I thought you couldn't reverse diabetes?

[everydayupsanddowns]

I understand what you mean mcdonagh47, but for some newbies who are crushed by the thought that there is nothing they can do to improve their condition who might be wondering 'does this mean I'll have to take these tablets forever?' the answer based on several members' experience would seem to be 'not necessarily'. And if that person considers the 'not taking tablets' to be in some way an improvement in their condition then they might think of that improvement as a form of reversal. I'm not saying you have to think it is so, but I'm just saying that some people might. I'm also not saying that everyone can improve their symptoms without the support of medication, but that some people can.

Andy's line of an improvement in 'diabetic symptoms' is perhaps more accurate.

 

[Mark T]

You could describe it as a form of regression, you have regressed the disease back to the point where you can avoid taking medication. However, if you re-adopt a unhealthy lifestyle the disease will re-emerge.

I'm not sure if that would also cause confusion because regression is used for cancer also.

 

[lanzlady]

Yes, my post was long, I'm sorry for that and realised when I'd posted it that not every one will want to read it (maybe no-one😉 ) Indeed I almost cut the whole thing when I saw the final post.
It was a summary, it took a very long time rewriting it to the fewest possible word yet still be accurate.

Helen please do not be sorry for your long post of course it was interesting just long posts are not for me.


Lanz

 

[lanzlady]

Don't apologise Helen. I find your research very interesting. I can see that not everyone has the time or inclination to read the technical stuff, but it does provide useful information to those that do 🙂 Often what starts out as a particular question can turn into quite a wide-ranging discussion, and of course this is one of the key topics in diabetes today, so all input is welcomed 🙂

That's correct I am one of those people who do not have the time to sometimes read the technical stuff but I do have the inclination of reading the posts🙂


Lanz

 

[oldun]

No meds

T2 last Hba1c 6.1 overweight!
Diag 2005. On medication since 2005 Hba1c varied from 6.1 to 6.9
Despite being prescribed alternate medication, I felt better without meds and so earlier this year, having consulted with both my GP and diabetes nurse, plus a desire to lose weight, I stopped medication and relied on a controlled diet.
After 10 weeks my Hba1c (last week) was 6.1 and I have shed 11 pounds weight, 'lost' a skin rash on my arms and reduced red rashes on my feet (top) and feel more alive. My afternoon sleeps are also less frequent.
I'm merely recounting my personal experience and NOT making any recommendations for others.

 

[Northerner]

T2 last Hba1c 6.1 overweight!
Diag 2005. On medication since 2005 Hba1c varied from 6.1 to 6.9
Despite being prescribed alternate medication, I felt better without meds and so earlier this year, having consulted with both my GP and diabetes nurse, plus a desire to lose weight, I stopped medication and relied on a controlled diet.
After 10 weeks my Hba1c (last week) was 6.1 and I have shed 11 pounds weight, 'lost' a skin rash on my arms and reduced red rashes on my feet (top) and feel more alive. My afternoon sleeps are also less frequent.
I'm merely recounting my personal experience and NOT making any recommendations for others.

That's a great weight loss and improvement oldun, well done! Nice to hear from you again 🙂

 

[wallycorker]

.............I'm merely recounting my personal experience and NOT making any recommendations for others..............

Great stuff oldun!

Don't be shy! Maybe you ought to be making recommendations to other Type 2s?

In my opinion, you sound to be well down the right pathway.

Best wishes - John

 

[veganlass]

Oldun, thats what I am trying to do, control it by diet. My diabetic care nurse on first visit said "I can see I am going to have trouble persuading you to have tablets"

I said yes. 🙂

You prove it can work. Medics are quick to prescribe tablets etc,. as its an easy option.

 

[C*5_Dodger]

Oldun, thats what I am trying to do, control it by diet. My diabetic care nurse on first visit said "I can see I am going to have trouble persuading you to have tablets"

I said yes. 🙂

You prove it can work. Medics are quick to prescribe tablets etc,. as its an easy option.

