So...just how many of us are there?


kimberly
--
http://one.revver.com/watch/324733/flv/affiliate/99865
"I think that's my bathing suit. Is that one of my bathing suits? That is totally my
bathing suit"

On Nov 8, 2:43 pm, "Nexis" > wrote:
> So...just how many of us are there?
>
> kimberly

Well, kimberly, if you're keeping a count, you can count me as 1. If
you're also including SO's, then you can add another 1.

Wayne

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:30:55 GMT, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 13:43:01 -0800, Nexis wrote:
>
>> So...just how many of us are there?
>
>Enough to create another group, rec.food.cooking.diabetic ?
>
>-sw

There already is a group called alt.food.diabetic.

Christine

"Nexis" > wrote in :

> So...just how many of us are there?
>
>
> kimberly

I lost 60 lbs so I'm in denial... ain't no type 2 no more no more

--

The house of the burning beet-Alan

It'll be a sunny day in August, when the Moon will shine that night-
Elbonian Folklore

"Nexis" > wrote in message
...
> So...just how many of us are there?
>

One here, though I am completely diet controlled.

I wonder if you can ever be considered "cured" of diabetes. If you go for
several years with no medication, all diet control, no diabetic side
effects? Just pondering

Cindi

>
> kimberly
> --
> http://one.revver.com/watch/324733/flv/affiliate/99865
> "I think that's my bathing suit. Is that one of my bathing suits? That is
> totally my bathing suit"
>

And another....out of control at the moment, but working on it. Type 2 with
insulin as a supplement.....Eric

"Cindi - HappyMamatoThree" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Nexis" > wrote in message
> ...
>> So...just how many of us are there?
>>
>
> One here, though I am completely diet controlled.
>
> I wonder if you can ever be considered "cured" of diabetes. If you go for
> several years with no medication, all diet control, no diabetic side
> effects? Just pondering
>
> Cindi
>
>>
You can't. If you ever had a fasting blood sugar[FBS] over 110, you're
diabetic. If you have a FBS
in the 100-110 range you have metabolic syndrome, along with 40% of us over
the age of 60. You have insulin resistance, probably genetic. As Cindi has
done[and which most of us haven't] is to deal with this with diet. What's
really important about this is, the more glucose you consume, the more do
you contribute to your degree of insulin resistance, and the more do you
rise from the prediabetic state to type II diabetes.
This is a fascinating, and important medical syndrome[if you can call it
that]that has only been widely recognized for the past 10-15 years.
So, Cindi, keep doing what you're doing. I admire and wish for your food
discipline.

Kent
>

Nexis wrote:

> So...just how many of us are there?

I was on the wrong side of the borderline for a while, but am now safe.

--
Dan Goodman
"You, each of you, have some special wild cards. Play with them.
Find out what makes you different and better. Because it is there,
if only you can find it." Vernor Vinge, _Rainbows End_
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://dangoodman.livejournal.com
mirror: http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood

"Nexis" > wrote in message
...
> So...just how many of us are there?

Me!

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 13:43:01 -0800, Nexis wrote:
>
>> So...just how many of us are there?
>
> Enough to create another group, rec.food.cooking.diabetic ?

There's already a diabetic food newsgroup. I believe Damsel started it, but
I could be wrong.

"Cindi - HappyMamatoThree" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Nexis" > wrote in message
> ...
>> So...just how many of us are there?
>>
>
> One here, though I am completely diet controlled.
>
> I wonder if you can ever be considered "cured" of diabetes. If you go for
> several years with no medication, all diet control, no diabetic side
> effects? Just pondering

SIL was pre-diabetic, but hers was odd. Only had high BG first thing in the
morning and after breakfast. Seemed no matter what she ate, it spiked her.
The rest of the day she could eat whatever she wanted and her BG remained
normal.

She lost over half of her body weight and now her BG remains normal all the
time. But, she has to watch every bite she eats. She tends to put on
weight easily I think.

In article 1>,
"Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:

> "Nexis" > dropped this news:eqLYi.2690$mv3.2165
> @newsfe10.phx: in rec.food.cooking
>
> > So...just how many of us are there?
> >
> >
> > kimberly
>
> <raising hand>
>
> Michael <- type II controlled with diet/exercise and oral medication

Ditto.

