Whoa,
@marlyn7 ...... If you had a big spike then a crash, the net outcome is not necesaarily as bad as you make this sound. To my reading your body managed your porridge very well.
What are the numbers and timings? BG immediately before 1st mouthful, then 2 hrs later? How high did you go and how long did that last? Your body is very complex and many other things can influence a single result from a meal, such as:
Were you particularly active in the 4 hrs after eating?
Has the weather changed?
How well did you sleep last night?
Are you using a CGM just now? If so you get the advantage of a graph showing the continuous outcome ALONG with the limitations of CGM; those limitations include sometimes too much information; lag with interstitial readings that might (or might not) be smoothed out by the built in algorithm of the CGM; uncertainty about the accuracy of CGM readings.
Have you taken fp readings to establish that in steady state your CGM is giving you valid numbers?
Are you aware that the principle benefit of CGM is to provide a clear picture of BG TREND, rather than very precise nos (whereas fps give you snapshots at various moments, the trend is not visible without fps every 15 mins). Your trend is a rise in BG and then a fall as your metabolism did what it should be doing. The big question to my mind is how long did that all take? If unacceptably long, then (perhaps) your porridge might not be ideal. With the benefit of CGM you can not only see cause and effect from eating; but cause and effect of timings, exercise / activity, from the weather, from outside factors including stress and emotions (which trigger hormones that tell your liver to release glucose from the stores!). And some 30+ other factors.
Don't rush to judgement on the basis of one result and do understand the information that one result has given you in the wider context of this one day. Easier to do with CGM, much more difficult from fps alone.