Here's a copy of the recipe I got some time ago from Vicki Beausoleil:

If your beans are too watery then remove some, mash them, mix back in
and cook a bit more. Natural thickener.

Here's what I do. I never use a recipe, but this is the method.

Soak 1 lb. pea beans overnight. Change water, bring to a boil then
simmer about an hour until the skins split. Drain, put in Dutch oven
with a ton of onions, a couple of tablespoons prepared mustard, about
1/4 cup ketchup or you could use tomato paste, lots of pepper, 1/4 - 1/2
cup molasses or as much as you think you should. Cover beans with
boiling water and cook in a 200 degree F oven for at least 8 hours. Add
boiling water if necessary. Uncover and continue to bake to darken and
thicken. Stir occasionally. This recipe gets better the longer it cooks,
I've cooked it for 24 hours and it's great. I put neither meat nor
sweetener in my beans.

Very important: Don't salt anything until beans are very tender. Salt
will toughen the beans and they won't absorb water well.

This recipe makes my 8-qt. Dutch oven almost full. 15 - 20 servings at
least. They never seem to taste the same twice, but hub always gobbles
them up with a 'you should make these more often'. Excellent with eggs
for breakfast in the morning.
I've used the same method in the crockpot, but they don't darken as
much. The oven works better.

HTH

Vicki

For easy Baked Beans, you can look for "Grandmas Baked Beans". Walmart
carries them. Unlike other canned baked beans, they have very low carbs and
low sugar. They are densly packed with beans with very little liquid. I
add a little water to cook them on the stove top or in the microwave. I add
some onion powder, cayenne pepper and after the cooking is finished, I add
some sugar free maple flavored syrup (also from Walmart). They can be
pretty good if you add enough spices. Usually, I add some cooked nathans
hot dogs as well. I find about 1/3 can is my portion for lunch.
ed

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
news:CJivh.1359$Xf4.1210@trndny09...
> Here's a copy of the recipe I got some time ago from Vicki Beausoleil:
>
> If your beans are too watery then remove some, mash them, mix back in
> and cook a bit more. Natural thickener.
>
> Here's what I do. I never use a recipe, but this is the method.
>
> Soak 1 lb. pea beans overnight. Change water, bring to a boil then
> simmer about an hour until the skins split. Drain, put in Dutch oven
> with a ton of onions, a couple of tablespoons prepared mustard, about
> 1/4 cup ketchup or you could use tomato paste, lots of pepper, 1/4 - 1/2
> cup molasses or as much as you think you should. Cover beans with
> boiling water and cook in a 200 degree F oven for at least 8 hours. Add
> boiling water if necessary. Uncover and continue to bake to darken and
> thicken. Stir occasionally. This recipe gets better the longer it cooks,
> I've cooked it for 24 hours and it's great. I put neither meat nor
> sweetener in my beans.
>
> Very important: Don't salt anything until beans are very tender. Salt
> will toughen the beans and they won't absorb water well.
>
> This recipe makes my 8-qt. Dutch oven almost full. 15 - 20 servings at
> least. They never seem to taste the same twice, but hub always gobbles
> them up with a 'you should make these more often'. Excellent with eggs
> for breakfast in the morning.
> I've used the same method in the crockpot, but they don't darken as
> much. The oven works better.
>
> HTH
>
> Vicki
>

"Ed" <ekirstein*nospammers*catskill.net> wrote in message
...
: For easy Baked Beans, you can look for "Grandmas Baked Beans". Walmart
: carries them. Unlike other canned baked beans, they have very low carbs
and
: low sugar. They are densly packed with beans with very little liquid. I
: add a little water to cook them on the stove top or in the microwave. I
add
: some onion powder, cayenne pepper and after the cooking is finished, I add
: some sugar free maple flavored syrup (also from Walmart). They can be
: pretty good if you add enough spices. Usually, I add some cooked nathans
: hot dogs as well. I find about 1/3 can is my portion for lunch.
: ed


How many carbs do these have? and how much sugar?


--
"I don't think it's appropriate to say that you disapprove of a mission and
you don't want to fund it and you don't want it to go, but yet you don't
take the action necessary to prevent it," said McCain, top Republican on the
Senate Armed Services Committee and a 2008 presidential candidate from
Arizona.

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the
strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face
is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs
and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without
error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great
devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best,
knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the
worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his
place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither
victory nor defeat."
Theodore Roosevelt
Source:Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910


I want to see you shoot the way you shout.
Theodore Roosevelt
Source:Speech Madison Square, Oct 1917

Ed wrote:
> For easy Baked Beans, you can look for "Grandmas Baked
Beans".
> Walmart carries them. Unlike other canned baked beans,
they have
> very low carbs and low sugar.

How many carbs? Beans alone generally have significant carbs
by themselves.

--
"I don't think it's appropriate to say that you disapprove of a mission and
you don't want to fund it and you don't want it to go, but yet you don't
take the action necessary to prevent it," said McCain, top Republican on the
Senate Armed Services Committee and a 2008 presidential candidate from
Arizona.

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the
strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face
is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs
and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without
error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great
devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best,
knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the
worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his
place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither
victory nor defeat."
Theodore Roosevelt
Source:Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910


Backing It Up
I want to see you shoot the way you shout.
Theodore Roosevelt
Source:Speech Madison Square, Oct 1917


"Ozgirl" > wrote in message
...
| Ed wrote:
| > For easy Baked Beans, you can look for "Grandmas Baked
| Beans".
| > Walmart carries them. Unlike other canned baked beans,
| they have
| > very low carbs and low sugar.
|
| How many carbs? Beans alone generally have significant carbs
| by themselves.
|

That's why I'm asking. Ed said "Grandmas Baked Beans were very low carb"

Ok, here's the data off the can

Serving Size 1/2 Cup:
Total Carbs 28g
Dietary Fiber 8g
Net Carbs 20g
Sugars 3g

Compare that sugar number to most other baked beans with all sorts of
sweeteners added.
Taking some advice from the posters in the other baked beans thread, I made
these beans today with:
Onion powder
Cayenne pepper
Artificial Smoke flavoring
Worstershire sauce

I left out the sugar free syrup and i've got to say, this was the best I've
had since I'd been using these beans.
ed


"DesertHare" > wrote in message
...
> "Ed" <ekirstein*nospammers*catskill.net> wrote in message
> ...
> : For easy Baked Beans, you can look for "Grandmas Baked Beans". Walmart
> : carries them. Unlike other canned baked beans, they have very low carbs
> and
> : low sugar. They are densly packed with beans with very little liquid.
> I
> : add a little water to cook them on the stove top or in the microwave. I
> add
> : some onion powder, cayenne pepper and after the cooking is finished, I
> add
> : some sugar free maple flavored syrup (also from Walmart). They can be
> : pretty good if you add enough spices. Usually, I add some cooked
> nathans
> : hot dogs as well. I find about 1/3 can is my portion for lunch.
> : ed
>
>
> How many carbs do these have? and how much sugar?
>
>
> --
> "I don't think it's appropriate to say that you disapprove of a mission
> and
> you don't want to fund it and you don't want it to go, but yet you don't
> take the action necessary to prevent it," said McCain, top Republican on
> the
> Senate Armed Services Committee and a 2008 presidential candidate from
> Arizona.
>
> "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the
> strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better.
> The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face
> is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs
> and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without
> error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great
> devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best,
> knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the
> worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his
> place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither
> victory nor defeat."
> Theodore Roosevelt
> Source:Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
>
>
> I want to see you shoot the way you shout.
> Theodore Roosevelt
> Source:Speech Madison Square, Oct 1917
>
>

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 23:30:05 -0500, "Ed"
<ekirstein*nospammers*catskill.net> wrote:

>Ok, here's the data off the can
>
>Serving Size 1/2 Cup:
>Total Carbs 28g
>Dietary Fiber 8g
>Net Carbs 20g
>Sugars 3g
>
>Compare that sugar number to most other baked beans with all sorts of
>sweeteners added.

The sugar number is irrelevant. Two numbers matter the
Net Carbs: 20gm per half-cup
And the number on your meter about an hour later.