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 20:04:40 -0800, "Kent" > wrote:

>
>"Cindi - HappyMamatoThree" > wrote in message
.net...
>>
>> "Nexis" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> So...just how many of us are there?
>>>
>>
>> One here, though I am completely diet controlled.
>>
>> I wonder if you can ever be considered "cured" of diabetes. If you go for
>> several years with no medication, all diet control, no diabetic side
>> effects? Just pondering
>>
>> Cindi
>>
>>>
>You can't. If you ever had a fasting blood sugar[FBS] over 110, you're
>diabetic. If you have a FBS
>in the 100-110 range you have metabolic syndrome, along with 40% of us over
>the age of 60.

Please provide a citation that backs up those diagnostic criteria.
Until then, refer here, which still states that FBG of >125 is
required for diagnosis.

http://www.sh.lsuhsc.edu/fammed/Outp...l/Diabetes.htm


And here, a layperson's article, which concurs with the above and also
talks about GTT levels.

http://metabolicsyndrome.about.com/o.../Diagnosis.htm

* Blood Glucose - A fasting glucose (FBG) test is taken to
determine if you have an impaired or malfunctioning response to
glucose. If you have a FBG of 110 mg/dL (6.1 mmol/L) or more you have
a risk factor.

* Oral Glucose Tolerance Test - This is a test to see how your
body handles glucose or sugar over time. You are required to fast from
eating, drinking and smoking 8 hours prior to the test. The lab will
take a fasting blood glucose sample when you arrive. This helps as a
basis of comparison to your blood glucose levels during the test. You
are given 75 g (3 oz.) of glucose to drink quickly. If you are
pregnant, you will be given 50 (2 oz.). Your blood sugar is then
tested again after 2 hours. If you are pregnant your blood sugar will
be tested after 1 hour and then again after 2 hours. If your results
are normal, your blood sugar results will be below 140 mg/dL (7.6
mmol/L) 2 hours after the drinking the glucose. In the Metabolic
Syndrome, or what is considered pre-diabetes, the 2-hour blood glucose
level is 140 to 199 mg/dL. (7.6 to 11.1 mmol/L). People with blood
glucose levels above 199 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) are considered to have
diabetes.

And here, the ADA's definitions.

http://www.diabetes.org/pre-diabetes...s-symptoms.jsp

Boron

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 02:03:12 -0500, Stan Horwitz
> wrote:

>In article 1>,
> "Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:
>
>> "Nexis" > dropped this news:eqLYi.2690$mv3.2165
>> @newsfe10.phx: in rec.food.cooking
>>
>> > So...just how many of us are there?
>> >
>> >
>> > kimberly
>>
>> <raising hand>
>>
>> Michael <- type II controlled with diet/exercise and oral medication
>
>Ditto.


Count me in.

Boron

"Michael "Dog3"" > wrote in message
6.121...
> "Nexis" > dropped this news:eqLYi.2690$mv3.2165
> @newsfe10.phx: in rec.food.cooking
>
>> So...just how many of us are there?
>>
>>
>> kimberly
>
> <raising hand>
>
> Michael <- type II controlled with diet/exercise and oral medication
>

You can add me to the type II diet/excercise and oral meds group.

I'll be glad when I'm recovered enough from my shoulder surgery to go back
to weight lifting class. PT is going very well right now and I'm making
great progress.

Ms P

Julie Bove wrote:

> SIL was pre-diabetic, but hers was odd. Only had high BG first thing in the
> morning and after breakfast. Seemed no matter what she ate, it spiked her.
> The rest of the day she could eat whatever she wanted and her BG remained
> normal.
>
> She lost over half of her body weight and now her BG remains normal all the
> time. But, she has to watch every bite she eats. She tends to put on
> weight easily I think.
>

There are wide variations in the behavior of type II diabetes. Some
folks make insulin fine yet their body isn't receptive to it and others
aren't making enough. The fatter one is, the fewer insulin receptors you
have on the cells. Lose some weight and that improves. People respond
differently to the meds and diets. There are too many variables to take
into consideration here on RFC alone.
This is why "one size does not fit all" is important to remember here.

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 06:31:11 GMT, "Julie Bove" >
wrote:

>
>"Nexis" > wrote in message
...
>> So...just how many of us are there?
>
>Me!

