This topic contains 9 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by 1-Pia 3 months, 2 weeks ago.
-
Posts
-
5.5 and you’re feeling hypo? Gollies.
You must be fairly consistently high then.
I’ve been low for 2 months now and my hypo doesn’t start until 3.7 or less.
I just hope that I don’t become completely insensitive to it.
red
Hi 1-Pia
It is most likely that your body has been used to the higher BGL’s. As your treatment improves your BGL, the lower numbers will give you some symptoms.
Be patient, and as your body adapts to these healthy BGL’s all will be well soon.
A BGL of 3.5 is normal. However, less than 4.0 and using insulin, treat. Do you have a successful hypo treatment plan that you would like to share?
Hypo unawareness (being insensitive to the early symptoms) will usually occur if a person is not treating those early symptoms, and is having very frequent hypos. One of the benefits of measuring your BGL frequently is to identify the patterns in your day, know when you are most likely to have a hypo, and put some preventative startegies into place to avoid them occuring in the first pace.
When you say “a bit high, like 10′s” – are these BGL’s fasting or after meals? How often do you test? Do you test regularly.
For a comprehensive chat about this, consider submitting a request for individual consultation at http://www.diabetescounselling.com.au/counselling-request/
We are always happy to help, even with the simplest of problems.
Regards,
David, Diabetes Educator
David,
You say in the above
“A BGL of 3.5 is normal. However, less than 4.0 and using insulin, treat. ”
I think you mean 4.5 instead of 3.5.
red
Hi guys
3.5 is actually considered to be a “normal” level in that people without diabetes may range from 3.5 mmol. so we tend to talk about hypoglycemia as being below 3.5 mmol.
However if on insulin or a medication that can lead to a hypo we generally would treat as a hypo at 4 mmol and many people would have something to eat at 4.5 – 5 mmol, especially type 1, or on fast acting insulins. I know if I am under 5 mmol I would eat.
Hope you have a lovely New Year
Helen
It is unlikely that a (true)BGL of 3.6 will cause symptoms.
But if a person who has diabetes KNOWS their BGL is less than 4.0, it is suggested (as THE safest thing to do) they treat it as a ‘hypo’ ie have some rapidly digested carbohydrates, followed closely by some other lower GI carbohydrates immediately.
Both steps should be undertaken ASAP – so a person who has diabetes should be in the habit of carrying treatment at all times.
More info here:
http://www.labtestsonline.org.au/understanding/analytes/glucose/tab/test
http://www.diabetesaustralia.com.au/Understanding-Diabetes/What-is-Diabetes/Hypoglycaemia/
Have a Happy and Safe New Year
David
-
This reply was modified 3 months, 3 weeks ago by
Imagine_David.
Hi 1-Pia
In response to your comment “I was wondering how can they put us all in the same catorgery as we are all different therefore what is a good level for one person might be different for the next ?”
If we look at the purpose of treating (both type 1 and type 2) diabetes as being the achievement of normal healthy BGLs most of the time, then a normal healthy BGL for a human being is in the range of 3.5 to 7.8 mols/L (of glucose)
“Notable are the results of the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) (2) and the similarly designed but smaller Stockholm Diabetes Intervention Study (3). These studies showed unequivocally in type 1 diabetes that lowering blood glucose delayed the onset and slowed the progression of microvascular complications. Risk reductions for various outcomes ranged from 35 to 75%. Secondary analyses in these studies showed strong relationships between the risks of developing these complications and glycemic exposure over time. Moreover, there was no discernable glucose threshold, i.e., there was a continuous reduction in complications as glycemic levels approached the normal range. Improved glycemic control was also associated with reduced cardiovascular events in the DCCT, but the difference was not statistically significant. Perhaps this was because the population studied was young adults and therefore the event rate was very low.
Many of the observational studies also support a correlation between glycemic control and diabetic complications in patients with type 2 diabetes, but until now, there have been only three randomized controlled trials attempting to test the benefit of lowering blood glucose on the incidence of complications. The first of these studies was the University Group Diabetes Program (UGDP), which showed no benefit of glycemic control in new-onset type 2 diabetic patients (4). However, in the UGDP, there were only 200 subjects in each treatment group, HbA1c was not available as a reliable method for measuring chronic glycemia, and the difference in glucose control between the most intensively treated group and the other treatment groups was only a fasting plasma glucose of ∼30 mg/dl (1.7 mmol/l). Of note, a major concern emanating from the UGDP was the observation that the sulfonylurea agent (tolbutamide) and a biguanide (phenformin) used to reduce hyperglycemia were associated with increased cardiovascular mortality. The suspicion that glucose lowering with oral agents in patients with type 2 diabetes may actually be harmful has persisted since publication of the UGDP data in 1970.
The second controlled trial in type 2 diabetes was only recently reported (5). This small study conducted in 110 lean Japanese subjects showed that multiple insulin injections resulting in better glycemic control (HbA1c = 7.1%) compared with conventional treatment (HbA1c = 9.4%) significantly reduced the microvascular complications of diabetes. The extent of the risk reduction in this Japanese study was similar to that in the DCCT, thereby supporting the hypothesis that glycemic control is important in both types of diabetes.
The third trial in type 2 diabetes was a pilot study that randomized 153 men to intensive or conventional therapy (6). Despite a 2% absolute HbA1c difference in glycemic control between the two groups, the trial reported no significant difference in cardiovascular events (when adjusted for baseline characteristics) in a follow-up period of only 27 months.
With this background, we now have the results of the largest and longest study on type 2 diabetic patients that has ever been performed (7,8,9,10). The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) recruited 5,102 patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes in 23 centers within the U.K. between 1977 and 1991. Patients were followed for an average of 10 years to determine 1) whether intensive use of pharmacological therapy to lower blood glucose levels would result in clinical benefits (i.e., reduced cardiovascular and microvascular complications) and 2) whether the use of various sulfonylurea drugs, the biguanide drug metformin, or insulin have specific therapeutic advantages or disadvantages. In addition, patients with type 2 diabetes who were also hypertensive were randomized to “tight” or “less tight” blood pressure control to ascertain the benefits of lowering blood pressure and to ascertain whether the use of an ACE inhibitor (captopril) or β-blocker (atenolol) offered particular therapeutic advantages or disadvantages.” from http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/suppl_1/s28.full
Of course individualising the treatment plan is very important.
3.3 this morning … and I didn’t know I was that low
-
This reply was modified 3 months, 3 weeks ago by
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.