>Taking some advice from the posters in the other baked beans thread, I made
>these beans today with:
>Onion powder
>Cayenne pepper
>Artificial Smoke flavoring
>Worstershire sauce
>
>I left out the sugar free syrup and i've got to say, this was the best I've
>had since I'd been using these beans.
>ed
>
>
Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Epidaurus

In article >,
"Ed" <ekirstein*nospammers*catskill.net> wrote:

> Ok, here's the data off the can
>
> Serving Size 1/2 Cup:
> Total Carbs 28g
> Dietary Fiber 8g
> Net Carbs 20g
> Sugars 3g
>
> Compare that sugar number to most other baked beans with all sorts of
> sweeteners added.

Who cares what the sugar number is? It's the total carbs minus the
fiber that you want to look at. That's what will quickly turn to
glucose when you eat it.

Priscilla

I must disagree with your generalization. There are carbs that convert to
sugar quickly and carbs that convert slowly. Hence, the GI Index and GI
load. I can usually tolerate some extra carbs as long as the sugars are
low. Of course, it's a personal thing and must be checked with your own
meter.
ed

"Priscilla H. Ballou" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Ed" <ekirstein*nospammers*catskill.net> wrote:
>
>> Ok, here's the data off the can
>>
>> Serving Size 1/2 Cup:
>> Total Carbs 28g
>> Dietary Fiber 8g
>> Net Carbs 20g
>> Sugars 3g
>>
>> Compare that sugar number to most other baked beans with all sorts of
>> sweeteners added.
>
> Who cares what the sugar number is? It's the total carbs minus the
> fiber that you want to look at. That's what will quickly turn to
> glucose when you eat it.
>
> Priscilla

On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:20:14 -0500, "Ed"
<ekirstein*nospammers*catskill.net> wrote:

>I must disagree with your generalization. There are carbs that convert to
>sugar quickly and carbs that convert slowly. Hence, the GI Index and GI
>load. I can usually tolerate some extra carbs as long as the sugars are
>low. Of course, it's a personal thing and must be checked with your own
>meter.
>ed

Whether they convert fast or slow - they still convert. So,
what is the advantage that you see in slow conversion?

Incidentally, many carbs convert at least as quickly as
sugar.

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Epidaurus

Alan S > wrote:
: On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:20:14 -0500, "Ed"
: <ekirstein*nospammers*catskill.net> wrote:

: >I must disagree with your generalization. There are carbs that convert to
: >sugar quickly and carbs that convert slowly. Hence, the GI Index and GI
: >load. I can usually tolerate some extra carbs as long as the sugars are
: >low. Of course, it's a personal thing and must be checked with your own
: >meter.
: >ed

: Whether they convert fast or slow - they still convert. So,
: what is the advantage that you see in slow conversion?

: Incidentally, many carbs convert at least as quickly as
: sugar.

: Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
: d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
: Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
: --
: http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
: http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
: latest: Epidaurus

theoretically, if you eat a mixture of carbs, some fst acting andsome slow
acting and don't overdo either, you don't get a spike as one kicks in as
the other kicks out. this is theory, but often doesn't work out in
practice. YMMV The oly wa to know if a particular combo works for you ks
test, test, test!

Wendy

If you ate the same number of carbs worth of glucose and lentils. You will
spike big time from the glucose and not spike (for many type 2's) from the
lentils. That's why there are good carbs and bad carbs. I thought this was
basic diabetes 101. I'm surprised there's anyone questioning this.

"Alan S" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:20:14 -0500, "Ed"
> <ekirstein*nospammers*catskill.net> wrote:
>
>>I must disagree with your generalization. There are carbs that convert to
>>sugar quickly and carbs that convert slowly. Hence, the GI Index and GI
>>load. I can usually tolerate some extra carbs as long as the sugars are
>>low. Of course, it's a personal thing and must be checked with your own
>>meter.
>>ed
>
> Whether they convert fast or slow - they still convert. So,
> what is the advantage that you see in slow conversion?
>
> Incidentally, many carbs convert at least as quickly as
> sugar.
>
> Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
> d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
> Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
> --
> http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
> http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
> latest: Epidaurus

In article >,
"Ed" <ekirstein*nospammers*catskill.net> wrote:

> If you ate the same number of carbs worth of glucose and lentils. You will
> spike big time from the glucose and not spike (for many type 2's) from the
> lentils. That's why there are good carbs and bad carbs. I thought this was
> basic diabetes 101. I'm surprised there's anyone questioning this.
>
People question it based on the evidence of our blood glucose meters.
People told me that oatmeal was a good carb. That's as may be. My blood
sugar peaked well over 200 mg/dl and my hands got all tingly.

For many of the good carbs, the portion size that would *not* cause a
spike is so small as to be not worth bothering with. Beans and lentils
have to be condiments for me to be able to eat them. That is, if I make
chili from about 2.5 or 3 lbs of meat, I can throw in a can of beans.
The can says it has 3.5 servings of beans, but the chili comes out to 7
generous servings; I could easily have stretched it to 8 or 9 servings.

This is graduate level diabetes.

--
AF
"Non Sequitur U has a really, really lousy debate team."
--artyw raises the bar on rec.sport.baseball

x-no-achive: yes

Alan Moorman wrote:

> And, there is a question about this:
>
> is a fast, high spike which comes and goes quickly better or
> worse for you than...
>
> a long, slow rise in your bG?
>
> Does ANYONE really know if 45 minutes of high is worse for
> you than 3 hours of medium?
>
> I doubt it.
>
> Someone, undoubtedly will respond saying something like: "It
> stands to reason that......"
>
> Or: "Common sense says.........."
>
> But, has ANYONE ever researched this?????
>
>
> Alan Moorman


From phlaunt.com/diabetes

Prolonged Exposure to Blood Sugars Over 140 mg/dl (7.8 mmol/L) Kills
Human Beta Cells
Another series of experiments on beta cells grown in culture showed that
there is a threshold over which the damage to beta cells caused by
exposure to elevated blood sugars becomes irreversible. It found that
amount of damage cells sustained in genes that produced insulin depended
on the concentration of glucose they were exposed to. The effect was
continuous, not a threshold effect--meaning that the more glucose the
cell was grown in, the more function it lost.

In a second experiment, the same researchers took cells damaged by
exposure to high blood sugars and moved them to media that had a lower
concentration of blood sugar. They found the cells could survive and
recover after being moved to a growth medium containing a much lower
concentration of glucose, but only if the switch was made before a
certain amount of time had passed. Once the cells had been exposed to
glucose for that fatal time period, they could no longer be revived.


In an email to me, R. Paul Robertson, one of authors of this study
wrote, "I think the glucose toxic effects begin when blood glucose gets
above 140 and probably earlier." However, he also explained that while
studies with diabetic rats could better quantify the blood sugar levels
at which this irreversible damage occurs, these rats cost $200 apiece
and a lot of rats would be required. So such a project is not planned
for any time soon.



Catherine E. Gleason, Michael Gonzalez, Jamie S. Harmon, and R. Paul
Robertson. Determinants of glucose toxicity and its reversibility in
pancreatic islet Beta-cell line, HIT-T15. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab
279: E997-E1002, 2000

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/co...act/279/5/E997

******

Original Article
The postprandial state and risk of cardiovascular disease
P.J. Lefèbvre *, A.J. Scheen
Division of Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolic Disorders, Department of
Medicine, University of Liège, Belgium


*Correspondence to P.J. Lefèbvre, Division of Diabetes, Nutrition and
Metabolic Disorders, Department of Medicine, University of Liège, Belgium

Conference: 5th International Symposium on Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus:
Breaking the Barriers for Improved Glycaemic Control, Copenhagen, 7
December 1998 to 8 December 1998. Novo Nordisk.