And me. Fasting glucose of 300 mg/dL plus thirst, vision changes----
yep, I got it. Under control now; drastic diet change plus one tablet
of glucophage with dinner seems to work pretty well. I even had a
chocolate-chunk cookie yesterday (my first in 3 months) and pizza for
dinner, and this morning's reading was 94.

Best -- Terry

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
news:P8TYi.2709$It.375@trndny06...
>
> "Nexis" > wrote in message
> ...
> > So...just how many of us are there?
>
> Me!
>
>

Me too....diet and oral meds.........Sharon

In article >,
Boron Elgar > wrote:


> Please provide a citation that backs up those diagnostic criteria.


Well, guess what? Your doctor determines when you are a diabetic. If
you don't like it, find another doctor. They all have different
criteria.


> And here, a layperson's article, which concurs with the above and also
> talks about GTT levels.


I thought the GTT was dead. That's what my doctor told me back in the
70's. Maybe it's back?

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
news:AaTYi.6218$4I.2370@trndny03...
>
> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 13:43:01 -0800, Nexis wrote:
>>
>>> So...just how many of us are there?
>>
>> Enough to create another group, rec.food.cooking.diabetic ?
>
> There's already a diabetic food newsgroup. I believe Damsel started it,
> but I could be wrong.
>

In the book I was recommended to read 'The First Year', they highly
recommend misc.health.diabetes as the newsgroup to garner info.
alt.support.diabetes is just a lot of medicaleeze and people posting their
daily BG numbers (sorry, I have enough to worry about taking my own) and
although I understand the medicaleeze, to quote Joe Friday, 'Just the Facts,
Ma'am'....the former, mhd, may have been okay in the beginning, but like rfc
it is getting hard to find what you are looking for in amongst all the 'buy
these cheapass sneakers from China' and 'I got good loving from this
website' posts. I suggested to Andy that we might want to form our own
little support group here among ourselves as we actually cook and understand
more than the average bear with a high BG about measuring and planning and
cooking to taste. Not a separate newsgroup, but just a group of us who can
email each other with an 'attaboy' when needed or a shoulder to cry on.

Hey Cathy, just to get some sort of count....maybe a survey? Are you
diabetic? Then the follow up, Type 1 or Type 2.

-ginny
Type 2 since 5/06. Supposedly diet and execise controlled (not).
daughter Type 1 since 10/10/05

"Virginia Tadrzynski" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> news:AaTYi.6218$4I.2370@trndny03...
>>
>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 13:43:01 -0800, Nexis wrote:
>>>
>>>> So...just how many of us are there?
>>>
>>> Enough to create another group, rec.food.cooking.diabetic ?
>>
>> There's already a diabetic food newsgroup. I believe Damsel started it,
>> but I could be wrong.
>>
>
> In the book I was recommended to read 'The First Year', they highly
> recommend misc.health.diabetes as the newsgroup to garner info.
> alt.support.diabetes is just a lot of medicaleeze and people posting their
> daily BG numbers (sorry, I have enough to worry about taking my own) and
> although I understand the medicaleeze, to quote Joe Friday, 'Just the
> Facts, Ma'am'....the former, mhd, may have been okay in the beginning, but
> like rfc it is getting hard to find what you are looking for in amongst
> all the 'buy these cheapass sneakers from China' and 'I got good loving
> from this website' posts. I suggested to Andy that we might want to form
> our own little support group here among ourselves as we actually cook and
> understand more than the average bear with a high BG about measuring and
> planning and cooking to taste. Not a separate newsgroup, but just a group
> of us who can email each other with an 'attaboy' when needed or a shoulder
> to cry on.

That newsgroup is for the more technical aspects of diabetes. Good if you
want information. For support, go to alt.support.diabetes. Just ignore the
few trolls and wackos that are there. I have them in my killfile, so I
don't see all the crap.
>
> Hey Cathy, just to get some sort of count....maybe a survey? Are you
> diabetic? Then the follow up, Type 1 or Type 2.

That's a good idea.

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:38:06 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> Boron Elgar > wrote:
>
>
>> Please provide a citation that backs up those diagnostic criteria.
>
>
>Well, guess what? Your doctor determines when you are a diabetic. If
>you don't like it, find another doctor. They all have different
>criteria.

