On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 3:36:12 PM UTC-5, Cheri wrote:
> "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 2:22:56 PM UTC-5, Cheri wrote:
> >> "Brice" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On Sun, 04 Nov 2018 10:12:33 -0500, Gary > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Pamela wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I tend to view pancakes with sweet syrup as essentially children's
> >> >>> food.
> >> >>
> >> >>It's your opinion and that's fine....BUT...when you post that
> >> >>here -
> >> >>
> >> >>I think your view is stupid, narrow minded and arrogant. No need
> >> >>to criticize others likes in food. Please don't turn in to
> >> >>another Bwuce here, one of that nonsense is more than enough.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, Gary has the right to love his pleb food! Pleb food all the way
> >> > for Gary!
> >> >
> >> > (The paint fumes have led to arrested development with Gary. That's
> >> > why he eats like a child.)
> >>
> >>
> >> Who enjoys food more than a child?
> >
> > I certainly enjoy food more than I did as a child. I pretty much
> > subsisted
> > on hamburgers or buttered macaroni.
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
>
>
> Nah, kids get to wear theirs, make pictures with it, toss it, etc., as well
> as eat it. That's total enjoyment for them.
>
> Cheri

Somehow I don't recall being allowed to do any of that at the family
dinner table. "Children should be seen and not heard" was a common
refrain.

Cindy Hamilton

Pamela wrote:
>
> > I've never heard of pancakes with any other type of syrup other than
> > sweet. Have I been misled my whole life in thinking all pancake/waffle
> > syrups are sweet??
>
> Have you heard of serving pancakes with lemon juice? Not sweet at all.

First time I had crepes (which are pretty much very thinned down
pancake batter, imo), they were sprinkled with sugar then lemon
juice squeezed on, then rolled up. I was hooked. One or two
of those make a very nice dessert.

Pamela wrote:
>
> I can sort of see how it might appear critical but, as far as I am
> concerned, people are free to eat what they like, even if I wouldn't.

Sorry I jumped on you for that but calling anything
"children's food" seems to be a derogatory term here.
>
> I don't eat doughnuts either because, again, I consider them children's
> food

Now that is an odd statement. Do you like doughnuts? Do you NOT
eat them only because you consider them to be child's food? If I
like a certain food, I'll have some.

I used to go on 2-4 day surfing trips to Cape Hatterass, NC and
I'd live on Gerber baby food in the little jars. Now THAT's
childrens food but I still ate it.

I never ate doughnuts much as a child. It's a dessert food good
(or bad) for all ages. I rarely eat them but I do like them
(especially a raspberry filled one). Actually haven't eaten a
single one is a couple of years. Before that, I would
occasionally buy one from the store deli that was made that
morning. I'd take it home and save it for a late evening snack.

Darnit....now you have me craving a doughnut.
And maybe a couple of jars of Gerber too.
lol

Brice wrote:
>
> I think they want sweet or greasy, not bitter or salty. Which brings
> us to Gary's favourite food: the cheeseburger.

I guess you aren't able to quit being brain-dead but I've
corrected you at least twice that I don't care for cheeseburgers.
I prefer hamburgers without the cheese. I love a good burger, but
still not my favorite food.

I've never stated my favorite food here but that's got me
thinking about what it might be. Hmmmm.

On 2018-11-05 10:16 AM, Gary wrote:
> Pamela wrote:
>>
>> Have you heard of serving pancakes with lemon juice? Not sweet at all.
>
> First time I had crepes (which are pretty much very thinned down
> pancake batter, imo), they were sprinkled with sugar then lemon
> juice squeezed on, then rolled up. I was hooked. One or two
> of those make a very nice dessert.


Crepes are very versatile. They can be eaten with sweet things as a
dessert, or they can be savory.

"Gary" > wrote in message ...

> I never ate doughnuts much as a child. It's a dessert food good
> (or bad) for all ages. I rarely eat them but I do like them
> (especially a raspberry filled one). Actually haven't eaten a
> single one is a couple of years. Before that, I would
> occasionally buy one from the store deli that was made that
> morning. I'd take it home and save it for a late evening snack.
>
> Darnit....now you have me craving a doughnut.
> And maybe a couple of jars of Gerber too.
> lol


Today is one of the national doughnut days, so go for it. Here, I got an
email for a free doughnut from the supermarket. I'm passing on that.

Cheri

On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 9:16:57 AM UTC-6, Gary wrote:
>
> Pamela wrote:
> >
> > > I've never heard of pancakes with any other type of syrup other than
> > > sweet. Have I been misled my whole life in thinking all pancake/waffle
> > > syrups are sweet??
> >
> > Have you heard of serving pancakes with lemon juice? Not sweet at all.
>
> First time I had crepes (which are pretty much very thinned down
> pancake batter, imo), they were sprinkled with sugar then lemon
> juice squeezed on, then rolled up. I was hooked. One or two
> of those make a very nice dessert.
>
>
First things first. You misquoted and attribute the above statement to
Pamela when I was the one who wrote this.

Second, I don't know who asked the question about pancakes with lemon
juice. Does not sound appealing at all. Might be good with the addition
of sprinkled sugar. But I can say in all honesty I've never had them
served this way.

On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:23:06 -0800, "Cheri" >
wrote:

>"Gary" > wrote in message ...
>
>> I never ate doughnuts much as a child. It's a dessert food good
>> (or bad) for all ages. I rarely eat them but I do like them
>> (especially a raspberry filled one). Actually haven't eaten a
>> single one is a couple of years. Before that, I would
>> occasionally buy one from the store deli that was made that
>> morning. I'd take it home and save it for a late evening snack.
>>
>> Darnit....now you have me craving a doughnut.
>> And maybe a couple of jars of Gerber too.
>> lol
>
>
>Today is one of the national doughnut days, so go for it. Here, I got an
>email for a free doughnut from the supermarket. I'm passing on that.

Isn't everyday national doughnut day for American cops? Or are those
days over and do they all order quinoa rolls with organic kale these
days?

