Higher fasting blood glucose levels

[reshkool]

Hi,

I am 31 yr old woman. I had a gestational Diabetes in my preganancy. It took 4-5 months to get readings normal after delivery.

Now it has been 3 yrs.

And I started checking blood sugar again. Most of the time I check only fasting sugar. It is always more that 110 and upto 125. Twice it was around 140.

And sometimes I check after 2 hrs post dinner. It always comes in the normal range 120-130

The thing i noticed is, if my after dinner reading is 129 then morning one will be 126-128. Not much of a difference.

I yet to go to doctor and tell this result.
But what I want to ask is, is this diabetes?

because my father has the same type of thing. His fasting BG level is always high. Sometime above 130 but after meal (even if he had sugary thing) it is in the normal range. And his doctor keeps telling him that he does not have diabetes. He does not take any medicine and this condition is for last 20 yrs. He walks a lot though. he even had a surgery 10 yrs back and recovered very fast.

So what about my situation? Am i diabetic?

Is this common to anybody? Like fasting BG is always high and after meal is normal?

Does anybody know reason about this?

[KvonM]

these are all questions you should really be asking a doctor, not us. honestly, even if i knew the answers, i'd be reluctant to give them to you because i'm NOT a medical professional, so giving any kind of advice would be dangerous.

is there a reason you haven't seen your doctor yet? do you have an appointment scheduled? does your doctor's office have a number you can call for questions, where you can talk to a nurse and tell them your concerns?

[Lisa N]

Reshkool, I very much suggest you pay your doctor a visit. Readings of 120-130 are not normal even 2 hours after a meal. Those are target ranges for someone who already has diabetes, not normal ranges for a healthy person.
Fasting readings that are consistantly over 100 should be investigated also.

The ranges for fasting blood glucose are:

normal: 70-100
pre-diabetes/impaired glucose tolerance: 100-125
diabetic: 125 and up

[Daryl]

You could be experiencing "dawn phenomenon", which would explain the morning highs. Here's a link that discusses it:

http://www.diabetic-talk.org/dp.htm

I would go have a A1c test done; it tells you what your blood sugars have averaged over a 90 day period.

[angiemama]

The best test to determine if you are diabetic, insulin resistant is a GTT. If you had gestational diabeties, you probabley had this done. You ingest a lot of sugar, then have your blood taken before, at 1 hour, 2 hour, 3 hour (and sometimes more)
An A1c is not that accurate. Mine was completely normal, but my GTT came back as pre-diabetic, or insulin resistant. A1c is great a great test for a person who has already been given a diagnosis. I have to have one every 3 months. It can help determine what kinds of medications you may need to take, if any at all. I am lucky enough to be able to control this through diet.
If you do take the GTT, remember to schedule it a week in advance and eat a higher carb diet during that time. If you do low carb, your results will not be accurate.
I hope that helps. :D

[pauleo]

If you do take the GTT, remember to schedule it a week in advance and eat a higher carb diet during that time. If you do low carb, your results will not be accurate.

How is it not accurate - you mean low-carb will lower blood sugars even during the test, so that blood glucose problems are not so evident? Or that low-carbing prior to the test will cause a big spike in BG when ingesting some sugar for the test?

[Lisa N]

How is it not accurate - you mean low-carb will lower blood sugars even during the test, so that blood glucose problems are not so evident? Or that low-carbing prior to the test will cause a big spike in BG when ingesting some sugar for the test?

The latter is more likely to occur. When you are low carbing, hitting your body with a large glucose jolt such as you would get during a typical GTT can cause an exaggerated response and lead to a false result.
Dr. Atkins suggested that anyone considering having such a test should eat at least 150 grams of carb per day for at least 3-4 days prior to the test for it to be considered accurate.

[CNYMom]

This is a very important point, and not one that a lot of doctors and/or lab techs will know. I didn't know, and ended up getting labeled diabetic, which I am still fighting. If you have to take the test, Dr. A recommends a minimum of 150g/carbs per day (I think that's right, someone please correct me if I'm wrong) for a minimum of 4 days before you take it.

[pauleo]

This seems to go beyond the GTT test into the subject of low-carb eating for everyone (i.e. diabetic and non-diabetic). Low-carbing makes the body less able to control blood sugar (when a jolt of sugar comes along, one is going to get a bigger spike in BG than would happen on a medium-carb diet). So it's a bad idea to low-carb with occasional sweet foods, something I'm sure a lot of non-diabetic low-carb people do. Hum let me rephrase it, at least I have had that habit. Does it seem correct reasoning?

[reshkool]

Thanks everybody for all these wonderful responses.

Yes. I still have to take appointment. It is just my schedule is crazy right now so I was delaying.
Anyway will make an appointment soon.

I guess I am diabetic. So lets get it checked out.

[kneebrace]

This seems to go beyond the GTT test into the subject of low-carb eating for everyone (i.e. diabetic and non-diabetic). Low-carbing makes the body less able to control blood sugar (when a jolt of sugar comes along, one is going to get a bigger spike in BG than would happen on a medium-carb diet). So it's a bad idea to low-carb with occasional sweet foods, something I'm sure a lot of non-diabetic low-carb people do. Hum let me rephrase it, at least I have had that habit. Does it seem correct reasoning?