Um...your doctor may decide to TREAT you as if you were a diabetic,
but if s/he diagnoses you as such and you do not meet the standard
medical criteria established for the disorder, guess what...your
doctor is wrong. Being diagnosed as a diabetic has tremendous
repercussions for acquiring health or life insurance. It isn't
something you want for fun on your records.

MDs do not make up criteria for diagnoses. Although diagnostic
criteria may change over time for specific disorders, they are subject
to standards/diagnostic protocols within their specialty. An MD
doesn't pull the criteria out of her/his hat.

>> And here, a layperson's article, which concurs with the above and also
>> talks about GTT levels.
>
>
>I thought the GTT was dead. That's what my doctor told me back in the
>70's. Maybe it's back?

70s, huh? Dead for what reason?

It is used when fasting BGs are inconclusive and other symptoms may be
present, leading the MD to suspect diabetes. It is a standard
diagnostic tool...granted, FBG will likely tell the story, but it
doesn't always...in which case a OGTT will likely tell it...very
commonly used to determine gestational diabetes, too.

It's a pricey test and takes a lot of time for the patient stuck at
the lab, so it isn't requested unless necessary...

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/003466.htm
Normal blood values for a 75-gram oral glucose tolerance test used to
check for type 2 diabetes:

* Fasting: 60 to 100 mg/dL
* 1 hour: less than 200 mg/dL
* 2 hours: less than 140 mg/dL. Between 140-200 mg/dL is
considered impaired glucose tolerance or pre-diabetes. This group is
at increased risk for developing diabetes. Greater than 200 mg/dL is
diagnostic of diabetes mellitus

Normal blood values for 100-gram oral glucose tolerance test used to
screen for gestational diabetes:

* Fasting: less than 95 mg/dL
* 1 hour: less than 180 mg/dL
* 2 hour: less than 155 mg/dL
* 3 hour: less than 140 mg/dL


Go look on Quest's site for making a lab appointment and the 3 basic
categories for lab work uinder "doctor's orders," you have to chose
one of the following:

For a child under the age of 12
For glucose tolerance testing
Routine

Do you think they'd do that if no one has done them in 30 or more
years?

"Goomba38" > wrote in message
. ..
> Julie Bove wrote:
>
>> SIL was pre-diabetic, but hers was odd. Only had high BG first thing in
>> the morning and after breakfast. Seemed no matter what she ate, it
>> spiked her. The rest of the day she could eat whatever she wanted and her
>> BG remained normal.
>>
>> She lost over half of her body weight and now her BG remains normal all
>> the time. But, she has to watch every bite she eats. She tends to put
>> on weight easily I think.
>
> There are wide variations in the behavior of type II diabetes. Some folks
> make insulin fine yet their body isn't receptive to it and others aren't
> making enough. The fatter one is, the fewer insulin receptors you have on
> the cells. Lose some weight and that improves. People respond differently
> to the meds and diets. There are too many variables to take into
> consideration here on RFC alone.
> This is why "one size does not fit all" is important to remember here.

I have that big thick, very expensive book from Joslin that is written for
Drs. In there it says there are over 300 variations of diabetes, yet we are
mostly lumped together as type 1 or 2.

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Boron Elgar > wrote:
>
>
>> Please provide a citation that backs up those diagnostic criteria.
>
>
> Well, guess what? Your doctor determines when you are a diabetic. If
> you don't like it, find another doctor. They all have different
> criteria.
>
>
>> And here, a layperson's article, which concurs with the above and also
>> talks about GTT levels.
>
>
> I thought the GTT was dead. That's what my doctor told me back in the
> 70's. Maybe it's back?

It never went away.

In article >,
Boron Elgar > wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:38:06 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

> >Well, guess what? Your doctor determines when you are a diabetic. If
> >you don't like it, find another doctor. They all have different
> >criteria.
>
> Um...your doctor may decide to TREAT you as if you were a diabetic,
> but if s/he diagnoses you as such and you do not meet the standard
> medical criteria established for the disorder, guess what...your
> doctor is wrong. Being diagnosed as a diabetic has tremendous
> repercussions for acquiring health or life insurance. It isn't
> something you want for fun on your records.