Dear veganlass,

Have you tried following (left click it) this dietary method of lowering your blood sugar?

Regards Dodger

 

[veganlass]

Thanks will look. I did do a food diary a week before I saw the diabetic care nurse and she said there was nothing to alter.

Even though I have just dropped down my quantity of carbs now.

Its a good link. I had thought of doing that after seeing my yesterdays readings.

 

[Cliff]

Very interesting thread. The whole concept of diabetes reversal is obviously controversial but perhaps easier to understand if you think of glucose intolerance as a continuum rather than something that has fixed diagnostic points. Take an example to illustrate why fixed point diagnosis is unreliable - you give two fasting readings of 7 or over and you're diabetic. You give two fasting readings of 6.9 and you have impaired fasting glucose. What's the difference in those terms between 6.9 and 7.0? Nothing at all, except the diagnosis. On one day you might be over 7, the next under. Sometimes, you might hit the 5s. If you were to have been tested and gave two readings in the 5s, you wouldn't be diabetic or have impaired fasting glucose - well, officially you wouldn't.

I'm convinced some of us can move position on the glucose intolerance scale and drive our levels down. For what it's worth, I finally got round to taking an OGTT last week after my doctor said it was unlikely I would match the diagnostic criteria for diabetes given my recent HbA1cs (bearing in mind that when I was first diagnosed, I had a fasting reading of over 9). And the result? 5.8 fasting and 8.2 two hours after the lucozade frenzy. So now I officially have impaired glucose tolerance, 'normal' fasting glucose (don't know any normal people that hit 5.8 on fasting though) and have had the diabetic label taken away.

On that basis it seems to me that movement along the continuous scale is possible. I don't think it makes you non-diabetic though, and I don't think once you've improved your position you should ease off from the measures that led to your improvement.

 

[veganlass]

Cliff I was beginning to think, yesterday that I would revert back to just doing a pre BG test before meals.

You can easily get paranoid with the testing. I will continue doing pre and post testing till the weekend (Going away for a few days then) . Then reconsider next week.

I will continue losing my excess weight.

 

[Cliff]

Cliff I was beginning to think, yesterday that I would revert back to just doing a pre BG test before meals.

You can easily get paranoid with the testing. I will continue doing pre and post testing till the weekend (Going away for a few days then) . Then reconsider next week.

I will continue losing my excess weight.

It's a combination of serious carb control and the consequent weight loss arising from that carb control that's done it for me. From being quite a big lad, I am now 4 stones lighter and positively skinny!

With regard to testing, I don't do all that much now. The most useful thing I found was to target likely food suspects and see how they affected me, and either eliminate entirely or reduce quantities depending on the results. Once I knew what foods and how much of them sent me high, I decided I didn't need to test on that food again, apart from the occasional check. Fairly quickly you can see what works and what doesn't, so if the cost or availability of strips is an issue for you, a targeted approach might be best.

 

[veganlass]

Yes Cliff thats my reasoning too.

I have lost 7lbs in weight now since the 16th march and my pre meal BG at lunchtimes are running at anything from 7.6 to 8.9 now.

I will continue to monitor till I have got down to 9 stone, which is 1st 3oz o go.
As i am 61 I dont want to look scrawny if I go down further.

If by then I am still showing signs of being diabetic then I will agree to medication.

 

[mcdonagh47]

Very interesting thread. The whole concept of diabetes reversal is obviously controversial but perhaps easier to understand if you think of glucose intolerance as a continuum rather than something that has fixed diagnostic points. Take an example to illustrate why fixed point diagnosis is unreliable - you give two fasting readings of 7 or over and you're diabetic. You give two fasting readings of 6.9 and you have impaired fasting glucose. What's the difference in those terms between 6.9 and 7.0? Nothing at all, except the diagnosis.

