.

 

[zoombapup]

I guess an obvious question is what are you eating/drinking for the 800 cals?

An asda meal replacement shake for lunch, which is about 210 cals and around 600 cals of meat + veg of whatever form for dinner. So usually its a chicken breast and some cauliflower rice or equivalent. Ends up roughly about 600 calories. Sometimes I'm over and end up at 800 or so, but on average I'm near the 800 cals in total.

What is interesting, was that I've had multiple 4.4's about an hour and a half after the MR shake, even though it has 20ish grams of carbs. But it seems like my evening meals are somehow less tolerated while on the diet. Or maybe the liver is seeing it as a continued fasting period and dumping glucose to cover.

 

[rebrascora]

I would be curious to know the type of carbs in the meal replacement shake? If they are sugars or highly processed starches then you may be getting an early peak and then your activity is taking them out of the blood stream in the afternoon, by the time you test an hour and a half later.
I would also point out that there is no appreciable difference between a reading of 5.9 and 6.1.... it is within the error range of a meter.... so you can't call that a rise as such. I appreciate that previously, you would have gone lower mid morning but you have changed your diet and probably metabolism by going low calorie so you cannot expect to see the same trends. I am sure @ianf0ster has discussed theories regarding low calorie diets and metabolism so he may have some input.

 

[zoombapup]

I would be curious to know the type of carbs in the meal replacement shake? If they are sugars or highly processed starches then you may be getting an early peak and then your activity is taking them out of the blood stream in the afternoon, by the time you test an hour and a half later.
I would also point out that there is no appreciable difference between a reading of 5.9 and 6.1.... it is within the error range of a meter.... so you can't call that a rise as such. I appreciate that previously, you would have gone lower mid morning but you have changed your diet and probably metabolism by going low calorie so you cannot expect to see the same trends. I am sure @ianf0ster has discussed theories regarding low calorie diets and metabolism so he may have some input.

I'm pretty sure that most of the carbs are sugars. Probably 16grams or so I think. I know it sounded a lot when I read the label on it. But I figured that if that's total carbs for a day (pretty much), then its not so bad. I wasn't thinking of the 6.1 as a rise so much as the 7.1 I had the other day. But 6.1 has been pretty uncommon for the last month or so too, so it seemed unusual.

Interestingly, I just tested again and after some bacon and sausage, I'm actually a lot lower than I've been on the chicken and veg. So maybe I need to balance the fats a bit. I guess I'll try not having chicken and veg but eating smaller amounts of fats and see how that goes. My LCHF diet from before was working well in terms of control, so it might be that losing some of the fats has changed something. Possibly having too much protein, given the Asda shake is high in protein too.

I guess I'll experiment some. I'll check if anyone else did the 800 cal thing and how their levels were affected if anything.

 

[rebrascora]

Protein will break down to produce about 40% glucose and fat about 10% whereas carbs produce 100% I believe, so there certainly can be input from those other sources and it is something that I have to consider when injecting insulin for my food when eating very low carb

 

[DaveB]

Hi. You should expect the 800 Calorie diet to cause more BS swings than a Low-carb diet. I'm not a fan of the 800 calorie diet as it's based on confused science. Fat has twice the calorific value of carbs and to keep to 800 calories a day you could tempted to keep the fats down and the carbs up. That would result in higher BS and more swings. The 800 calorie diet is based on the assumption that fats are a cause of weight gain rather than carbs and that's not correct.

 

[zoombapup]

I don't think the 800 calorie thing is confused, I'm following my own version of what they did for the DIRECT study, but using different meal replacements is all. The 800 calories is just there to allow for rapid weight loss, with the thinking being that overall weight loss of a certain percentage is the key. I'm not sure I've read anything where they particularly care how you reduce to 800 calories, as long as you get your essential vitamins etc. So I could have (and will be playing with going forward) used fats + veg instead of protein + veg, just for the same calorific amounts.

The point about the calorie reduction is the weight loss to reverse the insulin resistance, which makes sense to me, its basically a pretty high intensity version of intermittent fasting.

Anyway, going pretty well so far. I did have to get a new set of digital scales though, because the mechanical ones I bought were driving me nuts trying to read 🙂

 

[ianf0ster]

I don't think the 800 calorie thing is confused, I'm following my own version of what they did for the DIRECT study, but using different meal replacements is all. The 800 calories is just there to allow for rapid weight loss, with the thinking being that overall weight loss of a certain percentage is the key. I'm not sure I've read anything where they particularly care how you reduce to 800 calories, as long as you get your essential vitamins etc. So I could have (and will be playing with going forward) used fats + veg instead of protein + veg, just for the same calorific amounts.

The point about the calorie reduction is the weight loss to reverse the insulin resistance, which makes sense to me, its basically a pretty high intensity version of intermittent fasting.

Anyway, going pretty well so far. I did have to get a new set of digital scales though, because the mechanical ones I bought were driving me nuts trying to read 🙂

Fine if that is what you believe.
Personally I have found that calories are much less important than carbs. Plus restricting calories puts the body into starvation mode - reducing the basal metabolic rate which means even more calorie reduction is required for continued weight loss. This makes a rebound in weight almost inevitable.
But hey, if you prefer to do it the hardest way possible , more power to you. I'm a wimp and prefer the easiest and most sustainable way of getting good results!

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

I think it’s important to remember that each of us are trying to do the best for our own health, using our own research, learning and n=1 experience.

Just because something is right for you, doesn’t make it right for anyone else. There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach. DIREcT is a big trial, with impressive results, and if people what to try a similar approach then that’s fine.

Keto suits some people, but not others.

Moderate carb is perfect for some people, but not enough for others.

Very low carb is an ideal solution for some people, but unsustainable and ineffective for others.

Please keep comments supportive towards people who are trying different approaches.