Keywords
postprandial state • hyperglycaemia • impaired glucose tolerance •
lipidaemia • cardiovascular disease • diabetes mellitus


Abstract
Metabolism in man is regulated by complex hormonal signals and substrate
interactions, and for many years the clinical focus has centred on the
metabolic and hormonal picture after an overnight fast. More recently,
the postprandial state, i.e. the period that comprises and follows a
meal, has received more attention. The oral glucose tolerance test
(OGTT), although highly non-physiological, has been used largely as a
model of the postprandial state. Epidemiological studies have shown
that, when impaired, oral glucose tolerance is associated with an
increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Postprandial hyperlipidaemia
has been investigated more recently in epidemiological, mechanistical
and intervention studies, most of which indicate that high postprandial
triglyceride levels, and particularly postprandial rich triglyceride
remnants, constitute an increased risk for cardiovascular disease.
Recent studies have shown that excessive postprandial glucose excursions
are accompanied by oxidative stress and, less well known, activation of
blood coagulation (increase in circulating D-dimers and prothrombin
fragments). The mechanisms through which increased postprandial glucose
levels and lipid concentrations may damage endothelial cells on blood
vessel walls appear to be complex. These mechanisms include the
activation of protein kinase C, increased expression of adhesion
molecules, increased adhesion and uptake of leucocytes, increased
production of proliferative substances such as endothelin, increased
proliferation of endothelial cells, increased synthesis of collagen IV
and fibronectin, and decreased production of nitric oxide (NO). In
conclusion, the postprandial state cumulatively covers almost half of
the nycthemeral (*DAILY*) period, and its physiology involves numerous
finely regulated motor, secretory, hormonal and metabolic events.
Epidemiological and mechanistical studies have suggested that
perturbations of the postprandial state are involved in cardiovascular
disease. Correcting the abnormalities of the postprandial state must
form part of the strategy for the prevention and management of
cardiovascular diseases, particularly those that are associated with
diabetes mellitus. Copyright © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received: 3 September 1998; Accepted: 7 September 1998
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1002/(SICI)1096-9136(1998120)15:4+<S63::AID-DIA737>3.0.CO;2-7 About DOI

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:48:11 -0500, Susan >
wrote:

>x-no-achive: yes
>
>Alan Moorman wrote:
>
>> And, there is a question about this:
>>
>> is a fast, high spike which comes and goes quickly better or
>> worse for you than...
>>
>> a long, slow rise in your bG?
>>
>> Does ANYONE really know if 45 minutes of high is worse for
>> you than 3 hours of medium?
>>
>> I doubt it.
>>
>> Someone, undoubtedly will respond saying something like: "It
>> stands to reason that......"
>>
>> Or: "Common sense says.........."
>>
>> But, has ANYONE ever researched this?????
>>
>>
>> Alan Moorman
>
>
> From phlaunt.com/diabetes
>
>Prolonged Exposure to Blood Sugars Over 140 mg/dl (7.8 mmol/L) Kills
>Human Beta Cells
>Another series of experiments on beta cells grown in culture showed that
>there is a threshold over which the damage to beta cells caused by
>exposure to elevated blood sugars becomes irreversible. It found that
>amount of damage cells sustained in genes that produced insulin depended
>on the concentration of glucose they were exposed to. The effect was
>continuous, not a threshold effect--meaning that the more glucose the
>cell was grown in, the more function it lost.
>
>In a second experiment, the same researchers took cells damaged by
>exposure to high blood sugars and moved them to media that had a lower
>concentration of blood sugar. They found the cells could survive and
>recover after being moved to a growth medium containing a much lower
>concentration of glucose, but only if the switch was made before a
>certain amount of time had passed. Once the cells had been exposed to
>glucose for that fatal time period, they could no longer be revived.
>
>
>In an email to me, R. Paul Robertson, one of authors of this study
>wrote, "I think the glucose toxic effects begin when blood glucose gets
>above 140 and probably earlier." However, he also explained that while
>studies with diabetic rats could better quantify the blood sugar levels
>at which this irreversible damage occurs, these rats cost $200 apiece
>and a lot of rats would be required. So such a project is not planned
>for any time soon.

$200 Lab Rats? Are they getting these creatures from the same
supplier the US Govt uses to procure toilet seats? Yipes. In all
seriousness. Why would a lab rat cost so much? Someone please
educate me on this one.


<snip - see original post for credits>

In article >,
wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:48:11 -0500, Susan >
> wrote:
>
> >x-no-achive: yes
> >
> >Alan Moorman wrote:
> >
> >> And, there is a question about this:
> >>
> >> is a fast, high spike which comes and goes quickly better or
> >> worse for you than...
> >>
> >> a long, slow rise in your bG?
> >>
> >> Does ANYONE really know if 45 minutes of high is worse for
> >> you than 3 hours of medium?
> >>
> >> I doubt it.
> >>
> >> Someone, undoubtedly will respond saying something like: "It
> >> stands to reason that......"
> >>
> >> Or: "Common sense says.........."
> >>
> >> But, has ANYONE ever researched this?????
> >>
> >>
> >> Alan Moorman
> >
> >
> > From phlaunt.com/diabetes
> >
> >Prolonged Exposure to Blood Sugars Over 140 mg/dl (7.8 mmol/L) Kills
> >Human Beta Cells
> >Another series of experiments on beta cells grown in culture showed that
> >there is a threshold over which the damage to beta cells caused by
> >exposure to elevated blood sugars becomes irreversible. It found that
> >amount of damage cells sustained in genes that produced insulin depended
> >on the concentration of glucose they were exposed to. The effect was
> >continuous, not a threshold effect--meaning that the more glucose the
> >cell was grown in, the more function it lost.
> >
> >In a second experiment, the same researchers took cells damaged by
> >exposure to high blood sugars and moved them to media that had a lower
> >concentration of blood sugar. They found the cells could survive and
> >recover after being moved to a growth medium containing a much lower
> >concentration of glucose, but only if the switch was made before a
> >certain amount of time had passed. Once the cells had been exposed to
> >glucose for that fatal time period, they could no longer be revived.
> >
> >
> >In an email to me, R. Paul Robertson, one of authors of this study
> >wrote, "I think the glucose toxic effects begin when blood glucose gets
> >above 140 and probably earlier." However, he also explained that while
> >studies with diabetic rats could better quantify the blood sugar levels
> >at which this irreversible damage occurs, these rats cost $200 apiece
> >and a lot of rats would be required. So such a project is not planned
> >for any time soon.
>
> $200 Lab Rats? Are they getting these creatures from the same
> supplier the US Govt uses to procure toilet seats? Yipes. In all
> seriousness. Why would a lab rat cost so much? Someone please
> educate me on this one.
>
>
> <snip - see original post for credits>

They're probably carefully bred so their genetic makeup doesn't cause
erroneous results in studies.

Priscilla

In article >,
Priscilla Ballou > wrote:

> In article >,
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:48:11 -0500, Susan >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >x-no-achive: yes
> > >
> > >Alan Moorman wrote:
> > >
> > >> And, there is a question about this:
> > >>
> > >> is a fast, high spike which comes and goes quickly better or
> > >> worse for you than...
> > >>
> > >> a long, slow rise in your bG?
> > >>
> > >> Does ANYONE really know if 45 minutes of high is worse for
> > >> you than 3 hours of medium?
> > >>
> > >> I doubt it.
> > >>
> > >> Someone, undoubtedly will respond saying something like: "It
> > >> stands to reason that......"
> > >>
> > >> Or: "Common sense says.........."
> > >>
> > >> But, has ANYONE ever researched this?????
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Alan Moorman
> > >
> > >
> > > From phlaunt.com/diabetes
> > >
> > >Prolonged Exposure to Blood Sugars Over 140 mg/dl (7.8 mmol/L) Kills
> > >Human Beta Cells
> > >Another series of experiments on beta cells grown in culture showed that
> > >there is a threshold over which the damage to beta cells caused by
> > >exposure to elevated blood sugars becomes irreversible. It found that
> > >amount of damage cells sustained in genes that produced insulin depended
> > >on the concentration of glucose they were exposed to. The effect was
> > >continuous, not a threshold effect--meaning that the more glucose the
> > >cell was grown in, the more function it lost.
> > >
> > >In a second experiment, the same researchers took cells damaged by
> > >exposure to high blood sugars and moved them to media that had a lower
> > >concentration of blood sugar. They found the cells could survive and
> > >recover after being moved to a growth medium containing a much lower
> > >concentration of glucose, but only if the switch was made before a
> > >certain amount of time had passed. Once the cells had been exposed to
> > >glucose for that fatal time period, they could no longer be revived.
> > >
> > >
> > >In an email to me, R. Paul Robertson, one of authors of this study
> > >wrote, "I think the glucose toxic effects begin when blood glucose gets
> > >above 140 and probably earlier." However, he also explained that while
> > >studies with diabetic rats could better quantify the blood sugar levels
> > >at which this irreversible damage occurs, these rats cost $200 apiece
> > >and a lot of rats would be required. So such a project is not planned
> > >for any time soon.
> >
> > $200 Lab Rats? Are they getting these creatures from the same
> > supplier the US Govt uses to procure toilet seats? Yipes. In all
> > seriousness. Why would a lab rat cost so much? Someone please
> > educate me on this one.
> >
> >
> > <snip - see original post for credits>
>
> They're probably carefully bred so their genetic makeup doesn't cause
> erroneous results in studies.
>

Exactly. There are specific lines. And it's important for such a study
that all of the lab rats be of the same line.

