Hey question,
Dr. Bernstein says, Normal people's fasting blood sugar ranges from 70-95

That Can be interpetted 2 different ways..
1) Take a normal person, most of the time his blood sugar will be 83, but rarely he'll wake to 70, and rarely he'll wake to 95

OR

2) Some normal people usually wake to 70, some usually wake to 95, but most wake to 83.

Which way do you guys think he meant?

I always read it like number 2, that he's saying most people's average wake is 83, some people's average wake might be 87, some people's average wake might be 75, etc. some wake to 95...

Do any totally normal ppl have regular waking bgs higher than 83? Even in the 90's? Anyone check family members who are normal and see what their BG is in the morning? Do some have low 90's yet are normal as far as glucose control? (non diabetic, not pre/GTI or anything)

I likely would have chosen #2 as well. But after collecting data on myself for well over a year, I think that #1 is closer to reality. I see my FBG drift from the 70's to the 90's even when I'm eating consistently everyday. When I was eating very low carb it tended to be in the upper 70's most days. Now that I eat more moderate carbs, I usually get FBG readings in 80's. Still - for no apparent reason it will land in the 90's one day and in the 70's the next. When I get such a big shift I often recheck it. Sometime sit is a bad reading. Sometimes it is right. So many things affect BG. I tried to figure it out, but to no avail. I see that range as a safe and healthy place to start your day. My FBG used to be consistently over 100 even while eating low carb. Now it never is. I think a lot of healing has taken place and I see my diabetes as cured.

BTW: I did check the BG of non-diabetic family members. At the time I'd read that anything under 125 was good for a diabetic. When I checked my wife and kids - seeing FBG in the 70's and 80's - I realized that under 125 was normal for a sick person. I didn't want to be sick. So with fasting and continued LC eating I got my FBG number way down. Now I eat significantly more carbs than I did 18 months ago and still have better BG numbers than I did. I get 'normal' FBG numbers from my everyday diet and that is what I was aiming for.

I also think he means number 2. He wants his patient's BG to be 83 before, during, and after meals. However, he sees his patients regularly and adminsters small amounts of insulin to keep it that way along with the diet. For most of us we're not going to have a dr. like Dr. Berstein. Even if there was one around me I couldn't afford the frequent doctor visits.

My BG also goes in cycles -- recently mine was up more than I like but that might have been my taking niacin as a supplement, which I discontinued. The other day I had routine blood and lipid tests and my FG was 74 so its back down a bit.

Very interesting thanks!

So your thinking when he said normal is 70-95, it's per person, not that some are usually 95 etc. That does make sense, as I doubt anyone has the exact FBG every day, so if someone was 95 usually, they'd probably have some at 90 and some over 100 which means things are not totally normal.

Hey that's cool, how long did you stick to low carb before your FBG was constantly in the 80's? was that the 18 month time frame you mentioned?

So now you can eat more carbs with normal numbers? Like what carb meal, and how are your 1 hour readings?

In his book though he says, post meal peak, less than 140 , I was meaning waking FBG.

74 fbg, that's really great, no meds? Just LC?

Just LC, no medications (I was diagnosed Nov. 2014 with a 8.2 A1C and never took meds -- it came down to a low of 4.9 and now it is a 5.3 A1C) but lately mine has weirdly flutuated -- for example that day it was 74, yesterday it was 86 and this morning (July 14) it was 96, VERY high for me. I generally don't have high morning (fasting) BG. It usually runs around 80 to 84. I did eat LC taco soup (from low carb Linda's site) last night and I think I will have to give that up as it must really raise my blood sugar. It has rotel tomatoes in it and has a lot of protein. I do wonder if I will eventually have to take metformin. I am curious what people's cutoff would be -- I mean for those of us not on medications I wonder what people's fasting numbers would be before they would go on meds.

I can't really be sure what he meant. But my interpretation is that a FBG reading in the 70-95 range is within a healthy zone. So many things affect it. Exercise, what you ate, when you ate, more protein than you need, more sugar than you can tolerate, etc. It is a spot check for what is going on at the time you wake up. That said, I'd say that if your average over time is on the rise your are eating too many carbs (or perhaps too much protein) on a daily basis. If your average FBG was in the low 80's five years ago, the upper 80's last year, and now in the low 90's then you are moving in the wrong direction. I have come to believe that the road to diabetes is a long one and the world only seems to get serious about it when the problem reaches a critical stage and the serious damage from extended periods of high BG starts to occur. The 'normal' western diet is too carb centric and it has been for a long time. It only got worse when fat became the villain in the 1980's. That's my 2 cents on the matter.