On Mon, 05 Nov 2018 17:53:00 GMT, Pamela >
wrote:

>On 15:20 5 Nov 2018, Gary > wrote in
:
>
>> Sorry I jumped on you for that but calling anything "children's food"
>> seems to be a derogatory term here.
>
>Saying "children's food" is not meant to be derogatory. Children
>are still evolving their sense of taste and prefer different food to
>when adults. Children are very sensitive to bitter flavours
>(evolutionists say it is to avoid poisons which are frequently
>bitter)and they develop a taste for this later. Children prefer
>different food from adults.
>
>Of course adults can eat jello, cotton candy, gummy Haribos, fish
>fingers, syrupy pancakes and so on but their primary purpose is
>thestrong appeal to children. I can eat this food as well as anyone and
>I wouldn't find it terrible but it has little appeal. On the other hand
>my grandkids go crazy for such things.

I suddenly have this mental image of you cooking for a table full of
grandkids and Gary.

On Mon, 05 Nov 2018 11:12:55 GMT, Pamela >
wrote:

>On 20:33 4 Nov 2018, "Cheri" > wrote in
>news
>>>
>>> On 11/4/2018 11:42 AM, Pamela wrote
>>
>> >Children want entertainment more than they want food. I don't know
>> >if it's good or bad but I'm not a child any longer and don't have a
>> >child's taste for food.
>>
>> Do you plan on growing away from your childlike posts as well?
>>
>> Cheri
>
>I am sorry you are offended that I don't eat children's food but have
>you finished with your rejoinders or are your comments a silly game?
>Perhaps a childish one at that.
>
>A few posts back I saw Brice make quite a strong comment to someone. I
>looked again and I saw it was in response to you. Why am I not surprised
>Brice has to talk to you in that way? I dare say your nasty comments
>probably draw firm ripostes from others too.

That's the thing. She has a very sharp tongue but is also easily
offended. When that happens, she ignores you (me in this cae) for a
couple of days or weeks. It's unavoidable.

On 2018-11-05 2:01 PM, wrote:
> On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 9:16:57 AM UTC-6, Gary wrote:
>>
>> Pamela wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've never heard of pancakes with any other type of syrup other than
>>>> sweet. Have I been misled my whole life in thinking all pancake/waffle
>>>> syrups are sweet??
>>>
>>> Have you heard of serving pancakes with lemon juice? Not sweet at all.
>>
>> First time I had crepes (which are pretty much very thinned down
>> pancake batter, imo), they were sprinkled with sugar then lemon
>> juice squeezed on, then rolled up. I was hooked. One or two
>> of those make a very nice dessert.
>>
>>
> First things first. You misquoted and attribute the above statement to
> Pamela when I was the one who wrote this.
>
> Second, I don't know who asked the question about pancakes with lemon
> juice. Does not sound appealing at all. Might be good with the addition
> of sprinkled sugar. But I can say in all honesty I've never had them
> served this way.
>
Well, whoever mentioned crepes with lemon.... I googled it and found
recipes for crepes that are sprinkled with granulated sugar and then
with fresh lemon. It looks interesting.

On Mon, 05 Nov 2018 10:21:29 -0500, Gary > wrote:

>Brice wrote:
>>
>> I think they want sweet or greasy, not bitter or salty. Which brings
>> us to Gary's favourite food: the cheeseburger.
>
>I guess you aren't able to quit being brain-dead but I've
>corrected you at least twice that I don't care for cheeseburgers.
>I prefer hamburgers without the cheese. I love a good burger, but
>still not my favorite food.
>
>I've never stated my favorite food here but that's got me
>thinking about what it might be. Hmmmm.

I know, cheeseburgers!

On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 03:14:03 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 3:36:12 PM UTC-5, Cheri wrote:
>> "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 2:22:56 PM UTC-5, Cheri wrote:
>> >> "Brice" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > On Sun, 04 Nov 2018 10:12:33 -0500, Gary > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>Pamela wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I tend to view pancakes with sweet syrup as essentially children's
>> >> >>> food.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>It's your opinion and that's fine....BUT...when you post that
>> >> >>here -
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I think your view is stupid, narrow minded and arrogant. No need
>> >> >>to criticize others likes in food. Please don't turn in to
>> >> >>another Bwuce here, one of that nonsense is more than enough.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, Gary has the right to love his pleb food! Pleb food all the way
>> >> > for Gary!
>> >> >
>> >> > (The paint fumes have led to arrested development with Gary. That's
>> >> > why he eats like a child.)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Who enjoys food more than a child?
>> >
>> > I certainly enjoy food more than I did as a child. I pretty much
>> > subsisted
>> > on hamburgers or buttered macaroni.
>> >
>> > Cindy Hamilton
>>
>>
>> Nah, kids get to wear theirs, make pictures with it, toss it, etc., as well
>> as eat it. That's total enjoyment for them.
>>
>> Cheri
>
>Somehow I don't recall being allowed to do any of that at the family
>dinner table. "Children should be seen and not heard" was a common
>refrain.

Maybe Cheri raised her children the new age way? Where you have to
allow for their natural impulses, so they can become the person
they're intended to be. If that means letting them throw potato mash
and fish fingers at their parents, then so be it.

On 11/4/2018 9:14 AM, graham wrote:
> On 2018-11-04 7:05 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 21:48:46 -0500, Terry Coombs >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/3/2018 8:05 PM, graham wrote:
>>>> On 2018-11-03 4:57 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
>>
>>>>> Â*Â*Â*Please tell me you did NOT put your honey in the microwave ...
>>>>> that
>>>>> will kill all the beneficial properties of the honey .
>>>>
>>>> Old wive's tale!
>>>
>>> Â*Â* OK , it's an old wives tale and we beekeepers know nothing about it
>>> .Â* You go right ahead and nuke your honey . Mine will never see temps
>>> above about a hundred degrees - the highest temp usually seen inside a
>>> hive . Oh wait , what you've got is probably not even real honey , but
>>> flavored corn syrup . Nuke away !
>>
>>
>> Most honey sold in the US is pasteurized, anyway. And filtered.
>>
>> Besides, very few eat enough honey to make any nutritional difference
>> in diet, even if the enzymes, bee pollen, etc are still there.
>>
> My point was that nuking (at low level) is no different to sitting the
> jar in hot water. Some seem to associate microwave radiation with
> nuclear.

Â* Science isn't your strong suit is it ? Look it up if you doubt me
,but microwaves ARE radiation - of a certain frequency , or wavelength .
So are X-rays and Gamma rays and visible light . ALL are
"electromagnetic radiation" . Now , about the honey . Because of the way
microwaves heat , that is by molecular excitation , they destroy the
organic and microbiological stuff in honey . We eat enough to make a
difference , my wife has cut way back on antihistamines and other
sinus/allergy medications . I never took much , now don't take any at all .