--
AF
"Non Sequitur U has a really, really lousy debate team."
--artyw raises the bar on rec.sport.baseball

I didn't know that, but it makes sense.

Cheri


Alice Faber wrote in message ...
>In article >,
> Priscilla Ballou > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:48:11 -0500, Susan >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >x-no-achive: yes
>> > >
>> > >Alan Moorman wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> And, there is a question about this:
>> > >>
>> > >> is a fast, high spike which comes and goes quickly better or
>> > >> worse for you than...
>> > >>
>> > >> a long, slow rise in your bG?
>> > >>
>> > >> Does ANYONE really know if 45 minutes of high is worse for
>> > >> you than 3 hours of medium?
>> > >>
>> > >> I doubt it.
>> > >>
>> > >> Someone, undoubtedly will respond saying something like: "It
>> > >> stands to reason that......"
>> > >>
>> > >> Or: "Common sense says.........."
>> > >>
>> > >> But, has ANYONE ever researched this?????
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Alan Moorman
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > From phlaunt.com/diabetes
>> > >
>> > >Prolonged Exposure to Blood Sugars Over 140 mg/dl (7.8 mmol/L)
Kills
>> > >Human Beta Cells
>> > >Another series of experiments on beta cells grown in culture
showed that
>> > >there is a threshold over which the damage to beta cells caused by
>> > >exposure to elevated blood sugars becomes irreversible. It found
that
>> > >amount of damage cells sustained in genes that produced insulin
depended
>> > >on the concentration of glucose they were exposed to. The effect
was
>> > >continuous, not a threshold effect--meaning that the more glucose
the
>> > >cell was grown in, the more function it lost.
>> > >
>> > >In a second experiment, the same researchers took cells damaged by
>> > >exposure to high blood sugars and moved them to media that had a
lower
>> > >concentration of blood sugar. They found the cells could survive
and
>> > >recover after being moved to a growth medium containing a much
lower
>> > >concentration of glucose, but only if the switch was made before a
>> > >certain amount of time had passed. Once the cells had been exposed
to
>> > >glucose for that fatal time period, they could no longer be
revived.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >In an email to me, R. Paul Robertson, one of authors of this study
>> > >wrote, "I think the glucose toxic effects begin when blood glucose
gets
>> > >above 140 and probably earlier." However, he also explained that
while
>> > >studies with diabetic rats could better quantify the blood sugar
levels
>> > >at which this irreversible damage occurs, these rats cost $200
apiece
>> > >and a lot of rats would be required. So such a project is not
planned
>> > >for any time soon.
>> >
>> > $200 Lab Rats? Are they getting these creatures from the same
>> > supplier the US Govt uses to procure toilet seats? Yipes. In all
>> > seriousness. Why would a lab rat cost so much? Someone please
>> > educate me on this one.
>> >
>> >
>> > <snip - see original post for credits>
>>
>> They're probably carefully bred so their genetic makeup doesn't cause
>> erroneous results in studies.
>>
>
>Exactly. There are specific lines. And it's important for such a study
>that all of the lab rats be of the same line.
>
>--
>AF
>"Non Sequitur U has a really, really lousy debate team."
> --artyw raises the bar on rec.sport.baseball

Yup. It does. I just needed someone to give me a jumpstart. Thanks
guys. Here's another thought - keep in mind that I understand the
need for the rats to be homogenius -- but given that people for the
most part come from many different lines (Male, female, different
races etc) I wonder if they have different branches in the rats'
family trees for comparison purposes. Or do they start from ground
zero and the variants are environmentally created. Just musing. I'm
not a simpleton. I just play one on the internet.

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:29:44 -0800, "Cheri" <gserviceatinreachdotcom>
wrote:

>I didn't know that, but it makes sense.
>
>Cheri
>
>
>Alice Faber wrote in message ...
>>In article >,
>> Priscilla Ballou > wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:48:11 -0500, Susan >
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >x-no-achive: yes
>>> > >
>>> > >Alan Moorman wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> And, there is a question about this:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> is a fast, high spike which comes and goes quickly better or
>>> > >> worse for you than...
>>> > >>
>>> > >> a long, slow rise in your bG?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Does ANYONE really know if 45 minutes of high is worse for
>>> > >> you than 3 hours of medium?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I doubt it.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Someone, undoubtedly will respond saying something like: "It
>>> > >> stands to reason that......"
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Or: "Common sense says.........."
>>> > >>
>>> > >> But, has ANYONE ever researched this?????
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Alan Moorman
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > From phlaunt.com/diabetes
>>> > >
>>> > >Prolonged Exposure to Blood Sugars Over 140 mg/dl (7.8 mmol/L)
>Kills
>>> > >Human Beta Cells
>>> > >Another series of experiments on beta cells grown in culture
>showed that
>>> > >there is a threshold over which the damage to beta cells caused by
>>> > >exposure to elevated blood sugars becomes irreversible. It found
>that
>>> > >amount of damage cells sustained in genes that produced insulin
>depended
>>> > >on the concentration of glucose they were exposed to. The effect
>was
>>> > >continuous, not a threshold effect--meaning that the more glucose
>the
>>> > >cell was grown in, the more function it lost.
>>> > >
>>> > >In a second experiment, the same researchers took cells damaged by
>>> > >exposure to high blood sugars and moved them to media that had a
>lower
>>> > >concentration of blood sugar. They found the cells could survive
>and
>>> > >recover after being moved to a growth medium containing a much
>lower
>>> > >concentration of glucose, but only if the switch was made before a
>>> > >certain amount of time had passed. Once the cells had been exposed
>to
>>> > >glucose for that fatal time period, they could no longer be
>revived.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >In an email to me, R. Paul Robertson, one of authors of this study
>>> > >wrote, "I think the glucose toxic effects begin when blood glucose
>gets
>>> > >above 140 and probably earlier." However, he also explained that
>while
>>> > >studies with diabetic rats could better quantify the blood sugar
>levels
>>> > >at which this irreversible damage occurs, these rats cost $200
>apiece
>>> > >and a lot of rats would be required. So such a project is not
>planned
>>> > >for any time soon.
>>> >
>>> > $200 Lab Rats? Are they getting these creatures from the same
>>> > supplier the US Govt uses to procure toilet seats? Yipes. In all
>>> > seriousness. Why would a lab rat cost so much? Someone please
>>> > educate me on this one.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > <snip - see original post for credits>
>>>
>>> They're probably carefully bred so their genetic makeup doesn't cause
>>> erroneous results in studies.
>>>
>>
>>Exactly. There are specific lines. And it's important for such a study
>>that all of the lab rats be of the same line.
>>
>>--
>>AF
>>"Non Sequitur U has a really, really lousy debate team."
>> --artyw raises the bar on rec.sport.baseball
>

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:58:57 -0600, Alan Moorman
> wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:49:04 -0500, "Ed"
><ekirstein*nospammers*catskill.net> wrote:
>
>>If you ate the same number of carbs worth of glucose and lentils. You will
>>spike big time from the glucose and not spike (for many type 2's) from the
>>lentils. That's why there are good carbs and bad carbs. I thought this was
>>basic diabetes 101. I'm surprised there's anyone questioning this.
>>
>And, there is a question about this:
>
>is a fast, high spike which comes and goes quickly better or
>worse for you than...
>
>a long, slow rise in your bG?
>
>Does ANYONE really know if 45 minutes of high is worse for
>you than 3 hours of medium?
>
>I doubt it.
>
>Someone, undoubtedly will respond saying something like: "It
>stands to reason that......"
>
>Or: "Common sense says.........."
>
>But, has ANYONE ever researched this?????
>
>
>Alan Moorman

That is why I asked Ed

"Whether they convert fast or slow - they still convert. So,
what is the advantage that you see in slow conversion?"

I agree with you Alan, there is little definitive research
on this part of the problem. So I try to avoid both until
the experts do know. I tend to agree with Derek Paice and
others who look at the "area under the curve" but I also
think that a short sharp spike may cause damage regardless
of that AUC.

That's just my opinion, but it's what I will follow until
shown otherwise.

