diabetes with no symptoms/probable cardiovascular system damage

two more things i wanted to add:

1. my blood work has been good for lipids and fasting glucose- my A1c was 5.6, which i knew would be off since i was anemic at the two times i had it done. what i didn't realize is that the A1c will be artificially low if someone is anemic and in actuality should be much higher.

2. i have been eating not extremely high fat, but fatty sausage, burgers, eggs, etc thinking it was OK since I was eating low-carb. The problem is my diet was actually just like a high carb diet since my body couldn't process glucose correctly and my blood sugars were probably high. so i probably did some damage to my heart and vascular system which i will try to reverse.

what symptoms did i have that i was diabetic? none. sometimes you have to test based on factors other than symptoms (such as family history and other abnormalities, such as giving birth to large babies) 

8/12/12 first test disbelief

i did the test:

fasting blood sugar: 90

ate 60 grams of a fast-acting carb (oatmeal)

1 hour later: 219- measured again in disbelief: 265

2 hours later: 197-measured again in disbelief: 191

3 hours later: (after vigorous exercise): 101

from jenny ruhl's website (the same one linked below):

If your blood sugar went over 200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/L) at any time you testedd, you just registered a diabetic blood sugar level and should consult with a doctor as soon as possible. Two random tests results of 200 mg/dl are considered diagnostic of diabetes according to the Diagnostic Criteria for Diabetes Mellitus published by the highly conservative American Diabetes Association. 

since i don't want to take medicine, i'm going to see if i can control this according to dr. bernstein's target of 30 grams of carb a day plus exercise plus going leaning more to eating 2 meals a day instead of 3. he says a normal person will have a reading of 85 even right after eating, except for a very carb-laden meal. if the meter is off +/- 10 its, that means i could go up to 95, but i might be hypoglycemic at 75- so i won't strictly shoot for 75.

i shudder to think where i would be if i hadn't started my version of ef in 2009. i now know that i need to implement a much stricter version of ef. i would never have known to do this if i hadn't bought the glucose meter and if i had never found dr. bernstein/jenny ruhl. i didn't even want to buy it- my husband did. i thought he might be pre diabetic, but using the same 60 grams of carbs, this numbers were much better. At 1 hour after the 60 grams of carbs, he was 137/143, at 2 hours he was 110/111. 

Because i eat lower carb, i can maybe subtract 10 points from my 2 hour reading, but even then i am over 200. 

predicting who gets diabetes from jenny ruhl's info

i am starting to delete past posts that i think led to dead ends.  right now wooo has put me on to jenny ruhl who has collected some awesome info on diabetes of which i am taking the bullet points and saving them here:

What this means is that if your blood sugar tests over 100 mg/dl fasting more than once, your fastingblood sugar is likely to go over the 125 mg/dl (7.0 mmol/L) level used to diagnose full diabetes within 3 years. More importantly, and not addressed in this article, if your blood sugar is at 100 mg/dl fasting, it is very likely that your post-meal blood sugar is heading towards the diabetic range, which is over 200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/L) which is why your fasting blood sugar is deteriorating. High post-meal blood sugars kill beta cells. If you can bring down those post-meal highs, you may be able to prevent the beta cell death that is destroying your fasting control! ps i don't know why the above didn't paste right- i will try to fix it later and put link up More: The data here suggest strongly that truly normal people--people whose fasting blood sugar is close to 82 mg/dl and whose 2-h result on an OGTT is closer to 90 than 140 probably don't become diabetic.Those whose blood sugars are higher than this true "normal" do even though the current diagnostic standard embraced by the American Diabetes Association tells them they are normal. They may go on for many years showing only slight changes from year to year, but eventually they suddenly hit a critical point where their blood sugar control suddenly deteriorates very swiftly.

What i have learned from the past year

I just read over all my previous posts. These were the problems I was dealing with:


Past problems:

1.
Hot in
the middle of the night- can’t get good sleep (once or twice a month).
2.
Heart palpitations (occasionally at night, not often)
3.
Chest pain (not often, but when I have them, they are usually associated with stress)
4.
Had to sometimes wake up in the middle of the
night to put dog out.
5.
Leg cramps (went months without them and then would get a bout)
6.
Periodic easy bruising (very irregular. sometimes when getting ready to take a shower would see 3 or 4 bruises on my leg and butt)
7.
Hair loss at the end of summer 2010 (lost a lot of hair- could barely do a ponytail with some wisps of hair)


The above are no longer a problem. I am no longer anemic (forgot to mention that as a problem), which i mainly credit to aleve. I make it easier to cool down in the middle of the night by using a fan or, like now that it's colder in my house cuz odf winter, i just have two blankets (that i throw off in stages as i begin to heat up) and easy to peel off pjs so i can cool down so fast that i can get right back to sleep. my chest pain from stress is not an issue now cause as soon as i feel a twinge, i consciously relax my body and change my mindset. if i feel a leg cramp, which i rarely or even never do now, i stretch my foot into an "L" shape instead of pointing my toes and that keeps me from getting a cramp. i am regularly drinking a cup of homemade bone soup at least 4 times a week. i have recently started to take a mutivitamin after i started to get sore gums and thought i might have a vitamin/mineral deficiency. i am currently on 50,000 IU of D2 a week to correct a 28 (forgot unit) vitamin d deficient state. I also was on antibiotics in november for a bad cough and a separate course for a urinary tract infection. i try to remember to take my cod liver oil (recent addition to up my vita a on dr. kruse's advice since i am upping my vitamin d steeply) and vita k-2 mk4 to improve my gum/jaw bone health.