--
Snag
Yes , I'm old
and crochety - and armed .
Get outta my woods !

On 2018-11-05 3:48 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
> On 11/4/2018 9:14 AM, graham wrote:

>>> Most honey sold in the US is pasteurized, anyway. And filtered.
>>>
>>> Besides, very few eat enough honey to make any nutritional difference
>>> in diet, even if the enzymes, bee pollen, etc are still there.
>>>
>> My point was that nuking (at low level) is no different to sitting the
>> jar in hot water. Some seem to associate microwave radiation with
>> nuclear.
>
> Â* Science isn't your strong suit is it ? Look it up if you doubt me
> ,but microwaves ARE radiation - of a certain frequency , or wavelength .
> So are X-rays and Gamma rays and visible light . ALL are
> "electromagnetic radiation" . Now , about the honey . Because of the way
> microwaves heat , that is by molecular excitation , they destroy the
> organic and microbiological stuff in honey . We eat enough to make a
> difference , my wife has cut way back on antihistamines and other
> sinus/allergy medications . I never took much , now don't take any at all .
>


I have been waiting for an explanation about destroying the bee enzymes
in honey makes it less beneficial to humans. The best you have done is
to say that nuking honey destroys the "organic and microbiological
stuff". If that was a high school biology test question your answer
would get a zero.

On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 14:48:02 -0600, Terry Coombs >
wrote:

>On 11/4/2018 9:14 AM, graham wrote:
>> On 2018-11-04 7:05 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 21:48:46 -0500, Terry Coombs >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/3/2018 8:05 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-11-03 4:57 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> ***Please tell me you did NOT put your honey in the microwave ...
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> will kill all the beneficial properties of the honey .
>>>>>
>>>>> Old wive's tale!
>>>>
>>>> ** OK , it's an old wives tale and we beekeepers know nothing about it
>>>> .* You go right ahead and nuke your honey . Mine will never see temps
>>>> above about a hundred degrees - the highest temp usually seen inside a
>>>> hive . Oh wait , what you've got is probably not even real honey , but
>>>> flavored corn syrup . Nuke away !
>>>
>>>
>>> Most honey sold in the US is pasteurized, anyway. And filtered.
>>>
>>> Besides, very few eat enough honey to make any nutritional difference
>>> in diet, even if the enzymes, bee pollen, etc are still there.
>>>
>> My point was that nuking (at low level) is no different to sitting the
>> jar in hot water. Some seem to associate microwave radiation with
>> nuclear.
>
> * Science isn't your strong suit is it ? Look it up if you doubt me
>,but microwaves ARE radiation - of a certain frequency , or wavelength .
>So are X-rays and Gamma rays and visible light . ALL are
>"electromagnetic radiation" .

You seem to have wholly misunderstood what Graham wrote. I guess
reading is not your strong suit.


>Now , about the honey . Because of the way
>microwaves heat , that is by molecular excitation , they destroy the
>organic and microbiological stuff in honey . We eat enough to make a
>difference , my wife has cut way back on antihistamines and other
>sinus/allergy medications . I never took much , now don't take any at all .


"...they destroy the organic and microbiological stuff in honey. "
What exactly does that mean and why is it a negative?

Again, most commercial honey sold is pasteurized, so are you trying to
say that raw honey is somehow intrinsically healthier and not only
better for you in some way, but that it mitigates allergies, too?
Nonsense.

How exactly do you think honey is used by most people? Iced tea?
Straight by the spoonful? Glugged by the pint? Cooking, baking, hot
tea....you know, the usual stuff is where most of it goes.

You are spouting bullshit. Really. You get not only the usual
criticism of anything anecdotal, but slammed for touchie-feelie
bullshit, too.

writes:
>On 2018-11-05 3:48 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
>> On 11/4/2018 9:14 AM, graham wrote:
>
>>>> Most honey sold in the US is pasteurized, anyway. And filtered.
>>>>
>>>> Besides, very few eat enough honey to make any nutritional difference
>>>> in diet, even if the enzymes, bee pollen, etc are still there.
>>>>
>>> My point was that nuking (at low level) is no different to sitting the
>>> jar in hot water. Some seem to associate microwave radiation with
>>> nuclear.
>>
>> A Science isn't your strong suit is it ? Look it up if you doubt me
>> ,but microwaves ARE radiation - of a certain frequency , or wavelength .
>> So are X-rays and Gamma rays and visible light . ALL are
>> "electromagnetic radiation" . Now , about the honey . Because of the way
>> microwaves heat , that is by molecular excitation , they destroy the
>> organic and microbiological stuff in honey . We eat enough to make a
>> difference , my wife has cut way back on antihistamines and other
>> sinus/allergy medications . I never took much , now don't take any at all .
>>
>
>
>I have been waiting for an explanation about destroying the bee enzymes
>in honey makes it less beneficial to humans. The best you have done is
>to say that nuking honey destroys the "organic and microbiological
>stuff". If that was a high school biology test question your answer
>would get a zero.