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Epidaurus

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:49:04 -0500, "Ed"
<ekirstein*nospammers*catskill.net> wrote:

>If you ate the same number of carbs worth of glucose and lentils. You will
>spike big time from the glucose and not spike (for many type 2's) from the
>lentils. That's why there are good carbs and bad carbs. I thought this was
>basic diabetes 101. I'm surprised there's anyone questioning this.

See my reply to Alan Moorman. I'm not concerned whether it's
diabetes 101 (I'm not exactly a newby these days, see sig)-
and I spike from both lentils and sugar, just in different
timeframes. As Alan noted - there is little research to say
whether fast or slow spikes cause greater damage.

My meter has shown me that the number that matters on the
ingredients list is almost always the carb count, not the
sugar.

But the most important aspect is what my meter tells me, not
the ingredients list.

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Epidaurus

was "Baked beans"
x-posted to afd asd mhd

"On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:48:11 -0500, Susan
> wrote (quoting Jenny):

<snip>
>
>Catherine E. Gleason, Michael Gonzalez, Jamie S. Harmon, and R. Paul
>Robertson. Determinants of glucose toxicity and its reversibility in
>pancreatic islet Beta-cell line, HIT-T15. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab
>279: E997-E1002, 2000
>
>http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/co...act/279/5/E997
>

That's a really interesting paper. It's specifically
interested in beta-cell damage and recovery, not other
damage that may occur to the body from spikes.

For that specific area, they are quite clear that prolonged
exposure causes irreversible damage. One thing I liked was
the grounds for hope of reversibility of damage to the
pancreas with "meticulous glycemic control".

Well worth another read through the summary.

"In summary, these findings indicate that glucose
toxicity of the b-cell is a continuous rather than a
threshold function of glucose concentration and that
the shorter the period of antecedent glucose toxicity,
the greater the degree of recovery.

Findings from experiments such as these, in conjunction with
many findings published by other researchers (1€“3, 5€“12,
15€“24, 29, 31, 34€“36, 38, 39), suggest that abnormally
elevated glucose concentrations in the b-cells environment
can cause a spectrum of changes. With short term
exposure to high glucose concentrations, decreases
in insulin secretion and insulin content can
occur that are reversible upon return to normal glucose
concentrations. The term glucose desensitization
seems most apt to describe this sequence of events (16).

On the other hand, a spectrum of pathophysiological
changes may occur with more prolonged exposure of
the b-cell to supraphysiological glucose concentrations.

Using various experimental models, many researchers
have described adverse effects of glucose on b-cell function
by the term €œb-cell exhaustion.€� The distinction
between b-cell exhaustion and glucose toxicity is not
always clear. We favor the concept that the two may be
in a pathophysiological continuum (32). In this context,
b-cell exhaustion might be earlier and more likely to be
reversible, whereas glucose toxicity is later and less
likely to be reversible.

In this context, it seems likely that early, effective
management by diet and drugs of hyperglycemia in type 2
diabetes is an important aspect of preserving residual
b-cell function. The same argument for meticulous glycemic
control can be made after pancreas or islet
transplantation."

Another logical justification for Jennifer's "Test, test,
test".

I will still avoid short-term spikes as well as the
long-term elevated BG levels.

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Epidaurus

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:01:31 GMT, wrote:

> I'm not a simpleton. I just play one on the internet.

Love it. Describes me too:-)

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Epidaurus

Alan S wrote:

>>Catherine E. Gleason, Michael Gonzalez, Jamie S. Harmon, and R. Paul
>>Robertson. Determinants of glucose toxicity and its reversibility in
>>pancreatic islet Beta-cell line, HIT-T15. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab
>>279: E997-E1002, 2000
>>
>>http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/co...act/279/5/E997
>>
>
>
> That's a really interesting paper. It's specifically
> interested in beta-cell damage and recovery, not other
> damage that may occur to the body from spikes.
(snipped)

> "In summary, these findings indicate that glucose
> toxicity of the b-cell is a continuous rather than a
> threshold function of glucose concentration and that
> the shorter the period of antecedent glucose toxicity,
> the greater the degree of recovery.
(snipped)
> On the other hand, a spectrum of pathophysiological
> changes may occur with more prolonged exposure of
> the b-cell to supraphysiological glucose concentrations.
>
(snipped)
>
> In this context, it seems likely that early, effective
> management by diet and drugs of hyperglycemia in type 2
> diabetes is an important aspect of preserving residual
> b-cell function. The same argument for meticulous glycemic
> control can be made after pancreas or islet
> transplantation."
>

TABLE 1 Literature supporting chronic oxidative stress as a mechanism
for glucose toxicity of the ß-cell -
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org...ll/52/3/581/T1

Treating Postprandial Hyperglycemia Does Not Appear to Delay Progression
of Early Type 2 Diabetes -
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi...full/29/9/2095


Frank

I also seem to remember reading that by slowing down the conversion of carbs
to glucose, say by adding fat, has the benefit that if some part of the food
makes it to the intestines before conversion, then the glucose is less
likely to end up in the bloodstream. In other words, absorbtion of the
glucose is cut down if the food enters the intestines from the stomach.
Anyone else concur with this?
ed

"Alan Moorman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:49:04 -0500, "Ed"
> <ekirstein*nospammers*catskill.net> wrote:
>
>>If you ate the same number of carbs worth of glucose and lentils. You
>>will
>>spike big time from the glucose and not spike (for many type 2's) from the
>>lentils. That's why there are good carbs and bad carbs. I thought this
>>was
>>basic diabetes 101. I'm surprised there's anyone questioning this.
>>
> And, there is a question about this:
>
> is a fast, high spike which comes and goes quickly better or
> worse for you than...
>
> a long, slow rise in your bG?
>
> Does ANYONE really know if 45 minutes of high is worse for
> you than 3 hours of medium?
>
> I doubt it.
>
> Someone, undoubtedly will respond saying something like: "It
> stands to reason that......"
>
> Or: "Common sense says.........."
>
> But, has ANYONE ever researched this?????
>
>
> Alan Moorman

Ed wrote:
> I also seem to remember reading that by slowing down the conversion of carbs
> to glucose, say by adding fat, has the benefit that if some part of the food
> makes it to the intestines before conversion, then the glucose is less
> likely to end up in the bloodstream. In other words, absorbtion of the
> glucose is cut down if the food enters the intestines from the stomach.
> Anyone else concur with this?
> ed

Nope. A mono-saccharide (like pure glucose) actually starts to be
absorbed through the buccal mucosa in the mouth. Saliva starts the
enzymatic breakdown of the di-saccharides like table sugar, as saliva
contains amylase.

The more complex the carb, the more the body has to break it down to the
simple structures that it can absorb. Most of this happens in the
intestinal lumen beyond the stomach.

The exocrine pancreas produces three sets of enzymes (or their
precursors), trypsin for protein, lipase for fats, and amylase for
carbs. It also releases bicarb to neutralize the strong acid coming from
the stomach.

So if you had a complex carb meal, the amylase needs time to break down
the poly- or oligo-saccharides into simpler structures like maltose,
which is two glucose molecules stuck together into another di-saccharide.

While all this is happening, the trypsin is breaking down the protein
into amino acids, and the lipase is doing the same thing to the fats,
producing free fatty acids (FFAs). Parenthetically, you also need bile
salts, made by the liver and stored in the gallbladder, to break down
the triglycerides and allow their absorption.

Since we tend to eat foods that contain fat, protein and carbs together,
the fats coat the carbs, and that fat has to be enzymatically stripped
off the carbs before the amylase can get to them. That is why fat delays
the appearance of glucose from carbs, and is the principal reason for
"Pizza Effect".

Aside from some minor losses in processing, the AUC for glucose vs. time
will be essentially the same for pure glucose, complex carbs, and carbs
coated in fat.

All this might be somewhat OT in AFD, but this is where you asked.

