Is There Any Point In Eating Cereals

[margie]

Dear margie,

Non diabetics never go anywhere near 10 no matter what they eat. It is more like 7mmol/L

Regards Dodger

I am quoting several (not just one) DSNs - its not something I came up with myself. I personally have no evidence one way or the other.

The diagnostic criteria that I have just found says

An FPG level >126 mg/dl (7.0 mmol/l) or a casual plasma glucose >200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/l) meets the threshold for the diagnosis of diabetes.

I have no idea what proportion of people get BMs between 7 and 10 but with that criteria it doesn't look uncommon. Do you have a source for non diabetics going no where near 10 ?

 

[shiv]

i dont usually test until lunch time so i wouldn't know, but i don't have snacks in the morning, therefore i eat crunchy nut which usually keeps my levels at a stable level until have lunch.

I would suspect, knowing cereal, that you are shooting right up and dropping back down, which is not good for the ol' body. It's why most people who eat cereal inject way before they eat (so the insulin is well and truly in the blood stream, waiting for the cereal) to stop themselves spiking hugely.

 

[C*5_Dodger]

I am quoting several (not just one) DSNs - its not something I came up with myself. I personally have no evidence one way or the other.

The diagnostic criteria that I have just found says

An FPG level >126 mg/dl (7.0 mmol/l) or a casual plasma glucose >200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/l) meets the threshold for the diagnosis of diabetes.

I have no idea what proportion of people get BMs between 7 and 10 but with that criteria it doesn't look uncommon. Do you have a source for non diabetics going no where near 10 ?

Dear margie,

I sure do, you will see that the average peak is about 7 (126mg/dL) and +2 standard deviations is only about 162mg/dL. Have a look here

Regards Dodger

 

[HelenM]

Dear margie,

Non diabetics never go anywhere near 10 no matter what they eat. It is more like 7mmol/L

Regards Dodger

Maybe more people reach higher levels than is sometimes suggested.
Continuous monitoring of the 'non-diabetic' control group in a recent multinational study revealed that nearly all of the subjects exceeded 7.8mmol/l at some point in the day.Some for considerable periods. Ten percent of the subjects reached levels over 11.1mmol/l . (which of course would be a diagnosis of diabetes if reached on a lab test on more than one occasion)

These findings suggest that glucose levels in persons without diabetes frequently reach IGT range concentrations and that a considerable proportion reach diabetic levels

The subjects had no history of diabetes, a plasma glucose level ≤5.4 mmol/l (97 mg/dl) after an overnight fast and an HbA1c <6.5%. The fasting glucose level was 'chosen due to its high specificity for excluding diabetes without performing an OGTT'
hhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/a55l12337v273511/fulltext.htmlttp://

 

[mcdonagh47]

Dear margie,

I sure do, you will see that the average peak is about 7 (126mg/dL) and +2 standard deviations is only about 162mg/dL. Have a look here

Regards Dodger

Well let's see, on the chart the high point is 162 which equates to 9.1 which would seem to be quite near 10.
Also the description of the chart tells us that the brown lines represent the upper and lower limits of "most" bgs, implying that there may be some well over 162 and scoring 10.

 

[margie]

I haven't taken a proper look at the data properly yet - but I would comment that a sample of 24 people is not very large, and the maximum HbA1C of any of the sample was 5.4. I intend to watch the presentation later.

 

[C*5_Dodger]

Maybe more people reach higher levels than is sometimes suggested.
Continuous monitoring of the 'non-diabetic' control group in a recent multinational study revealed that nearly all of the subjects exceeded 7.8mmol/l at some point in the day.Some for considerable periods. Ten percent of the subjects reached levels over 11.1mmol/l . (which of course would be a diagnosis of diabetes if reached on a lab test on more than one occasion)



The subjects had no history of diabetes, a plasma glucose level ≤5.4 mmol/l (97 mg/dl) after an overnight fast and an HbA1c <6.5%. The fasting glucose level was 'chosen due to its high specificity for excluding diabetes without performing an OGTT'
hhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/a55l12337v273511/fulltext.htmlttp://

Dear HelenM,

The diagram I used was from a clinical study aimed at determining glucose levels for normal people. They ensured all participants passed OGTT and in fact did not have IGT. Go to the site again and you can listen to the presentation made at the Annual Meeting of the EASD in Copenhagen 2006. BTW I can't open the link you provided!