pretty skillful takedown there Dave

On 2018-11-05 3:20 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 14:48:02 -0600, Terry Coombs >
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/4/2018 9:14 AM, graham wrote:
>>> On 2018-11-04 7:05 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 21:48:46 -0500, Terry Coombs >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/3/2018 8:05 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018-11-03 4:57 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Â*Â*Â*Please tell me you did NOT put your honey in the microwave ...
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> will kill all the beneficial properties of the honey .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Old wive's tale!
>>>>>
>>>>> Â*Â* OK , it's an old wives tale and we beekeepers know nothing about it
>>>>> .Â* You go right ahead and nuke your honey . Mine will never see temps
>>>>> above about a hundred degrees - the highest temp usually seen inside a
>>>>> hive . Oh wait , what you've got is probably not even real honey , but
>>>>> flavored corn syrup . Nuke away !
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Most honey sold in the US is pasteurized, anyway. And filtered.
>>>>
>>>> Besides, very few eat enough honey to make any nutritional difference
>>>> in diet, even if the enzymes, bee pollen, etc are still there.
>>>>
>>> My point was that nuking (at low level) is no different to sitting the
>>> jar in hot water. Some seem to associate microwave radiation with
>>> nuclear.
>>
>> Â* Science isn't your strong suit is it ? Look it up if you doubt me
>> ,but microwaves ARE radiation - of a certain frequency , or wavelength .
>> So are X-rays and Gamma rays and visible light . ALL are
>> "electromagnetic radiation" .
>
> You seem to have wholly misunderstood what Graham wrote. I guess
> reading is not your strong suit.
>
>
>> Now , about the honey . Because of the way
>> microwaves heat , that is by molecular excitation , they destroy the
>> organic and microbiological stuff in honey . We eat enough to make a
>> difference , my wife has cut way back on antihistamines and other
>> sinus/allergy medications . I never took much , now don't take any at all .
>
>
> "...they destroy the organic and microbiological stuff in honey. "
> What exactly does that mean and why is it a negative?
>
> Again, most commercial honey sold is pasteurized, so are you trying to
> say that raw honey is somehow intrinsically healthier and not only
> better for you in some way, but that it mitigates allergies, too?
> Nonsense.
>
> How exactly do you think honey is used by most people? Iced tea?
> Straight by the spoonful? Glugged by the pint? Cooking, baking, hot
> tea....you know, the usual stuff is where most of it goes.
>
> You are spouting bullshit. Really. You get not only the usual
> criticism of anything anecdotal, but slammed for touchie-feelie
> bullshit, too.
>
>
>
>
Thank you, Boron!!

"Terry Coombs" wrote in message news
On 11/4/2018 9:14 AM, graham wrote:
> On 2018-11-04 7:05 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 21:48:46 -0500, Terry Coombs >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/3/2018 8:05 PM, graham wrote:
>>>> On 2018-11-03 4:57 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
>>
>>>>> Please tell me you did NOT put your honey in the microwave ... that
>>>>> will kill all the beneficial properties of the honey .
>>>>
>>>> Old wive's tale!
>>>
>>> OK , it's an old wives tale and we beekeepers know nothing about it
>>> . You go right ahead and nuke your honey . Mine will never see temps
>>> above about a hundred degrees - the highest temp usually seen inside a
>>> hive . Oh wait , what you've got is probably not even real honey , but
>>> flavored corn syrup . Nuke away !
>>
>>
>> Most honey sold in the US is pasteurized, anyway. And filtered.
>>
>> Besides, very few eat enough honey to make any nutritional difference
>> in diet, even if the enzymes, bee pollen, etc are still there.
>>
> My point was that nuking (at low level) is no different to sitting the jar
> in hot water. Some seem to associate microwave radiation with nuclear.

Science isn't your strong suit is it ? Look it up if you doubt me
,but microwaves ARE radiation - of a certain frequency , or wavelength .
So are X-rays and Gamma rays and visible light . ALL are
"electromagnetic radiation" . Now , about the honey . Because of the way
microwaves heat , that is by molecular excitation , they destroy the
organic and microbiological stuff in honey . We eat enough to make a
difference , my wife has cut way back on antihistamines and other
sinus/allergy medications . I never took much , now don't take any at all .


Snag

====

That is wonderful!! Whatever anyone else says, it is working on your and
your wife's health!

It is different for you because you are getting your honey fresh. How do
the jars compare?

Just to let you know, I won't be microwaving it any more

On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 09:55:42 GMT, Pamela >
wrote:

>On 00:37 5 Nov 2018, Jinx the Minx > wrote in
>news >
>> John Kuthe > wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 10:16:50 AM UTC-6, Cheri wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> OK, so how do you know that it was only bad once? Is he testing
>>>> every day? Two hours after meals for instance?
>>>
>>> Uh oh! All of a sudden, Cheri is an EXPERT in diabetic nursing!
>>>
>>> And Cheri, I'll let you know I did my elective in diabetic nursing,
>>> so if you need to know anything in that area of nursing just ask me.
>>>
>>>
>>>> What do they consider an OK A1c in the
>>>> UK for annual test? Not trying to be a smart aleck, just curious.
>>>>
>>>> Cheri
>>>
>>> 7 is the norm for an A1c level in the U.S. I don't know about
>>> anywhere else.
>>>
>>> John Kuthe, RN, BSN...
>>>
>>
>> 7 is considered diabetic in the U.S.
>
>Some sites sites say anything over 6.5 is diabetic. It's worrying
>someone like John who claims to have trained in diabetic nursing doesn't
>know that.

Since it varies per country between 6 and 7, what's the big deal?

Pamela > wrote:
> On 00:37 5 Nov 2018, Jinx the Minx > wrote in
> news >
>> John Kuthe > wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 10:16:50 AM UTC-6, Cheri wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> OK, so how do you know that it was only bad once? Is he testing
>>>> every day? Two hours after meals for instance?
>>>
>>> Uh oh! All of a sudden, Cheri is an EXPERT in diabetic nursing!
>>>
>>> And Cheri, I'll let you know I did my elective in diabetic nursing,
>>> so if you need to know anything in that area of nursing just ask me.
>>>
>>>
>>>> What do they consider an OK A1c in the
>>>> UK for annual test? Not trying to be a smart aleck, just curious.
>>>>
>>>> Cheri
>>>
>>> 7 is the norm for an A1c level in the U.S. I don't know about
>>> anywhere else.
>>>
>>> John Kuthe, RN, BSN...
>>>
>>
>> 7 is considered diabetic in the U.S.
>
> Some sites sites say anything over 6.5 is diabetic. It's worrying
> someone like John who claims to have trained in diabetic nursing doesn't
> know that.
>
>

I agree, the threshold is much lower than 7. I just called out 7 since
thats the value JK said was €œthe norm€. Its little wonder how medical
errors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S.

"Jinx the Minx" > wrote in message
news
> Pamela > wrote:
>> On 00:37 5 Nov 2018, Jinx the Minx > wrote in
>> news >>
>>> John Kuthe > wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 10:16:50 AM UTC-6, Cheri wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> OK, so how do you know that it was only bad once? Is he testing
>>>>> every day? Two hours after meals for instance?
>>>>
>>>> Uh oh! All of a sudden, Cheri is an EXPERT in diabetic nursing!
>>>>
>>>> And Cheri, I'll let you know I did my elective in diabetic nursing,
>>>> so if you need to know anything in that area of nursing just ask me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What do they consider an OK A1c in the
>>>>> UK for annual test? Not trying to be a smart aleck, just curious.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheri
>>>>
>>>> 7 is the norm for an A1c level in the U.S. I don't know about
>>>> anywhere else.
>>>>
>>>> John Kuthe, RN, BSN...
>>>>
>>>
>>> 7 is considered diabetic in the U.S.
>>
>> Some sites sites say anything over 6.5 is diabetic. It's worrying
>> someone like John who claims to have trained in diabetic nursing doesn't
>> know that.
>>
>>
>
> I agree, the threshold is much lower than 7. I just called out 7 since
> thats the value JK said was €œthe norm€. Its little wonder how
> medical
> errors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S.