If insulin sensitivity is improved by long term low carbing, why does the occasional jolt of sugar cause unusually high BG spikes? Wouldn't the opposite occur?

[angiemama]

In my personal experience, If I have been true to my low carb plan for sometime, and I go off and have a sugary treat, I have less of a spike. The GTT is based on drinking a liquid that has 100g glucose, and you have to drink it fasting. This really isn't any comparison for real life eating or splurging on the LC diet.

[pauleo]

Is being pre-diabetic permanent? I have read about two factors involved in diabetes - the number of beta cells in the pancreas, and insulin resistance whereby cells are resistant to absorbing glucose when insulin instructs them to. If I understand correctly, beta cells that are gone won't ever return so that can't be helped, but changes to diet and exercise will reduce insulin resistance so that the remaining beta cells don't have such a heavy load. This would mean you can partly improve pre-diabetes but not completely repair it - is that correct?

...my GTT came back as pre-diabetic, or insulin resistant. I am lucky enough to be able to control this through diet.

[ElleH]

I have to say that I don't understand that reasoning that LC makes it harder to deal with sugar. I had 3 GTT's while LCing (I did not alter the way I ate one bit for it) and my sugars were still OK

[pauleo]

The GTT is based on drinking a liquid that has 100g glucose, and you have to drink it fasting. This really isn't any comparison for real life eating or splurging on the LC diet.

It sounds like a way to make the average low-carber be sick! :daze:

[CNYMom]

I had 3 GTT's while LCing (I did not alter the way I ate one bit for it) and my sugars were still OK

For the same reason you turn ketostix consistently purple, and I don't change their colour at all: every body is different. Dr. A (and others) quite clearly state that ramping up to 150 or so grams of carbs per day for 4 days before a GTT is recommended, because to do otherwise may result in unreliable results.

It may be that your results were higher than they would have been had you not been lc'ing, but still within the normal range. It could be that what your doctor read as "normal range", another read as "pre-diabetic" or "diabetic", because the threshholds have recently changed (lower). Different doctors read things differently, as well.

Everybody is different, and every body is different.

[angiemama]

The way I understand it is that insulin resistant or pre-diabetes is completely cureable. It can be caused by excess fat. I guess each persons case is different and varies. I am not an expert on the subject at all. I just know that I do control it with diet, and my A1c's are normal (which is really good) and my BG's are all normal now.
I hope it is reversable. All 4 of my grandparents had/have type II, so it is an inherited factor as well as caused by my fat.

[Daryl]

I would agree that pre-diabetes can be reversed, if not totally, then to a large degree; of course, this doesn't mean one can eat whatever they want and expect things to stay reversed.

And I read that Dr. Atkins had a patient that was a full-blown diabetic, taking insulin, and after he lost over one-hundred pounds, his diabetes resolved itself (meaning for all intents and purposes he was cured of diabetes). As Dr Atkins said, miracles can happen.

(If anyone recognizes the above story, and knows which book it was in, please let me know.... I know I read it, but now I can't find it).

[NorthPeace]

I would agree that pre-diabetes can be reversed, if not totally, then to a large degree;...

And I read that Dr. Atkins had a patient that was a full-blown diabetic, taking insulin, and after he lost over one-hundred pounds, his diabetes resolved itself (meaning for all intents and purposes he was cured of diabetes). ...

(If anyone recognizes the above story, and knows which book it was in, please let me know.... I know I read it, but now I can't find it).
Hehe, I recognize that story; it looks like my story. I had two FG tests, at 128 and 133, and failed a GTT. I made an appointment to see my doctor in a followup to start a whole regimen of I am afraid to ask what, but he could not make the appointment. His substitute he recommended that since I was just over the line, I should go with diet. I lost 32 lbs and recently got a glucometer. I now average 97 before breakfast, 113 after dinner. It would appear that my diabetes 'reversed', all the way back to high normal in about two months time. :agree:

[CNYMom]

I can tell you that when I was diagnosed as diabetic (more likely pre-diabetic) over a year ago, my FBGs were in the 110-118 range even on meds. Now, 50 pounds lighter, I am off meds and my FBG this morning was 85. Those first pounds were impossible to take off until I was put on Metformin, and even then I plateaued at 195 or so for 4 months before I sucked it up and went on strict M&E, and even then I lost about 8 pounds in 6 weeks. Lately, though, things have been changing. In the last two weeks, I've lost 8 pounds. I exercise regularly (something that has proved to be critical for my weight loss), and I still rarely eat more than 12g carbs daily.

I am still IR, but I believe I am much less IR than I was 50 pounds ago. It took time and perserverence, and it took facing many moments when I actually thought my metabolism was too broken to ever lose weight again. I proved myself wrong, at least so far :)

Oh, and I should add... I've been off Metformin for over a month now.

[Daryl]

NorthPeace and CNYmom, good for both of you :)

Weight loss can indeed make a huge difference; it takes a lot of pressure off the pancreas.

[reshkool]

Thanks u guys...

I guess I should get serious about exercising.
And I am going to see my doctor as well

Thanks again.

That is really useful information