my main current problem in lots of gum recession, especially behind the bottom front teeth. i'm hoping the vitamin a, d, and k2 mk4 will help with this situation. i must remember to be grateful for the problems that have gone away while i deal with current ones. merry x mas :)

more about the heritability of attitudes

Chris Masterjohn writes:

v/vmary, well I at least agree with you that most attitudes are probably not biologically heritable, but the view that they are is can be found in evolutionary psychology and sociobiology, and the language that Dr. De Vany used seems very close to what you'd find in a sociobiological explanation.

fun conversations with Chris Masterjohn

I just wanted to copy the conversations here so I don't lose track of them.

Chris Masterjohn writes:

"Taleb says he eats "no carbs that do not have a Biblical Hebrew or Doric Greek name (i.e., did not exist in the ancient Mediterranean)." I think that's his own rule, not De Vany's. He seems to primarily credit De Vany with his exercise routine."

Taleb writes as the las 2 sentences in his afterword to Professor De Vany's book: "So good luck with the regimen. I've been on it for close to 3 years and my intellectual production keeps getting greater."

I think we can assume that by the word "regimen" used in the afterword in a book with the word "Diet" in it, that Taleb is including the concept of *diet* in his endorsement of the book. In other words, he is a believer in the De Vany guidelines for *diet*. His diet mentioned in the afterword follows those guidelines. He is close to my age and was overweight. He has had ongoing success with the diet. He is very smart. Therefore his endorsement of De Vany means more to me than a criticism of the De Vany guidelines coming from someone much younger than me who never had metabolic issues. Dr. Harris is close to my age, but has never been never fat. De Vany has never been fat either, but his guidelines work for the most metabolically challenged and have the longest record of success that I know about.

I do think that Professor De Vany has cleared up some contentious points, but he only does that on his blog, so if you are not a subscriber, you are missing out. It's like $40 a year- not a lot for even a cheapskate like me who used to get around paying the fee by coming into the blog via a google search before he closed that loophole.

I remember in response to one poster who wrote that he ate a lot of eggs with the yolks everyday from his own hens, Professor De Vany wrote that (paraphrasing here) the poster's activity level probably mitigated all the fat he was taking in, but that most people who eat lots of eggs with the yolks are getting a surge of fat to their system. Then they get in their cars to go to office jobs where they just sit around. So in that context, which prevails for many people (all the people not employed in physically demanding jobs), eating lots of yolks is problematic. He explained more of the science, but I need to find that info and quote him directly since i am science-challenged :(

FEBRUARY 4, 2011 4:56 AM

v/vmary said...

Hi again!
Chris Masterjohn wrote: "Usually when people explain a psychological trait as something that "began in evolutionary times" with an adaptive function, they are suggesting it is a heritable adaptation. If that is not what De Vany meant, and he personally corrects me, or someone can convince me from something he has written that this is not what he meant, I will gladly change it."

De Vany does not use any words on page 179 indicating that the attitude towards fat people is heritable. I would never have that interpretation because, as far as I know, *no one* makes the claims that attitudes are biological heritable. Where did you hear that concept? Could you site some references? Ideas/attitudes/culture are passed down through time, yes, but this is not a function of heritability. Just because he used the phrase "...began during evolutionary times..." you went off on that tangent? I just took that phrase to me in the early period of the evolution of homo sapiens.

out of my league grappling with the anti-De Vany faction

Chris Masterjohn has a negative review of Professor De Vany's book. Professor De Vany has already said that there are mistakes in the book that he inadvertently let slip during the proofreading process. He does not prefer white meat over red. He does not recommend canola or castor oil. Probably a few other things. He is pro low-fat, though.

When I get lost in the technical stuff, I have to judge a reviewer's thought process on those areas I can grasp. There were several places where I thought CM's reasoning was off. This tends to make me think he is also off on the technical/scientific side that I don't follow as easily, but I can't be 100% sure of that.

Here are some places he demonstrated weird reasoning which made me dubious about the quality of his reasoning in areas harder for me to grasp:

Chris Masterjohn said: "My point was not where he is placing blame, but that he was offering "just so" stories reducing cultural beliefs to *heritable* evolutionary adaptations with no evidence other than creative stories." I must be lacking sensitivity to language, so be patient with me, but where does Professor De Vany say that the propensity to judge obese people harshly was a heritable adaptation? Your

Also you missed my point about age completely. It is because our bodies don't generally run as well when we are older (say 40s on) compared to when we are younger. That is why an older person who does well on a diet with all the metabolic issues they have to struggle through has more credibility than a 20 something with a less metabolically challenged body. Now if you show me a 20 something who was very obese and diabetic who did well on the diet you recommend, that would also carry a lot of weight. Was my point really that hard to understand? Did you really think I was saying I listen to my elders just because they are elderly? Where is the rolling eyes emoticon???

FEBRUARY 3, 2011 7:59 PM