My doc, fairly young from India, wants to have type 2's shoot for 6.5 or
lower with the A1c, even into the 5's ideally.

Cheri

On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 10:09:24 -0000, "Ophelia" >
wrote:
>
>"Terry Coombs" wrote in message news >
>On 11/4/2018 9:14 AM, graham wrote:
>> On 2018-11-04 7:05 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 21:48:46 -0500, Terry Coombs >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/3/2018 8:05 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-11-03 4:57 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Please tell me you did NOT put your honey in the microwave ... that
>>>>>> will kill all the beneficial properties of the honey .
>>>>>
>>>>> Old wive's tale!
>>>>
>>>> OK , it's an old wives tale and we beekeepers know nothing about it
>>>> . You go right ahead and nuke your honey . Mine will never see temps
>>>> above about a hundred degrees - the highest temp usually seen inside a
>>>> hive . Oh wait , what you've got is probably not even real honey , but
>>>> flavored corn syrup . Nuke away !
>>>
>>> Most honey sold in the US is pasteurized, anyway. And filtered.
>>>
>>> Besides, very few eat enough honey to make any nutritional difference
>>> in diet, even if the enzymes, bee pollen, etc are still there.
>>>
>> My point was that nuking (at low level) is no different to sitting the jar
>> in hot water. Some seem to associate microwave radiation with nuclear.
>
> Science isn't your strong suit is it ? Look it up if you doubt me
>,but microwaves ARE radiation - of a certain frequency , or wavelength .
>So are X-rays and Gamma rays and visible light . ALL are
>"electromagnetic radiation" . Now , about the honey . Because of the way
>microwaves heat , that is by molecular excitation , they destroy the
>organic and microbiological stuff in honey . We eat enough to make a
>difference , my wife has cut way back on antihistamines and other
>sinus/allergy medications . I never took much , now don't take any at all .
>
> Snag
>====
>
>That is wonderful!! Whatever anyone else says, it is working on your and
>your wife's health!
>
>It is different for you because you are getting your honey fresh. How do
>the jars compare?
>
>Just to let you know, I won't be microwaving it any more

Um, ALL cooking is by molecular excitation... how do yoose think heat
from stove top cooking travels through the food or the heat from an
oven travels through a roast? Nothing negative happens to honey when
heated by microwaves so long as it doesn't become too hot... I use the
defrost feature in short intervals (30 seconds on, 30 seconds off),
takes longer but the honey doesn't get hotter than from spooning it
on oatmeal. Sitting the jar in a pot of hot tap water works too. Most
people's hot tap water is no more than 130ºF, mine is set at 115ºF,
plenty hot enough for showering, even need to add a bit of cold. My
tankless on demand water heater can't be set above 120ºF... 115ºF was
the recommended setting from the manufacturer... no onr gets scalded.
Regardless by what method one heats water it's by molecular
excitation. Exposing honey to direct sunlight does transform it,
different types of radiation including UV.

On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 14:51:52 -0000 (UTC), Jinx the Minx
> wrote:

>Pamela > wrote:
>> On 00:37 5 Nov 2018, Jinx the Minx > wrote in
>> news >>
>>> John Kuthe > wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 10:16:50 AM UTC-6, Cheri wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> OK, so how do you know that it was only bad once? Is he testing
>>>>> every day? Two hours after meals for instance?
>>>>
>>>> Uh oh! All of a sudden, Cheri is an EXPERT in diabetic nursing!
>>>>
>>>> And Cheri, I'll let you know I did my elective in diabetic nursing,
>>>> so if you need to know anything in that area of nursing just ask me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What do they consider an OK A1c in the
>>>>> UK for annual test? Not trying to be a smart aleck, just curious.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheri
>>>>
>>>> 7 is the norm for an A1c level in the U.S. I don't know about
>>>> anywhere else.
>>>>
>>>> John Kuthe, RN, BSN...
>>>>
>>>
>>> 7 is considered diabetic in the U.S.
>>
>> Some sites sites say anything over 6.5 is diabetic. It's worrying
>> someone like John who claims to have trained in diabetic nursing doesn't
>> know that.
>>
>>
>
>I agree, the threshold is much lower than 7. I just called out 7 since
>that’s the value JK said was “the norm”. It’s little wonder how medical
>errors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S.

In the Netherlands, for instance, 6.1-6.9 is considered pre-diabetic.
Diabetic starts at 7. Maybe just a matter of semantics.

Cheri > wrote:
> "Jinx the Minx" > wrote in message
> news
>> Pamela > wrote:
>>> On 00:37 5 Nov 2018, Jinx the Minx > wrote in
>>> news >>>
>>>> John Kuthe > wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 10:16:50 AM UTC-6, Cheri wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> OK, so how do you know that it was only bad once? Is he testing
>>>>>> every day? Two hours after meals for instance?
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh oh! All of a sudden, Cheri is an EXPERT in diabetic nursing!
>>>>>
>>>>> And Cheri, I'll let you know I did my elective in diabetic nursing,
>>>>> so if you need to know anything in that area of nursing just ask me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What do they consider an OK A1c in the
>>>>>> UK for annual test? Not trying to be a smart aleck, just curious.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheri
>>>>>
>>>>> 7 is the norm for an A1c level in the U.S. I don't know about
>>>>> anywhere else.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Kuthe, RN, BSN...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 7 is considered diabetic in the U.S.
>>>
>>> Some sites sites say anything over 6.5 is diabetic. It's worrying
>>> someone like John who claims to have trained in diabetic nursing doesn't
>>> know that.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I agree, the threshold is much lower than 7. I just called out 7 since
>> thats the value JK said was €œthe norm€. Its little wonder how
>> medical
>> errors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S.
>
> My doc, fairly young from India, wants to have type 2's shoot for 6.5 or
> lower with the A1c, even into the 5's ideally.
>
> Cheri
>
>
>

Im no doctor but I am a T2, and I agree with that! My last A1C was 5.4.

