mdginzo wrote:
> Carmen, up until 2000 I was fairly healthy. No hypertension. My BP
> shot up due to the pain of the ribs. I had elevated kidney function
> that year with I thought was due to the elevated BP. After seeing a
> few doctors I learned that having a high BP for a few weeks does not
> cause kidney damage. I never had kidney damage nor high BP before. I
> dont have high BP now 5 years later. The kidney damage - if caused by
> diabtes - would appear long before 2000 since I was a diabetic for 20
> years. BP being ruled out and diiabetes ( I have no other diabetic
> symptoms), then the diet (Atkins) is the only thing that could have
> damaged the kidneys nd that makes medical sense. That is not to say
> that eebryone that goes on Atkins gets kidney damage. It is merely one
> of the dangers of a fad diet.

Mark, you were a diabetic with out of control BG levels:

"I am a diet-controlled diabetic going on a 5-day hike. I use no
insulin
right now and am on a low-carb diet. I keep my blood-sugar at about 170
or below even though I only test it when I have had excess carbs"

The above post you wrote in 1997. Good God, *170*? What on earth were
you thinking? What doctor told you that was an acceptable BG level to
aim for? My doc would have kittens if I had a single BG level reading
that high. Those are levels that rob you of eyesight and kidneys and
feet. You were lucky your kidneys lasted as long as they did.

Mark, I don't know what else to say. You've got some odd ideas about
kidney disease and diabetes. The "kidney scarring" you seem to think
is somehow different than diabetes and hypertension caused kidney
disease isn't. It's too late to save your kidneys, but if you are
still with the endo who is telling you that post-prandials of 170 are
okay then run like hell and find somebody with a clue. They've already
probably cost you your kidneys. There are diabetes newsgroups that
have a lot of information, and you *really* need good information.

Carmen