I'm pretty sure that I became diabetic in 2013. I had all the symptoms. But I wasn't diagnosed as a Type 2 diabetic until my annual checkup in March 2014. My A1c 6.7. I'd started my low carb diet 5 weeks before the test and I'm sure that affected the results. It was likely much higher in 2013 given my symptoms. At that checkup my FBG was 107, which my doctor considered a good number. She told me to stick with the diet and did not even prescribe BG test strips. So I didn't test my BG for a long time. At about 9 months into my LC diet, my mom (who is diabetic) sent me an extra meter and strips that she had received. That is when I started BG testing.

I was surprised to learn that my FBG had not improved much. It was still in the upper 90's and low 100's. Someone here on this form sent me some links to Dr. Fung's website and I read up on his advice for reversing diabetes. I learned about intermittent fasting and gave that a try. I did some 18 hour fasts and a one or two 24 hour fasts over the next month or two. My FBG dropped by about 20 points. I also tweaked my diet to eliminate snacking. So that built in a 12 hour fast between dinner and breakfast and I do that most everyday. This advice seemed to work as advertised. My FBG has been great ever since.


When I first started testing my BG I really got into it. I did a premeal BG reading and postprandial tests at 30 minute intervals for dozens of meals (mostly dinner). My typical dinner was only 10 to 15 net carbs at the time and I regularly got a BG spike above 140 (sometimes much higher). My peak was usually the first test (30 minutes after the meal) and then it dropped from there. These days I've had meals as high as 25 net carbs and my BG rarely cracks 100. My insulin resistance is cured -- or at least much improved. I also pay attention to the glycemic index of foods. I won't eat any higher carb food outside of a meal. I eat lots of fiber and mostly whole, natural foods. Two years ago I didn't eat bananas, apples, or starchy beans. I can work them into my diet these days without issue. I just keep my net carbs under 50 most days and all is right with the world. My world, anyway.

There is a book called "Diabetes Epidemic & You", by Dr Joseph Kraft, which will give you a very detailed and interesting answer to this question in chapter 2 which is titled, "Fasting Blood Sugar: What is Normal".
Dr Kraft has a massive database of 14,384 Oral Glucose Tolerance Tests which shows that 93% of persons with normal glucose tolerance have FBG less than 100mg/dL. However, 60% of people with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and 20% of people with diabetes mellitus glucose tolerance (DMGT) also have FBG less than 100 mg/dL.
And to answer your specific question, Dr Kraft's results indicate that 29% of people with normal glucose tolerance have FBG > 90 mg/dL.

The bottom-line conclusion is that by itself a FBG reading will not tell you definitively whether you are normal. At best it will tell you that if your FBG is less than 100mg/dL there is a 60% chance you are normal and a 40% chance that you still have IGT or DMGT.

I wonder if it's just due to low carb eating? You know how being low carb makes us way more sensitive to carbs, maybe it makes us more sensitive to protein, and all that, so it's just a variation and nothing to be concerned about? Below 100 consistently though, is great.

Man, I think most people who use Met are up a LOT more than that in the morning, most I see on D forums are 120-130 etc.

Good thoughts, and very interesting.

So (not that you'd want to) but it's possible, that if you re-adapted to carbs, you might even be able to duplicate those studies, eat a 50g carb meal and stay under 140? Even maybe pass on OGTT I wonder.

That's great, just like Berstein says, and a bunch of studies,... if you haven't had marked beta cells 'damage' you can be in effect 'cured' (reversed), that's how I wanna be, 'able' to eat more carbs, but not do it. Just so I know I'm way under my capabilities.

I just spoke with someone who mentioned they were diabetic, and was telling me that, with exercise, his BG is steady at 120, and his doctor is really pleased!

I literally could not help it: I told him that people who "do Atkins" try for BG "around 90." And he was astounded.

"Isn't Atkins bad for you?"

"Not if you are diabetic."

Awesome answer, that is very interesting. Thanks a ton for that info.!



That's great info. I bet then, people who are consistently in the low 80's, AND eat normal carb levels, are probably almost all considered normal then? Not that things can't change later, but at that point?

Man I've seen that before too, where people and docs are happy with ADA, the old fasting under 140, eeek!

My diabetic father dutifully followed his doctor's advice, and after four decades, he had heart trouble, dementia, and painful feet; all from blood sugar damage, I think.

I think they should change their advice.

Under 140 helps them live longer to keep coming back to the doctor for several years. Under 100 or over 200 would cause them to lose patients to either better health or earlier death.