On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 10:15:49 AM UTC-10, Jinx the Minx wrote:
> Cheri > wrote:
> > "Jinx the Minx" > wrote in message
> > news
> >> Pamela > wrote:
> >>> On 00:37 5 Nov 2018, Jinx the Minx > wrote in
> >>> news > >>>
> >>>> John Kuthe > wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 10:16:50 AM UTC-6, Cheri wrote:
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>> OK, so how do you know that it was only bad once? Is he testing
> >>>>>> every day? Two hours after meals for instance?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Uh oh! All of a sudden, Cheri is an EXPERT in diabetic nursing!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And Cheri, I'll let you know I did my elective in diabetic nursing,
> >>>>> so if you need to know anything in that area of nursing just ask me..
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> What do they consider an OK A1c in the
> >>>>>> UK for annual test? Not trying to be a smart aleck, just curious.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheri
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 7 is the norm for an A1c level in the U.S. I don't know about
> >>>>> anywhere else.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> John Kuthe, RN, BSN...
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 7 is considered diabetic in the U.S.
> >>>
> >>> Some sites sites say anything over 6.5 is diabetic. It's worrying
> >>> someone like John who claims to have trained in diabetic nursing doesn't
> >>> know that.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> I agree, the threshold is much lower than 7. I just called out 7 since
> >> thats the value JK said was €œthe norm€. Its little wonder how
> >> medical
> >> errors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S.
> >
> > My doc, fairly young from India, wants to have type 2's shoot for 6.5 or
> > lower with the A1c, even into the 5's ideally.
> >
> > Cheri
> >
> >
> >
>
> Im no doctor but I am a T2, and I agree with that! My last A1C was 5.4.

I found out that I had diabetes when I applied for insurance and was denied because my A1c was 7.2 mmol/l. Had I been a 7 there would have been no problem. My guess that a tenth of a point change has a great impact on the insurance and healthcare industries.

Brice > wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 14:51:52 -0000 (UTC), Jinx the Minx
> > wrote:
>
>> Pamela > wrote:
>>> On 00:37 5 Nov 2018, Jinx the Minx > wrote in
>>> news >>>
>>>> John Kuthe > wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 10:16:50 AM UTC-6, Cheri wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> OK, so how do you know that it was only bad once? Is he testing
>>>>>> every day? Two hours after meals for instance?
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh oh! All of a sudden, Cheri is an EXPERT in diabetic nursing!
>>>>>
>>>>> And Cheri, I'll let you know I did my elective in diabetic nursing,
>>>>> so if you need to know anything in that area of nursing just ask me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What do they consider an OK A1c in the
>>>>>> UK for annual test? Not trying to be a smart aleck, just curious.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheri
>>>>>
>>>>> 7 is the norm for an A1c level in the U.S. I don't know about
>>>>> anywhere else.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Kuthe, RN, BSN...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 7 is considered diabetic in the U.S.
>>>
>>> Some sites sites say anything over 6.5 is diabetic. It's worrying
>>> someone like John who claims to have trained in diabetic nursing doesn't
>>> know that.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I agree, the threshold is much lower than 7. I just called out 7 since
>> that’s the value JK said was “the norm”. It’s little wonder how medical
>> errors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S.
>
> In the Netherlands, for instance, 6.1-6.9 is considered pre-diabetic.
> Diabetic starts at 7. Maybe just a matter of semantics.
>

Perhaps, except Cheri, John and I are all in the US, so our
interpretations/semantics should be in alignment. 7 is not €œthe norm€ here.

On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 21:25:12 -0000 (UTC), Jinx the Minx
> wrote:

>Brice > wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 14:51:52 -0000 (UTC), Jinx the Minx
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Pamela > wrote:
>>>> On 00:37 5 Nov 2018, Jinx the Minx > wrote in
>>>> news >>>>
>>>>> John Kuthe > wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 10:16:50 AM UTC-6, Cheri wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> OK, so how do you know that it was only bad once? Is he testing
>>>>>>> every day? Two hours after meals for instance?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Uh oh! All of a sudden, Cheri is an EXPERT in diabetic nursing!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And Cheri, I'll let you know I did my elective in diabetic nursing,
>>>>>> so if you need to know anything in that area of nursing just ask me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do they consider an OK A1c in the
>>>>>>> UK for annual test? Not trying to be a smart aleck, just curious.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheri
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 7 is the norm for an A1c level in the U.S. I don't know about
>>>>>> anywhere else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Kuthe, RN, BSN...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 7 is considered diabetic in the U.S.
>>>>
>>>> Some sites sites say anything over 6.5 is diabetic. It's worrying
>>>> someone like John who claims to have trained in diabetic nursing doesn't
>>>> know that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree, the threshold is much lower than 7. I just called out 7 since
>>> that?s the value JK said was ?the norm?. It?s little wonder how medical
>>> errors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S.
>>
>> In the Netherlands, for instance, 6.1-6.9 is considered pre-diabetic.
>> Diabetic starts at 7. Maybe just a matter of semantics.
>>
>
>Perhaps, except Cheri, John and I are all in the US, so our
>interpretations/semantics should be in alignment. 7 is not “the norm” here.
>

On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:15:45 -0000 (UTC), Jinx the Minx
> wrote:

>Cheri > wrote:
>> "Jinx the Minx" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> Pamela > wrote:
>>>> On 00:37 5 Nov 2018, Jinx the Minx > wrote in
>>>> news >>>>
>>>>> John Kuthe > wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 10:16:50 AM UTC-6, Cheri wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> OK, so how do you know that it was only bad once? Is he testing
>>>>>>> every day? Two hours after meals for instance?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Uh oh! All of a sudden, Cheri is an EXPERT in diabetic nursing!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And Cheri, I'll let you know I did my elective in diabetic nursing,
>>>>>> so if you need to know anything in that area of nursing just ask me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do they consider an OK A1c in the
>>>>>>> UK for annual test? Not trying to be a smart aleck, just curious.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheri
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 7 is the norm for an A1c level in the U.S. I don't know about
>>>>>> anywhere else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Kuthe, RN, BSN...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 7 is considered diabetic in the U.S.
>>>>
>>>> Some sites sites say anything over 6.5 is diabetic. It's worrying
>>>> someone like John who claims to have trained in diabetic nursing doesn't
>>>> know that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree, the threshold is much lower than 7. I just called out 7 since
>>> that’s the value JK said was “the norm”. It’s little wonder how
>>> medical
>>> errors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S.
>>
>> My doc, fairly young from India, wants to have type 2's shoot for 6.5 or
>> lower with the A1c, even into the 5's ideally.
>>
>> Cheri
>>
>>
>>
>
>I’m no doctor but I am a T2, and I agree with that! My last A1C was 5.4.