Jim

In alt.support.diabetes Jefferson > wrote:
> Alan S wrote:

>>>Catherine E. Gleason, Michael Gonzalez, Jamie S. Harmon, and R. Paul
>>>Robertson. Determinants of glucose toxicity and its reversibility in
>>>pancreatic islet Beta-cell line, HIT-T15. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab
>>>279: E997-E1002, 2000
>>>
>>>http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/co...act/279/5/E997
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's a really interesting paper. It's specifically
>> interested in beta-cell damage and recovery, not other
>> damage that may occur to the body from spikes.
> (snipped)

>> "In summary, these findings indicate that glucose
>> toxicity of the b-cell is a continuous rather than a
>> threshold function of glucose concentration and that
>> the shorter the period of antecedent glucose toxicity,
>> the greater the degree of recovery.
> (snipped)
>> On the other hand, a spectrum of pathophysiological
>> changes may occur with more prolonged exposure of
>> the b-cell to supraphysiological glucose concentrations.
>>
> (snipped)
>>
>> In this context, it seems likely that early, effective
>> management by diet and drugs of hyperglycemia in type 2
>> diabetes is an important aspect of preserving residual
>> b-cell function. The same argument for meticulous glycemic
>> control can be made after pancreas or islet
>> transplantation."

If this is like many other cases of mild recoverable damage which if
too prolonged can become permanent, then it's not just the length of
exposure to high BGs which will matter, but the time interval between
episodes. What often seems to harden mild temporary recoverable damage
into permanent damage is if the interval between the damaging episodes
is not long enough for full recovery to take place. That's what would
make the episodes have a cumulatively damaging effect, even though
they may be brief and only very mildly damaging.

I have no idea how long it takes to recover from soft recoverable
glycation damage, but it wouldn't be too surprising if it was longer
than a day. In fact on first principles I would suspect that it would
follow the common half life logarithmic progression of recovering by
50% each fixed half-life interval of time (because that's the law of
chemical mass action in solution). If that were the case, then a big
long high spike once a week might be ok, but a brief little one every
day might lead to progressive permanent damage.

The A1C test is based on blood cell glycation damage. If there are
some important kinds of glycation damage which have different recovery
rates than blood cell glycation (which would hardly be surprising),
then all a low A1C will tell you is that you're protected from those
kinds of damage which recover at the same rate or more slowly than
blood cell glycation damage.

I note that at diagnosis I was already suffering from some typical
diabetic complications, such as some neuropathy in hands and feet,
despite having an A1C of 5.6%. My problem was that a few times a day I
was having brief (probably 30-45mins) BG spikes in excess of 200. When
I reduced the size and frequency of those spikes my neuropathy started
to improve.

My condition now seems to be close to the threshold of neuropathic
damage, because if I keep my BG spikes down my neuropathy continues
very slowly to improve, but one single brief BG spike over 150 will
produce mild tingling in the edges of my hands.

Other T2s posting here have reported the same kind of thing, even
though they too are in the 5% A1C club.

That suggests to me that there may be some merit in this idea that the
interval between brief BG spikes is a critical factor in certain kinds
of glycation damage. This idea does not seem to be a component in the
medical models of glycation damage I see in epidemiological diabetic
research reports, although I'd be surprised if it wasn't understood by
specialists who were trying to build mathematical models of very
specific kinds of glycation. One of the weaknesses of the current
medical fashion for "evidence-based medicine" is that the kind of
statistical attitude it encourages tends to devalue and distract
attention from such modelling work.

T1s please note that these observations are made in the context of the
entire possible T2 metabolism, including IR and failures in lipid
metabolism. They can't necessarily be generalised to T1s.

> TABLE 1 Literature supporting chronic oxidative stress as a mechanism
> for glucose toxicity of the beta-cell -
> http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org...ll/52/3/581/T1

> Treating Postprandial Hyperglycemia Does Not Appear to Delay Progression
> of Early Type 2 Diabetes -
> http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi...full/29/9/2095
>

Yebbut look at what they tested!

"OBJECTIVE: Postprandial hyperglycemia characterizes early type 2
diabetes. We investigated whether ameliorating postprandial
hyperglycemia with acarbose would prevent or delay progression of
diabetes, defined as progression to frank fasting hyperglycemia, in
subjects with early diabetes (fasting plasma glucose [FPG] <140 mg/dl
and 2-h plasma glucose .200 mg/dl)."

It puzzled them that this study contradicts other findings. They did
recognise that their definition of "early diabetes" may be a little
late, e.g.:

"Another possible explanation is that our subjects, like those in the
UKPDS and in clinical practice, were "too far gone" along the path of
-cell failure for the intervention to affect progression. This would
require us to believe that early diabetes is quite different from IGT,
a condition in which controlling postprandial hyperglycemia seems to
preserve -cell function or at least delay onset of diabetes (20). Our
post hoc analysis of subjects who entered with FPG <126 mg/dl
(presumably with even earlier diabetes) suggested that the rate of
progression to FPG .126 mg/dl may have been reduced by acarbose. This
would support the argument that once FPG exceeds 126 mg/dl, it may be
too late to significantly affect -cell function."

Note BTW that the current FPG diabetes diagnostic threshold is
126mg/dl...

Finally they say curiously, without explanation:

"It is unlikely that diabetes could be easily diagnosed in stages
earlier than that of our subjects, ..."

Why on earth is that unlikely? Medical politics?

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Hi Chris:

>>>In this context, it seems likely that early, effective
>>>management by diet and drugs of hyperglycemia in type 2
>>>diabetes is an important aspect of preserving residual
>>>b-cell function. The same argument for meticulous glycemic
>>>control can be made after pancreas or islet
>>>transplantation."
>
>
> If this is like many other cases of mild recoverable damage which if
> too prolonged can become permanent, then it's not just the length of
> exposure to high BGs which will matter, but the time interval between
> episodes. What often seems to harden mild temporary recoverable damage
> into permanent damage is if the interval between the damaging episodes
> is not long enough for full recovery to take place. That's what would
> make the episodes have a cumulatively damaging effect, even though
> they may be brief and only very mildly damaging.

I tend to view type 2 diabetes as a pathological phenotype. It is
possible to restore physiological phenotype to some degree by changing
gene expression (mRNA), but it depends upon how far gone the diabetic
pathological phenotype is established, i.e., what tissues, what organs,
etc. This is in accord with what you have said above, but a little less
generally. A case in point relates to the responses type 2s have versus
type 1s and normal glycemics to intravenious ascorbic acid and
endolthelial dysfunction as measured by dilation in the forearm and
blood flow. The following article is not the one I was looking for but
it partially illustrates the point: High-dose oral vitamin C partially
replenishes vitamin C levels in patients with Type 2 diabetes and low
vitamin C levels but does not improve endothelial dysfunction or insulin
resistance - http://ajpheart.physiology.org/cgi/c...ull/290/1/H137
>
> I have no idea how long it takes to recover from soft recoverable
> glycation damage, but it wouldn't be too surprising if it was longer
> than a day. In fact on first principles I would suspect that it would
> follow the common half life logarithmic progression of recovering by
> 50% each fixed half-life interval of time (because that's the law of
> chemical mass action in solution). If that were the case, then a big
> long high spike once a week might be ok, but a brief little one every
> day might lead to progressive permanent damage.

I am looking at the impact that the drugs that improve incretin effect
have on type 2 diabetics. Hopefully there may be some long term
positive effects.

>
> The A1C test is based on blood cell glycation damage. If there are
> some important kinds of glycation damage which have different recovery
> rates than blood cell glycation (which would hardly be surprising),
> then all a low A1C will tell you is that you're protected from those
> kinds of damage which recover at the same rate or more slowly than
> blood cell glycation damage.

A1c does not tell us much about damaged proteins, tissue, etc.
>
> I note that at diagnosis I was already suffering from some typical
> diabetic complications, such as some neuropathy in hands and feet,
> despite having an A1C of 5.6%. My problem was that a few times a day I
> was having brief (probably 30-45mins) BG spikes in excess of 200. When
> I reduced the size and frequency of those spikes my neuropathy started
> to improve.
>
> My condition now seems to be close to the threshold of neuropathic
> damage, because if I keep my BG spikes down my neuropathy continues
> very slowly to improve, but one single brief BG spike over 150 will
> produce mild tingling in the edges of my hands.
>
> Other T2s posting here have reported the same kind of thing, even
> though they too are in the 5% A1C club.

It seems to be true that better blood glucose control can reverse some
neuropathy and possibly some kidney damage.

I will have to come back later. The twins have a birthday party.