Regards Dodger

 

[C*5_Dodger]

Well let's see, on the chart the high point is 162 which equates to 9.1 which would seem to be quite near 10.
Also the description of the chart tells us that the brown lines represent the upper and lower limits of "most" bgs, implying that there may be some well over 162 and scoring 10.

I don't think you can use the few % at the outlying regions to state that 10 is normal. Have you got a faulty calculator? (162 maps to 9.0 lol) BTW +-2 SDs means just over 95% are within the so bounded region, so there is +-2.5% outside it. Yes I know that my figures assume a normal distribution, so there may some error in what I quote

 

[newbs]

For me, personally, weetabix doesn't affect me too much and I only need 4 units of insulin to keep my levels stable until lunch. I eat weetabix 5 days out of 7 for this reason as I need to know my levels are going to be fine on weekdays. On a weekend I generally have porridge as that isn't too bad but requires more insulin.

Can totally understand why Type 2's have such a problem with cereal.

 

[HelenM]

Dear HelenM,

The diagram I used was from a clinical study aimed at determining glucose levels for normal people. They specifically excluded people who did not pass an OGTT. Go to the site again and you can listen to the presentation made at the Annual Meeting of the EASD in Copenhagen 2006. BTW I can't open the link you provided!

Regards Dodger

The problem, as is so often the case . is that the variables are slightly different. On the study you quote the subjects were monitored on only 2 days of free living. I do wonder how much that affected their behaviour. In it's favour, the participants had all passed an OGTT. On the other study, the subjects were monitored for 12 weeks but the criteria for normality didn't include an OGTT.
I'll try the reference again
http://www.springerlink.com/content/a55l12337v273511/fulltext.html

What I believe is that the evidence so far suggests that glucose variability and the levels reached in non diabetics varies considerably; we can't say that they never reach high levels. (nor whether brief high levels are necessarily damaging but that's a different question)

 

[mcdonagh47]

I don't think you can use the few % at the outlying regions to state that 10 is normal. Have you got a faulty calculator? (162 maps to 9.0 lol) BTW +-2 SDs means just over 95% are within the so bounded region, so there is +-2.5% outside it. Yes I know that my figures assume a normal distribution, so there may some error in what I quote

Nobody suggested 10 was normal, not Margie or HelenM, certainly not me. You imported the word "normal" into the discussion.
They suggested it was possible for non-dmers to occasionally score 10s.

 

[Adrienne]

Hiya

I haven't read all the replies in this, only got as far as Alan S and I agree with im 100%, my answer would also be a resounding NOOOOOOOO, don't bother with cereal as a type 1 or a typd 2.

Cereal is so hard to get right even with an injection of insulin.

At a conference I went to last year (FFL for those who went) we learnt from an expert that the best cereal to have would be yoghurt and you can add fruit. They said it would not spike and keep levels level until lunch time.

So I made (or bribed is a better word) my daughter to have plain yoghurt and fruit ever breakfast for a week. She has raspberries and strawberries and he was right. It is the best in 10 years, no spike at all, not even a tiny one and levels find until lunch and it was a straightforward bolus !

Just goes to show you. It is all about the fat content. These were normal yoghurts not fat free or low fat.

 

[C*5_Dodger]

The problem, as is so often the case . is that the variables are slightly different. On the study you quote the subjects were monitored on only 2 days of free living. I do wonder how much that affected their behaviour. In it's favour, the participants had all passed an OGTT. On the other study, the subjects were monitored for 12 weeks but the criteria for normality didn't include an OGTT.
I'll try the reference again
http://www.springerlink.com/content/a55l12337v273511/fulltext.html

What I believe is that the evidence so far suggests that glucose variability and the levels reached in non diabetics varies considerably; we can't say that they never reach high levels. (nor whether brief high levels are necessarily damaging but that's a different question)

Dear HelenM,

Yes the link now works, and I certainly had not seen it before. I clearly based my comments to margie on the presentation made at the Annual Meeting of the EASD in Copenhagen 2006, so maybe I should have been more precise and said:
"On average, non diabetics never go anywhere near 10 no matter what they eat. It is more like 7mmol/L". Because both studies do in fact show a large variability. As you go further away from 7mmol/L the number of people reaching that level gets less and less, so your last paragraph sums it up well. I would like to thank you and margie for a stimulating discussion. I guess it is time for us to stop hyjacking this thread!

