arnie macy

I recognize that there are different approaches to diet, and many
professionals don't trust low-carbing, etc, but tht is not my concern here.
what is, is setting to low a goal for blood glucose numbers, telling me that
180 is OK 2 hours after a meal, etc. You can say, eat carbs and take more
meds, but say "keep your numbers down." I may not agree with the higher
carb approach(for me it was too difficult to get the good control I wanted),
but maybe for some it is fine, particularly if they have a hard time cutting
back on food intake. It is those bgs that I worry about, as do most of us
here on the list. Why not aim for as close to normal as possible, even on
the more difficul meds like insulin. You may have to aim for a somewhat
hight=er number, but still aim! For those without those meds, aim for
normal, except,perhaps,on your birthday:-)
__________________________________________________ _______________________

I'm with you on this, Wendy. I don't like the 180 number at all. I think
it's way too high. The problem, as I see it, is that most experts (and the
ADA) tend to concentrate on the problems of Type 1's. That's okay, but all
of us type 2's need reliable guidance as well. Since we generally don't
control our BG's with insulin, we have to have even *more* discipline if we
want to have tight control. As part of my thoughts in this thread, I was
wondering out loud -- Just when is that reliable science based guidance
going to happen?

Arnie -

kaci

discipline if we

I was

guidance


If word gets out that good control of bg is an attainable, realistic
goal that could result in *decreased dependency on meds* for
diabetics, well...
Can't have that, now can we, Big Pharm? kaci

julie bove

I do think it matters how you get there, because you could consume nothing
but diet soda and butter and have normal numbers. I think it's very
important to have a healthy diet. I agree with you fully on the meds thing
though. I've been on meds, then off then back on and now on still more. In
my case, there is more to the BG situation than the diabetes itself. Right
now I need the meds.

Unfortunately, I am unable to envision a day where the majority of us
diabetics will be in control. Sure would be nice if it could happen, but I
see very little changes being made. At least once a week, I pick up a
magazine and see some article on diabetes and am appalled at some of the
stories I read. Like about the ****s who are getting type 2, and the
parents think all that needs to be done is to take a pill. They don't have
the kid change their diet and they feel they will outgrow this. These kind
of articles only do harm and not good.

--
Type 2
http://users.bestweb.net/~jbove/

ronnie ruff

Julie Bove scribbled these tid bits


Sure you are right about a diet of only diet soda but my point is if you
have high number you most likely will get complications, that is a proven
fact.

So IMHO if you have to eat higher than normal ammounts of fat, protein or
carbs to get those almost or normal numbers one needs to do that. If it
takes meds to get there good, if it means insulin.. good. No matter how it
happens your chances of getting into old age with no complications depend
on it.

I think we agree for the most part, I just hate to see folks struggle to
get even close to normal numbers because they don't wish to take meds.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ronnie_in_dc
(IPs recorded on messageboard posters)
RR~

There is no place like ~/

kaci

And what high horse would that be? I don't know how you could have
inferred what you did from what I wrote, but so be it. I am not
against medication-- it brought my bgs down from dangerous levels not
very long ago and if I need it forever, I'm there. But if a diabetic
finds that s/he requires less meds because of adherence to their d&e
program-- how is that a bad thing? On a huge scale, the only ones who
stand to lose are the pharmaceutical companies, through reduced sales.

You'd be surprised-- or maybe not-- at the number of people who are
content to just let diabetes "happen" to them, and expect medicine to
compensate for eating habits they refuse to let go, or modify. There
have been several such folks in my own family. I don't see the medical
community discouraging that sort of passivity in patients, except
through ambivalent-sounding articles like those by the ADA referenced
in this thread which do more harm than good, raise more questions than
they answer.
kaci

ronnie ruff

Arnie Macy scribbled these tid bits


Where it becomes an issue for me is when any diabetic lives with less than
normal BGs in order to stay off meds.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ronnie_in_dc
(IPs recorded on messageboard posters)
RR~

There is no place like ~/

guy

Kaci I do not like the attempts at business monopoly
and the drug industry testimony at congressional hearings.

But they can only tie things up in a minor way. Have
you noted the spread of semiconductor Technology
in the last 40 years. Why? Because the technology spread
will happen. Preventing that is impossible today.

There is a problem of the funds for development. WE
cannot expect a private company to invest money
where the cannot make a profit. So where do we get the
funds for thing that do not provide short term profits?
Most CEO's today look at the six month balance sheets.

The whole thing could change except public money is
grossly wasted on red tape and "who gets what".

Personally i would put a lot more money into research
from public funds and remove public benefits from firms
that do not achieve. But I have to pay next months electric bill
so I do not qualify to even have an opinion.

WE seem to do fairly well with the screwed up mentality we
have inherited. Unfortunately I and a lot of other people
may suffer. I doubt if you or I could solve the problem if
we were the King.

Guy

kaci

Well, now that would be not only dangerous, but foolish. And not at
all where I was coming from...
kaci

julie bove

--
Type 2
http://users.bestweb.net/~jbove/

mack

and yet no pharma company is repressing the information that good D&E
are essential to maintaining good control which can lead to a
reduction and even elimination of oral meds for some diabetics. If
you have proof that the pharmas are suppressing this info please
provide it. If you don't have this proof why do you keep attacking
the pharmas who make diabetic meds?


uh and exactly who is in charge of an individual's medical team?
Hint, it's the person living with diabetes.


I don't see the medical


I see it every time I go to my endo's office. I see it every time I
go to a health fare or something that specifically centers around
diabetes topics. I see it every time I read diabetes magazines and
read several different ones.

I also see doctors who do not have enough info to help their diabetic
patients and patients who refuse to care about themselves. No medical
team can force an individual to care about themselves and follow the
proper medical advice given. And I see doctor's who settle for a
patient's mediocre attempts rather than watching that patient walk out
on them and make no attempt.

And I see individuals who follow all of their doctor's advice and
still cannot maintain control of their diabetes.

please be clear on this. exactly who are you blaming for bad diabetes
care and the individuals who do not want to make any attempt to get
good care and follow it?

Mack
Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org

In tribute to the United States of America and the State
of Israel, two bastions of strength in a world filled with strife and
terrorism.