Frank

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:04:26 -0600, Alan Moorman
> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 10:50:16 +1100, Alan S
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:49:04 -0500, "Ed"
>><ekirstein*nospammers*catskill.net> wrote:
>>
>>>If you ate the same number of carbs worth of glucose and lentils. You will
>>>spike big time from the glucose and not spike (for many type 2's) from the
>>>lentils. That's why there are good carbs and bad carbs. I thought this was
>>>basic diabetes 101. I'm surprised there's anyone questioning this.
>>
>>See my reply to Alan Moorman. I'm not concerned whether it's
>>diabetes 101 (I'm not exactly a newby these days, see sig)-
>>and I spike from both lentils and sugar, just in different
>>timeframes. As Alan noted - there is little research to say
>>whether fast or slow spikes cause greater damage.
>>
>>My meter has shown me that the number that matters on the
>>ingredients list is almost always the carb count, not the
>>sugar.
>>
>>But the most important aspect is what my meter tells me, not
>>the ingredients list.
>>
>>Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
>>d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
>>Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
>
>But, of course, you will have learned, over the years, how
>certain ingredients affect your "meter" right?
>
>Alan Moorman

Yes - in effect that is my own personal GI and GL list.

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Epidaurus

Alan S > wrote:

: "Whether they convert fast or slow - they still convert. So,
: what is the advantage that you see in slow conversion?"

: I agree with you Alan, there is little definitive research
: on this part of the problem. So I try to avoid both until
: the experts do know. I tend to agree with Derek Paice and
: others who look at the "area under the curve" but I also
: think that a short sharp spike may cause damage regardless
: of that AUC.

: That's just my opinion, but it's what I will follow until
: shown otherwise.

: Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
: d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
: Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
: --
: http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
: http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
: latest: Epidaurus

The theory of eating a mixture of fast and slow carbs is that since they
eaffect the bgs at different times you get no spike, just a low rise over
a longish period. Of corse, if you eat all the same duration carbs that
shoudl give you a spike, sooner or later.

Wendy

Alan wrote:

>>I will have to come back later. The twins have a birthday party.

> It would be nice if you could bring yourself to speak less
> pompous scientific words, so that the rest of us can
> understand what you're saying.
>
> That might help a great many more people. . . .!

I was attempting to respond to Chris Malcolm and I didn't think what I
said was as abstract as what he said.

I sorry that you feel this way, but I suppose that in my efforts to try
and understand type 2 diabetes I have become somewhat of a freak. I put
together most of the following about 4 years ago: GLOSSARY OF
BIOCHEMICAL, MEDICAL CHEMISTRY, CELL BIOLOGY, AND DIABETIC TERMS -
http://users.adelphia.net/~fwroy/glossary.html. As I was reading
scientific and medical journals I would add more to the list, but have
largerly neglected to maintain it. I did do this glossary for anyone
but myself and therefore it is a work-in-progress. I need to update it
some more, but there are some new search aids in it for anyone that
wants their understanding beyond the elementary.

Understand that I am a 71 year old man without much scientific
background who was diagnosed almost 6 years ago. I came into what ever
knowledge I have through the back door so to speak since I have taken no
formal biochemistry, physiology, etc. courses.

Frank

Hi Chris:
>>>In this context, it seems likely that early, effective
>>>management by diet and drugs of hyperglycemia in type 2
>>>diabetes is an important aspect of preserving residual
>>>b-cell function. The same argument for meticulous glycemic
>>>control can be made after pancreas or islet
>>>transplantation."
>
>
> If this is like many other cases of mild recoverable damage which if
> too prolonged can become permanent, then it's not just the length of
> exposure to high BGs which will matter, but the time interval between
> episodes. What often seems to harden mild temporary recoverable damage
> into permanent damage is if the interval between the damaging episodes
> is not long enough for full recovery to take place. That's what would
> make the episodes have a cumulatively damaging effect, even though
> they may be brief and only very mildly damaging.

I tend to view type 2 diabetes as a pathological phenotype. It is
possible to restore physiological phenotype to some degree by changing
gene expression (mRNA), but it depends upon how far gone the diabetic
pathological phenotype is established, i.e., what tissues, what organs,
etc. This is in accord with what you have said above, but a little less
generally. A case in point relates to the responses type 2s have versus
type 1s and normal glycemics to intravenious ascorbic acid and
endolthelial dysfunction as measured by dilation in the forearm and
blood flow. The following article is not the one I was looking for but
it partially illustrates the point: High-dose oral vitamin C partially
replenishes vitamin C levels in patients with Type 2 diabetes and low
vitamin C levels but does not improve endothelial dysfunction or insulin
resistance - http://ajpheart.physiology.org/cgi/c...ull/290/1/H137
>
> I have no idea how long it takes to recover from soft recoverable
> glycation damage, but it wouldn't be too surprising if it was longer
> than a day. In fact on first principles I would suspect that it would
> follow the common half life logarithmic progression of recovering by
> 50% each fixed half-life interval of time (because that's the law of
> chemical mass action in solution). If that were the case, then a big
> long high spike once a week might be ok, but a brief little one every
> day might lead to progressive permanent damage.

I am looking at the impact that the drugs that improve incretin effect
have on type 2 diabetics. Hopefully there may be some long term
positive effects.
>
> The A1C test is based on blood cell glycation damage. If there are
> some important kinds of glycation damage which have different recovery
> rates than blood cell glycation (which would hardly be surprising),
> then all a low A1C will tell you is that you're protected from those
> kinds of damage which recover at the same rate or more slowly than
> blood cell glycation damage.

A1c does not tell us much about damaged proteins, tissue, etc.
>
> I note that at diagnosis I was already suffering from some typical
> diabetic complications, such as some neuropathy in hands and feet,
> despite having an A1C of 5.6%. My problem was that a few times a day I
> was having brief (probably 30-45mins) BG spikes in excess of 200. When
> I reduced the size and frequency of those spikes my neuropathy started
> to improve.
>
> My condition now seems to be close to the threshold of neuropathic
> damage, because if I keep my BG spikes down my neuropathy continues
> very slowly to improve, but one single brief BG spike over 150 will
> produce mild tingling in the edges of my hands.
>
> Other T2s posting here have reported the same kind of thing, even
> though they too are in the 5% A1C club.
>

It seems to be true that better blood glucose control can reverse some
neuropathy and possibly some kidney damage.

I will have to come back later. The twins have a birthday party.

Frank

On Feb 12, 6:02�am, Alan wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:14:22 -0500, Frank Roy
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >Hi Chris:
>
> >>>>In this context, it seems likely that early, effective
> >>>>management by diet and drugs of hyperglycemia in type 2
> >>>>diabetes is an important aspect of preserving residual
> >>>>b-cell function. The same argument for meticulous glycemic
> >>>>control can be made after pancreas or islet
> >>>>transplantation."
>
> >> If this is like many other cases of mild recoverable damage which if
> >> too prolonged can become permanent, then it's not just the length of
> >> exposure to high BGs which will matter, but the time interval between
> >> episodes. What often seems to harden mild temporary recoverable damage
> >> into permanent damage is if the interval between the damaging episodes
> >> is not long enough for full recovery to take place. That's what would
> >> make the episodes have a cumulatively damaging effect, even though
> >> they may be brief and only very mildly damaging.
>
> >I tend to view type 2 diabetes as a pathological phenotype. *It is
> >possible to restore physiological phenotype to some degree by changing
> >gene expression (mRNA), but it depends upon how far gone the diabetic
> >pathological phenotype is established, i.e., what tissues, what organs,
> >etc. *This is in accord with what you have said above, but a little less
> >generally. *A case in point relates to the responses type 2s have versus
> >type 1s and normal glycemics to intravenious ascorbic acid and
> >endolthelial dysfunction as measured by dilation in the forearm and
> >blood flow. The following article is not the one I was looking for but
> >it partially illustrates the point: High-dose oral vitamin C partially
> >replenishes vitamin C levels in patients with Type 2 diabetes and low
> >vitamin C levels but does not improve endothelial dysfunction or insulin
> >resistance -http://ajpheart.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/290/1/H137
>
> >> I have no idea how long it takes to recover from soft recoverable
> >> glycation damage, but it wouldn't be too surprising if it was longer
> >> than a day. In fact on first principles I would suspect that it would
> >> follow the common half life logarithmic progression of recovering by
> >> 50% each fixed half-life interval of time (because that's the law of
> >> chemical mass action in solution). If that were the case, then a big
> >> long high spike once a week might be ok, but a brief little one every
> >> day might lead to progressive permanent damage.
>
> >I am looking at the impact that the drugs that improve incretin effect
> >have on type 2 diabetics. *Hopefully there may be some long term
> >positive effects.
>
> >> The A1C test is based on blood cell glycation damage. If there are
> >> some important kinds of glycation damage which have different recovery
> >> rates than blood cell glycation (which would hardly be surprising),
> >> then all a low A1C will tell you is that you're protected from those
> >> kinds of damage which recover at the same rate or more slowly than
> >> blood cell glycation damage.
>
> >A1c does not tell us much about damaged proteins, tissue, etc.
>
> >> I note that at diagnosis I was already suffering from some typical
> >> diabetic complications, such as some neuropathy in hands and feet,
> >> despite having an A1C of 5.6%. My problem was that a few times a day I
> >> was having brief (probably 30-45mins) BG spikes in excess of 200. When
> >> I reduced the size and frequency of those spikes my neuropathy started
> >> to improve.
>
> >> My condition now seems to be close to the threshold of neuropathic
> >> damage, because if I keep my BG spikes down my neuropathy continues
> >> very slowly to improve, but one single brief BG spike over 150 will
> >> produce mild tingling in the edges of my hands.
>
> >> Other T2s posting here have reported the same kind of thing, even
> >> though they too are in the 5% A1C club.
>
> >It seems to be true that better blood glucose control can reverse some
> >neuropathy and possibly some kidney damage.
>
> >I will have to come back later. *The twins have a birthday party.
>
> >Frank
>
> It would be nice if you could bring yourself to speak less
> pompous scientific words, so that the rest of us can
> understand what you're saying.
>
> That might help a great many more people. . . .!
>
> Alan
>
> ==
>
> It's not that I think stupidity should be punishable by death.
> *I just think we should take the warning labels off of everything
> and let the problem take care of itself.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Alan: I really disagree what you say. Frank and Chris are some of my
favorate NG contributors. If they talked "baby speak" alot would be
missing. If you don't ubnderstand what they say ,... that is your
problem. If you study the words I bet you would get alot out of it.
Assuming you are motivated enough. Otherwise just skip the thread if
you are not so interested.