I was diagnosed in 1972. It's a little late to worry about it being on
my records. I have no life insurance. We have no need for it. I've
had the same health insurance for 30 years. I will have it for the rest
of my life, at minimal cost. I currently pay US$2.39 a month for the
three of us. My daughter will fall off in less than a year. I expect
that my cost will drop to zero at that point.

I have to agree that there may be criteria for diagnoses of diabetes,
and that I was really referring to treatment. My sister is diabetic.
She takes no medications, and has a fasting blood sugar below 100. Why
is she diabetic? Before she lost those 20 pounds, her FBS was higher,
and she has a family history on both sides for serious diabetes (the
needle). It's just prudent to consider her as diabetic, even though she
isn't on meds.


> >I thought the GTT was dead. That's what my doctor told me back in the
> >70's. Maybe it's back?
>
> 70s, huh? Dead for what reason?

Don't know. I had three of them. Flunked them all, but no treatment.
I was told to take one every year. When it was time for number four, I
told the doctor. He said they didn't do those any more. Perhaps he
meant not for people in my situation, but he didn't explain that. They
had some other test. After a few years, they didn't do that one either.
Now they have even another test.


> commonly used to determine gestational diabetes, too.


Not worried about that.

:-)


> It's a pricey test and takes a lot of time for the patient stuck at
> the lab, so it isn't requested unless necessary...

Tell me about it. Usually the test got aborted when the lab tech saw I
was about to pass out from low blood sugar.


> Go look on Quest's site for making a lab appointment and the 3 basic
> categories for lab work uinder "doctor's orders," you have to chose
> one of the following:
>
> For a child under the age of 12
> For glucose tolerance testing
> Routine
>
> Do you think they'd do that if no one has done them in 30 or more
> years?

I knew that they still did them, but rarely. It's dead as the routine
tool for diagnosis of diabetes, at least to my knowledge, unless it's
changed again.

i usually just lurk an rarely post. i am a T2 dx 7/06.

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:17:57 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> Boron Elgar > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:38:06 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>> >Well, guess what? Your doctor determines when you are a diabetic. If
>> >you don't like it, find another doctor. They all have different
>> >criteria.
>>
>> Um...your doctor may decide to TREAT you as if you were a diabetic,
>> but if s/he diagnoses you as such and you do not meet the standard
>> medical criteria established for the disorder, guess what...your
>> doctor is wrong. Being diagnosed as a diabetic has tremendous
>> repercussions for acquiring health or life insurance. It isn't
>> something you want for fun on your records.
>
>
>I was diagnosed in 1972. It's a little late to worry about it being on
>my records. I have no life insurance. We have no need for it. I've
>had the same health insurance for 30 years. I will have it for the rest
>of my life, at minimal cost. I currently pay US$2.39 a month for the
>three of us. My daughter will fall off in less than a year. I expect
>that my cost will drop to zero at that point.

Diagnostic criteria for diabetes was quite different then, and more
likely based on OGTT and urine testing, maybe a fasting BG - I have no
history I can check on that quickly. In fact, the fasting BG levels
for a diagnosis were much higher even within the past decade.

I am not saying YOU were misdiagnosed, by the way. Things have come a
long, long way in the past 35 years, and protocols and pathways and
all sorts of ways of dealing with these things are in place. Ties have
changed.


>I have to agree that there may be criteria for diagnoses of diabetes,
>and that I was really referring to treatment. My sister is diabetic.
>She takes no medications, and has a fasting blood sugar below 100. Why
>is she diabetic? Before she lost those 20 pounds, her FBS was higher,
>and she has a family history on both sides for serious diabetes (the
>needle). It's just prudent to consider her as diabetic, even though she
>isn't on meds.

Once the diagnosis is made, there isn't any going back. T2 doesn't go
away, although it can be controlled to the point that it does not
"show" in lab testing. Nevertheless, if one goes off the wagon, gains
weight, eats a poorly,etc, it'll show up again.
>
>
>> >I thought the GTT was dead. That's what my doctor told me back in the
>> >70's. Maybe it's back?
>>
>> 70s, huh? Dead for what reason?
>
>Don't know. I had three of them. Flunked them all, but no treatment.
>I was told to take one every year. When it was time for number four, I
>told the doctor. He said they didn't do those any more. Perhaps he
>meant not for people in my situation, but he didn't explain that. They
>had some other test. After a few years, they didn't do that one either.
>Now they have even another test.