Mmols are a complicated Logarithmic Scale, like the Richter scale for Earthquakes, don't know the exact maths but 7.0 is a whole lot worse than 6.9 ( possibly 10 times as bad ???). Its an exponential increase not a simple arithmetical on.
Of course anyone persistently scoring 6.9 should be sent for an OGTT to clear up whether they are IGT or Type 2 Diabetes.

 

[mcdonagh47]

I'm convinced some of us can move position on the glucose intolerance scale and drive our levels down. For what it's worth, I finally got round to taking an OGTT last week after my doctor said it was unlikely I would match the diagnostic criteria for diabetes given my recent HbA1cs (bearing in mind that when I was first diagnosed, I had a fasting reading of over 9). And the result? 5.8 fasting and 8.2 two hours after the lucozade frenzy. So now I officially have impaired glucose tolerance, 'normal' fasting glucose (don't know any normal people that hit 5.8 on fasting though) and have had the diabetic label taken away.

It doesn't sound as if you were Type 2 in the first place, Cliff, and should have had an OGTT right at the start.

 

[Cliff]

Mmols are a complicated Logarithmic Scale, like the Richter scale for Earthquakes, don't know the exact maths but 7.0 is a whole lot worse than 6.9 ( possibly 10 times as bad ???). Its an exponential increase not a simple arithmetical on.

I'm sorry to contradict you mcdonagh but there's a simple linear relationship between glucose concentration in the blood and its expression in mmol/l - it's not logarithmic.

Glucose has a molecular weight of 180g. 1mmol is therefore 0.18g. So if your level is 6.9mmol/l, then you have 1.242g of glucose in every litre of your blood (0.180 x 6.9). If your level is 7.0mmol/l, then you have 1.26g of glucose in every litre of your blood (0.180 x 7.0).

PS I'm a Chartered Chemist so really hope I've got this right 😉

 

[C*5_Dodger]

I'm sorry to contradict you mcdonagh but there's a simple linear relationship between glucose concentration in the blood and its expression in mmol/l - it's not logarithmic.

Glucose has a molecular weight of 180g. 1mmol is therefore 0.18g. So if your level is 6.9mmol/l, then you have 1.242g of glucose in every litre of your blood (0.180 x 6.9). If your level is 7.0mmol/l, then you have 1.26g of glucose in every litre of your blood (0.180 x 7.0).

PS I'm a Chartered Chemist so really hope I've got this right 😉

Dear Cliff,

You explanation is exactly my understanding, nice to see you posting.

Warmest Regards Dodger

 

[Copepod]

Glad to see my understanding that mmol/l was a linear scale, unlike logarithmic scale such as Richter magnitude scale earthquakes and dB for sound, is correct.
Not a chartered chemist like Cliff, but got Chemistry & Physics A levels nearly 30 years ago.

 

[mcdonagh47]

I'm sorry to contradict you mcdonagh but there's a simple linear relationship between glucose concentration in the blood and its expression in mmol/l - it's not logarithmic.

Glucose has a molecular weight of 180g. 1mmol is therefore 0.18g. So if your level is 6.9mmol/l, then you have 1.242g of glucose in every litre of your blood (0.180 x 6.9). If your level is 7.0mmol/l, then you have 1.26g of glucose in every litre of your blood (0.180 x 7.0).

PS I'm a Chartered Chemist so really hope I've got this right 😉

LOL - Thanks for the heads up on the maths Cliff.
I must have read somewhere that Millimoles per mol were a logarithmic scale and misunderstood it.

So the actual difference in glucose beteen 4.9 and 5.0 represents an increase of 2% (0.018/0.882). While with the difference between 6.9 and 7.0 the rate of increase slows to 1.4% (0.018/1.242). And (9.9 compared to 10.00 represents an increase in actual glucose of only 1.0% (0.018/1.782). So the 0.1 steps in bgs we measure aren't of equal value ? The significance of each 0.1 step up decreases as bgs get higher ?

So as bgs drop the significance of a 0.1. drop increases, hence helping to explain hypos ? The difference in actual glucose per litre between 2.9 and 3.0 is 3.3%.