Larry

And it would be nice if we could stop the crossposting of all this stuff
to alt.food.diabetic too. There are other groups for that. Those groups
don't much care for it when people post recipes and things there, that's
why they're posted here. JMO

Cheri


Alan wrote in message

>It would be nice if you could bring yourself to speak less
>pompous scientific words, so that the rest of us can
>understand what you're saying.
>
>That might help a great many more people. . . .!
>
>
>Alan

Alan wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:14:22 -0500, Frank Roy
> > wrote:
>
>>Hi Chris:
>>
>>>>>In this context, it seems likely that early, effective
>>>>>management by diet and drugs of hyperglycemia in type 2
>>>>>diabetes is an important aspect of preserving residual
>>>>>b-cell function. The same argument for meticulous
glycemic
>>>>>control can be made after pancreas or islet
>>>>>transplantation."
>>>
>>>
>>> If this is like many other cases of mild recoverable
damage which if
>>> too prolonged can become permanent, then it's not just
the length of
>>> exposure to high BGs which will matter, but the time
interval
>>> between episodes. What often seems to harden mild
temporary
>>> recoverable damage into permanent damage is if the
interval between
>>> the damaging episodes is not long enough for full
recovery to take
>>> place. That's what would make the episodes have a
cumulatively
>>> damaging effect, even though they may be brief and only
very mildly
>>> damaging.
>>
>>I tend to view type 2 diabetes as a pathological
phenotype. It is
>>possible to restore physiological phenotype to some degree
by changing
>>gene expression (mRNA), but it depends upon how far gone
the diabetic
>>pathological phenotype is established, i.e., what tissues,
what
>>organs, etc. This is in accord with what you have said
above, but a
>>little less generally. A case in point relates to the
responses type
>>2s have versus type 1s and normal glycemics to
intravenious ascorbic
>>acid and endolthelial dysfunction as measured by dilation
in the
>>forearm and blood flow. The following article is not the
one I was
>>looking for but it partially illustrates the point:
High-dose oral
>>vitamin C partially replenishes vitamin C levels in
patients with
>>Type 2 diabetes and low vitamin C levels but does not
improve
>>endothelial dysfunction or insulin resistance -
>>http://ajpheart.physiology.org/cgi/c...ull/290/1/H137
>>>
>>> I have no idea how long it takes to recover from soft
recoverable
>>> glycation damage, but it wouldn't be too surprising if
it was longer
>>> than a day. In fact on first principles I would suspect
that it
>>> would follow the common half life logarithmic
progression of
>>> recovering by 50% each fixed half-life interval of time
(because
>>> that's the law of chemical mass action in solution). If
that were
>>> the case, then a big long high spike once a week might
be ok, but a
>>> brief little one every day might lead to progressive
permanent
>>> damage.
>>
>>I am looking at the impact that the drugs that improve
incretin effect
>>have on type 2 diabetics. Hopefully there may be some
long term
>>positive effects.
>>
>>>
>>> The A1C test is based on blood cell glycation damage. If
there are
>>> some important kinds of glycation damage which have
different
>>> recovery rates than blood cell glycation (which would
hardly be
>>> surprising), then all a low A1C will tell you is that
you're
>>> protected from those kinds of damage which recover at
the same rate
>>> or more slowly than blood cell glycation damage.
>>
>>A1c does not tell us much about damaged proteins, tissue,
etc.
>>>
>>> I note that at diagnosis I was already suffering from
some typical
>>> diabetic complications, such as some neuropathy in hands
and feet,
>>> despite having an A1C of 5.6%. My problem was that a few
times a
>>> day I was having brief (probably 30-45mins) BG spikes in
excess of
>>> 200. When I reduced the size and frequency of those
spikes my
>>> neuropathy started to improve.
>>>
>>> My condition now seems to be close to the threshold of
neuropathic
>>> damage, because if I keep my BG spikes down my
neuropathy continues
>>> very slowly to improve, but one single brief BG spike
over 150 will
>>> produce mild tingling in the edges of my hands.
>>>
>>> Other T2s posting here have reported the same kind of
thing, even
>>> though they too are in the 5% A1C club.
>>
>>It seems to be true that better blood glucose control can
reverse some
>>neuropathy and possibly some kidney damage.
>>
>>I will have to come back later. The twins have a birthday
party.
>>
>>Frank
>
> It would be nice if you could bring yourself to speak less
> pompous scientific words, so that the rest of us can
> understand what you're saying.
>
> That might help a great many more people. . . .!

Huh?

hi , nice to see you crossposting even though you hate people that do it

% wrote:
> hi , nice to see you crossposting even though you hate
people that do
> it

Huh? There is a difference between cross-posting to on topic
newsgroups and crossposting to alt.support.diabetes and
alt.porn.dirty %. Sadly you won't ever comprehend that.

"Ozgirl" > wrote in message
...
> % wrote:
> > hi , nice to see you crossposting even though you hate
> people that do
> > it
>
> Huh? There is a difference between cross-posting to on topic
> newsgroups and crossposting to alt.support.diabetes and
> alt.porn.dirty %. Sadly you won't ever comprehend that.
>


sure i comprehend it ,
its ok when you do whatever you do ,
and its ok when others do what you tell them is ok to do ,
i get your # loud and clear

% wrote:
> "Ozgirl" > wrote in message
> ...
>> % wrote:
>> > hi , nice to see you crossposting even though you hate
people that
>> > do it
>>
>> Huh? There is a difference between cross-posting to on
topic
>> newsgroups and crossposting to alt.support.diabetes and
>> alt.porn.dirty %. Sadly you won't ever comprehend that.
>>
>
>
> sure i comprehend it ,
> its ok when you do whatever you do ,
> and its ok when others do what you tell them is ok to do ,
> i get your # loud and clear

No you don't.

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:51:50 -0700, "%" >
wrote:

>
>"Ozgirl" > wrote in message
...
>> % wrote:
>> > hi , nice to see you crossposting even though you hate
>> people that do
>> > it
>>
>> Huh? There is a difference between cross-posting to on topic
>> newsgroups and crossposting to alt.support.diabetes and
>> alt.porn.dirty %. Sadly you won't ever comprehend that.
>>
>
>
>sure i comprehend it ,
>its ok when you do whatever you do ,
>and its ok when others do what you tell them is ok to do ,
>i get your # loud and clear

And it's even OK to think about which ngs are relevant to
the things you write to reach a wider audience able to give
helpful and constructive comments...which I did when I
crossposted the original post.

Was that loud and clear enough?
Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Epidaurus