"tert in seattle" > wrote in message
...
> Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Susan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> x-no-arhive: yes
>>>
>>> On 1/23/2014 9:17 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>> So using the ?divide by 18 rule that is:
>>>>
>>>> FASTING level should be below 131/18 = 7.27
>>>>
>>>> Average below 154/18 = 8.5
>>>>
>>>> Peak after meals below 180/18 = 10
>>>>
>>>> Wow! That makes it all much easier to manage) I was panicking at
>>>> everything over 7 after meals))
>>>>
>>>
>>> Those numbers are way too high and represent severe risks of diabetic
>>> damage and earlier mortality.
>>
>> I'll take them along to the practice nurse in March and see what she
>> thinks.
>> She said at the last check the last numbers were below the diabetic
>> range!
>> I asked if that meant there was no diabetes and therefore no need to be
>> under her care, she said once you are diagnosed, you will always be
>> checked
>> so I am still checking my numbers each day!
>
> please disregard Susan's hyperventialing - you are fine, probably just
> need to lose a little weight, sub veggies for pepperoni on pizza and
> things
> like that, sit less often (even consider a standing desk), and go for a
> nice 30 minute walk on as many days of clement weather as possible
>
> and continue to monitor your glucose

I don't usually agree with Susan on anything but I will agree with her on
this one. Those numbers are oo high! For most people, 140 is the highest
they would *ever* want to be. Some might want to use 160. But 131 fasting?
Eek! No, no. Not that I'm claiming my numbers to always be in range. For
sure they are not. I also have neuropathy (nerve damage) to my feet and
legs, gastroparesis (nerve damage to the stomach), tooth and gum damage and
now bleeding in my eyes. All from high BG. Not that I'm not trying to
lower it. I am. It's just that nothing seems to be working for me very
well. Am for sure doing better than I was. But control could be a lot
better.