Guidelines have recently been revised based on long term studies of
risks and benefits. The suggestion used to be lower HbA1C levels in
thinking that it would help reduce microvascular complications.
Studies have not borne that out, thought so...

T2 goals are now between 7.0 and 8.0.

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/26...nt-adults-type

On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 17:38:48 -0500, Boron Elgar
> wrote:

>On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:15:45 -0000 (UTC), Jinx the Minx
> wrote:
>
>>Cheri > wrote:
>>> "Jinx the Minx" > wrote in message
>>> news >>>> Pamela > wrote:
>>>>> On 00:37 5 Nov 2018, Jinx the Minx > wrote in
>>>>> news >>>>>
>>>>>> John Kuthe > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 7 is the norm for an A1c level in the U.S. I don't know about
>>>>>>> anywhere else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Kuthe, RN, BSN...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 7 is considered diabetic in the U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some sites sites say anything over 6.5 is diabetic. It's worrying
>>>>> someone like John who claims to have trained in diabetic nursing doesn't
>>>>> know that.
>>>>>
>>>> I agree, the threshold is much lower than 7. I just called out 7 since
>>>> that’s the value JK said was “the norm”. It’s little wonder how
>>>> medical
>>>> errors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S.
>>>
>>> My doc, fairly young from India, wants to have type 2's shoot for 6.5 or
>>> lower with the A1c, even into the 5's ideally.
>>>
>>> Cheri
>>>
>>I’m no doctor but I am a T2, and I agree with that! My last A1C was 5.4.
>
>Guidelines have recently been revised based on long term studies of
>risks and benefits. The suggestion used to be lower HbA1C levels in
>thinking that it would help reduce microvascular complications.
>Studies have not borne that out, thought so...
>
>T2 goals are now between 7.0 and 8.0.
>
>http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/26...nt-adults-type

Well, there you go.

On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 23:19:18 GMT, Pamela >
wrote:

>On 22:38 6 Nov 2018, Boron Elgar > wrote in
:
>
>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:15:45 -0000 (UTC), Jinx the Minx
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Cheri > wrote:
>>>> "Jinx the Minx" > wrote in message
>>>> news >>>>> Pamela > wrote:
>>>>>> On 00:37 5 Nov 2018, Jinx the Minx > wrote in
>>>>>> news >>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Kuthe > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 10:16:50 AM UTC-6, Cheri wrote:
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> OK, so how do you know that it was only bad once? Is he testing
>>>>>>>>> every day? Two hours after meals for instance?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Uh oh! All of a sudden, Cheri is an EXPERT in diabetic nursing!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And Cheri, I'll let you know I did my elective in diabetic
>>>>>>>> nursing, so if you need to know anything in that area of nursing
>>>>>>>> just ask me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do they consider an OK A1c in the
>>>>>>>>> UK for annual test? Not trying to be a smart aleck, just
>>>>>>>>> curious.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheri
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 7 is the norm for an A1c level in the U.S. I don't know about
>>>>>>>> anywhere else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John Kuthe, RN, BSN...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 7 is considered diabetic in the U.S.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some sites sites say anything over 6.5 is diabetic. It's worrying
>>>>>> someone like John who claims to have trained in diabetic nursing
>>>>>> doesn't know that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree, the threshold is much lower than 7. I just called out 7
>>>>> since that’s the value JK said was “the norm”. It’s little wonder
>>>>> how medical
>>>>> errors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S.
>>>>
>>>> My doc, fairly young from India, wants to have type 2's shoot for
>>>> 6.5 or lower with the A1c, even into the 5's ideally.
>>>>
>>>> Cheri
>>>>
>>>
>>>I’m no doctor but I am a T2, and I agree with that! My last A1C was
>>>5.4.
>>
>> Guidelines have recently been revised based on long term studies of
>> risks and benefits. The suggestion used to be lower HbA1C levels in
>> thinking that it would help reduce microvascular complications.
>> Studies have not borne that out, thought so...
>>
>> T2 goals are now between 7.0 and 8.0.
>>
>> http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/26...in-1c-targets-
>> glycemic-control-pharmacologic-therapy-nonpregnant-adults-type
>
>Doesn't that article say 7 or 8 is advised as the T2 threshold only for
>patients with "multiple chronic conditions or shorter lifespan"?
>Otherwise it's 6.5.
>
>Have I read it correctly?

No. That was not a conclusion of the study, but one of the many
organizational recommendations among those being evaluated.

Brice > wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 17:38:48 -0500, Boron Elgar
> > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:15:45 -0000 (UTC), Jinx the Minx
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Cheri > wrote:
>>>> "Jinx the Minx" > wrote in message
>>>> news >>>>> Pamela > wrote:
>>>>>> On 00:37 5 Nov 2018, Jinx the Minx > wrote in
>>>>>> news >>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Kuthe > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 7 is the norm for an A1c level in the U.S. I don't know about
>>>>>>>> anywhere else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John Kuthe, RN, BSN...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 7 is considered diabetic in the U.S.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some sites sites say anything over 6.5 is diabetic. It's worrying
>>>>>> someone like John who claims to have trained in diabetic nursing doesn't
>>>>>> know that.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I agree, the threshold is much lower than 7. I just called out 7 since
>>>>> that’s the value JK said was “the norm”. It’s little wonder how
>>>>> medical
>>>>> errors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S.
>>>>
>>>> My doc, fairly young from India, wants to have type 2's shoot for 6.5 or
>>>> lower with the A1c, even into the 5's ideally.
>>>>
>>>> Cheri
>>>>
>>> IÂ’m no doctor but I am a T2, and I agree with that! My last A1C was 5.4.
>>
>> Guidelines have recently been revised based on long term studies of
>> risks and benefits. The suggestion used to be lower HbA1C levels in
>> thinking that it would help reduce microvascular complications.
>> Studies have not borne that out, thought so...
>>
>> T2 goals are now between 7.0 and 8.0.
>>
>> http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/26...nt-adults-type
>
> Well, there you go.
>

Relevant article, thank you. I think it bears noting that A1C targets for
those diagnosed and being treated for diabetes are higher than used to
diagnose diabetes.