No one had HbA1Cs in those days. They are pretty nice and should be
done every 3 months or so. They are much less bothersome than GTT and
more accurate in showing overall control, too.
>
>
>> commonly used to determine gestational diabetes, too.
>
>
>Not worried about that.
>
>:-)

Last time I had one, I was carrying twins.
>

>I knew that they still did them, but rarely. It's dead as the routine
>tool for diagnosis of diabetes, at least to my knowledge, unless it's
>changed again.

You are correct,. They are used more for diagnosing nowadays.

Boron

"Nexis" > wrote in message
...
> So...just how many of us are there?
>
>
> kimberly

I'm a Type 2, diagnosed 9/11/02. My husband was diagnosed 3 weeks ago; my
brother was diagnosed last week; my mom and sister were diagnosed last
year - all T2. Pretty scary...

Karen

In article >,
Boron Elgar > wrote:


>
> Last time I had one, I was carrying twins.

Congrats. How old are they now?

Thanks for all your info. I've got a lot to learn.

Here.

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 18:57:02 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> Boron Elgar > wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Last time I had one, I was carrying twins.
>
>Congrats. How old are they now?

19 and sophomores in college.
>
>Thanks for all your info. I've got a lot to learn.

You are welcome and I bet you have a lot that you can teach us, too.

Boron

Karen in NC wrote:

> I'm a Type 2, diagnosed 9/11/02. My husband was diagnosed 3 weeks ago; my
> brother was diagnosed last week; my mom and sister were diagnosed last
> year - all T2. Pretty scary...
>
> Karen

Gosh Karen, that is pretty scary. November is American Diabetes month,
so doctors are being reminded to test their patients for diabetes.

Becca

In article >,
Boron Elgar > wrote:


> * Blood Glucose - A fasting glucose (FBG) test is taken to
> determine if you have an impaired or malfunctioning response to
> glucose. If you have a FBG of 110 mg/dL (6.1 mmol/L) or more you have
> a risk factor.
>
> * Oral Glucose Tolerance Test - This is a test to see how your
> body handles glucose or sugar over time. You are required to fast from
> eating, drinking and smoking 8 hours prior to the test. The lab will
> take a fasting blood glucose sample when you arrive. This helps as a
> basis of comparison to your blood glucose levels during the test. You
> are given 75 g (3 oz.) of glucose to drink quickly. If you are
> pregnant, you will be given 50 (2 oz.). Your blood sugar is then
> tested again after 2 hours. If you are pregnant your blood sugar will
> be tested after 1 hour and then again after 2 hours. If your results
> are normal, your blood sugar results will be below 140 mg/dL (7.6
> mmol/L) 2 hours after the drinking the glucose. In the Metabolic
> Syndrome, or what is considered pre-diabetes, the 2-hour blood glucose
> level is 140 to 199 mg/dL. (7.6 to 11.1 mmol/L). People with blood
> glucose levels above 199 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) are considered to have
> diabetes.
>
Oral glucose tolerance tests are not widely done anymore, except for
pregnant women to diagnose gestational diabetes. Usually 2 independent
FBG's of > 125 mg/dL are sufficient for diagnosis.

I don't have diabetes, but my brother had type 2; therefore, I'm keeping
my weight down and exercising to make sure I don't get it.

Cindy

--
C.J. Fuller

Delete the obvious to email me

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 12:26:12 -0800, Cindy Fuller
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Boron Elgar > wrote:
>

>>
>Oral glucose tolerance tests are not widely done anymore, except for
>pregnant women to diagnose gestational diabetes. Usually 2 independent
>FBG's of > 125 mg/dL are sufficient for diagnosis.

That is correct. If you go back and re-read my post you will see this
mentioned.

You snipped the following from my post:

************************
It is used when fasting BGs are inconclusive and other symptoms may be
present, leading the MD to suspect diabetes. It is a standard
diagnostic tool...granted, FBG will likely tell the story, but it
doesn't always...in which case a OGTT will likely tell it...very
commonly used to determine gestational diabetes, too.
************************************
>
>I don't have diabetes, but my brother had type 2; therefore, I'm keeping
>my weight down and exercising to make sure I don't get it.

Best of luck with it.


Boron