Warmest Regards Dodger

 

[margie]

I was going to say that I would have liked to have seen the raw data, because I have serious reservations that gives summary information based on 24 people but then graphs based on 21. That shows a certain level of misinformation that may not be picked up if you were not paying attention. Of course the summary information may have remained much as it was - it just causes me worries - as your analysis is only as good as the data.

The other comment is that the study only used people with HbA1Cs that although normal were on the low side (the average stated was 5 and the maximum 5.4). Given that you would expect the mean of the samples to be lower than if they used a set of people evenly distributed across the normal HbA1C range.

I would be interested though to see a study that had far more people in it and who were distributed across the whole 'normal' range.

 

[FM001]

don't bother with cereal as a type 1 or a typd 2.

Cereal is so hard to get right even with an injection of insulin.

Not true Adrienne and there are no reasons why a type 1 diabetic should refrain from eating a good quality cereal, my own blood glucose rarely goes above 8 postprandial and is always back in the 6's after 2 hours. Choosing the right cereal is important as you will see if you read the whole thread, this is then followed by weighing your portion and then giving the correct dose of insulin, get this right then you are on a winner. Always choose cereals that are lower in the glycemic index as they are less likely to cause spikes.

 

[aymes]

Cereal doesnt cause any real problems for me, I have it for breakfast most mornings. I tend to go for the granola type cereals and have it with yoghurt rather than the very sugary cereals. One advantage I seem to have is that I buck the morning trend... I'm more insulin sensitive in the mornings than I am the rest of the day. So for me, yes there is a point to having cereal, I enjoy it and it causes me no problems that would override that. Of course for someone else who spikes more for cereal would probably come to a different conclusion!

 

[Adrienne]

Not true Adrienne and there are no reasons why a type 1 diabetic should refrain from eating a good quality cereal, my own blood glucose rarely goes above 8 postprandial and is always back in the 6's after 2 hours. Choosing the right cereal is important as you will see if you read the whole thread, this is then followed by weighing your portion and then giving the correct dose of insulin, get this right then you are on a winner. Always choose cereals that are lower in the glycemic index as they are less likely to cause spikes.

Maybe I should have worded it differently then. I think you and the few others are very lucky that after cereal you don't spike higher. I can only speak for children and hopefully my daughter will be like you when she is older and not get the spike. She doesn't and never has had the childrens type of cereal, she only ever has had porridge, weetabix, shredded wheat, that type of thing and it is still never as good as the yoghurt.

I see that Aymes has cereal but she has yoghurt with it, maybe that is the trigger for Aymes for good control and no spike.

I do know all about weighing and correct insulin dose etc etc so it is not as though I'm doing it wrong. Only speaking from experience and the conversations we have on the cwd site so perhaps I should have once again said that I can only state this from a point of view of a child with type 1 maybe.

I still stand by the yoghurt though.

Have you ever tested at an hour? This is a big part of the talk. Some levels will spike at an hour and then what you see at 2 hours is the coming down level. Has anyone ever thought about that? Might help some might not. 🙂

 

[Andy HB]

I think I might test myself an hour after eating my bowl of porridge (I tend to go for their suggested portion size of 40g of oats).

The thing is, after 2hrs I've been back in the 4's and feeling pretty hungry so it would be quite informative, I think.

 

[Alan S]

OMG....i always have a bowl of cereals before i go to work. I don't particularly like having toast as it doesn't seem to keep the hunger at bay !

I usually have shredded wheat...is this ok or should i really not be having this for breakfast ?

I also have a bowl of cereal sometimes before i go to bed if i haven't eaten a proper dinner.

Sorry Jon i hope you don't mind me stealing your thread. I'm new to all of this and i can't believe the amount of stuff i'm not meant to eat...

Is that OK?

Ask your meter an hour after your bowl of cereal for the answer.

 

[Adrienne]

Sorry Jon i hope you don't mind me stealing your thread. I'm new to all of this and i can't believe the amount of stuff i'm not meant to eat...

Hi

Only just seen this as Alan S replied to it. Jill-Louise, don't panic. It is not about what you are allowed to eat or not allowed to eat. It is really all about what works for you. This applies to any and all food and drink. What works for one doesn't work for another. The people on here can give you their experiences and you can read it all and try things out. It is all trial and error. You might be ok with all or some or no cereals. Just test it all out and at the moment write it all down. 🙂