On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 01:11:40 -0000 (UTC), Jinx the Minx
> wrote:

>Brice > wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 17:38:48 -0500, Boron Elgar
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:15:45 -0000 (UTC), Jinx the Minx
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I?m no doctor but I am a T2, and I agree with that! My last A1C was 5.4.
>>>
>>> Guidelines have recently been revised based on long term studies of
>>> risks and benefits. The suggestion used to be lower HbA1C levels in
>>> thinking that it would help reduce microvascular complications.
>>> Studies have not borne that out, thought so...
>>>
>>> T2 goals are now between 7.0 and 8.0.
>>>
>>> http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/26...nt-adults-type
>>
>> Well, there you go.
>>
>
>Relevant article, thank you. I think it bears noting that A1C targets for
>those diagnosed and being treated for diabetes are higher than used to
>diagnose diabetes.

It's clearly not as black and white as you thought.

Brice > wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 01:11:40 -0000 (UTC), Jinx the Minx
> > wrote:
>
>> Brice > wrote:
>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 17:38:48 -0500, Boron Elgar
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:15:45 -0000 (UTC), Jinx the Minx
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I?m no doctor but I am a T2, and I agree with that! My last A1C was 5.4.
>>>>
>>>> Guidelines have recently been revised based on long term studies of
>>>> risks and benefits. The suggestion used to be lower HbA1C levels in
>>>> thinking that it would help reduce microvascular complications.
>>>> Studies have not borne that out, thought so...
>>>>
>>>> T2 goals are now between 7.0 and 8.0.
>>>>
>>>> http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/26...nt-adults-type
>>>
>>> Well, there you go.
>>>
>>
>> Relevant article, thank you. I think it bears noting that A1C targets for
>> those diagnosed and being treated for diabetes are higher than used to
>> diagnose diabetes.
>
> It's clearly not as black and white as you thought.
>

It is very black and white. Even if considered a €œgood€ level for a
diabetic, its still indicative of having diabetes. That is all.

On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 03:07:42 -0000 (UTC), Jinx the Minx
> wrote:

>Brice > wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 01:11:40 -0000 (UTC), Jinx the Minx
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Brice > wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 17:38:48 -0500, Boron Elgar
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Guidelines have recently been revised based on long term studies of
>>>>> risks and benefits. The suggestion used to be lower HbA1C levels in
>>>>> thinking that it would help reduce microvascular complications.
>>>>> Studies have not borne that out, thought so...
>>>>>
>>>>> T2 goals are now between 7.0 and 8.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/26...nt-adults-type
>>>>
>>>> Well, there you go.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Relevant article, thank you. I think it bears noting that A1C targets for
>>> those diagnosed and being treated for diabetes are higher than used to
>>> diagnose diabetes.
>>
>> It's clearly not as black and white as you thought.
>>
>
>It is very black and white. Even if considered a “good” level for a
>diabetic, it’s still indicative of having diabetes. That is all.

This was a test. You failed. Thank you.

Brice > wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 03:07:42 -0000 (UTC), Jinx the Minx
> > wrote:
>
>> Brice > wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 01:11:40 -0000 (UTC), Jinx the Minx
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Brice > wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 17:38:48 -0500, Boron Elgar
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Guidelines have recently been revised based on long term studies of
>>>>>> risks and benefits. The suggestion used to be lower HbA1C levels in
>>>>>> thinking that it would help reduce microvascular complications.
>>>>>> Studies have not borne that out, thought so...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> T2 goals are now between 7.0 and 8.0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/26...nt-adults-type
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, there you go.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Relevant article, thank you. I think it bears noting that A1C targets for
>>>> those diagnosed and being treated for diabetes are higher than used to
>>>> diagnose diabetes.
>>>
>>> It's clearly not as black and white as you thought.
>>>
>>
>> It is very black and white. Even if considered a “good” level for a
>> diabetic, itÂ’s still indicative of having diabetes. That is all.
>
> This was a test. You failed. Thank you.
>

Whatever you say, Bruce.

On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 05:17:16 -0000 (UTC), Jinx the Minx
> wrote:

>Brice > wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 03:07:42 -0000 (UTC), Jinx the Minx
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Brice > wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 01:11:40 -0000 (UTC), Jinx the Minx
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Brice > wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 17:38:48 -0500, Boron Elgar
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Guidelines have recently been revised based on long term studies of
>>>>>>> risks and benefits. The suggestion used to be lower HbA1C levels in
>>>>>>> thinking that it would help reduce microvascular complications.
>>>>>>> Studies have not borne that out, thought so...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> T2 goals are now between 7.0 and 8.0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/26...nt-adults-type
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, there you go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Relevant article, thank you. I think it bears noting that A1C targets for
>>>>> those diagnosed and being treated for diabetes are higher than used to
>>>>> diagnose diabetes.
>>>>
>>>> It's clearly not as black and white as you thought.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is very black and white. Even if considered a ?good? level for a
>>> diabetic, it?s still indicative of having diabetes. That is all.
>>
>> This was a test. You failed. Thank you.
>>
>
>Whatever you say, Bruce.

That's the spirit.

"Jinx the Minx" > wrote in message
news
> Cheri > wrote:
>> "Jinx the Minx" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> Pamela > wrote:
>>>> On 00:37 5 Nov 2018, Jinx the Minx > wrote in
>>>> news >>>>
>>>>> John Kuthe > wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 10:16:50 AM UTC-6, Cheri wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> OK, so how do you know that it was only bad once? Is he testing
>>>>>>> every day? Two hours after meals for instance?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Uh oh! All of a sudden, Cheri is an EXPERT in diabetic nursing!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And Cheri, I'll let you know I did my elective in diabetic nursing,
>>>>>> so if you need to know anything in that area of nursing just ask me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do they consider an OK A1c in the
>>>>>>> UK for annual test? Not trying to be a smart aleck, just curious.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheri
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 7 is the norm for an A1c level in the U.S. I don't know about
>>>>>> anywhere else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Kuthe, RN, BSN...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 7 is considered diabetic in the U.S.
>>>>
>>>> Some sites sites say anything over 6.5 is diabetic. It's worrying
>>>> someone like John who claims to have trained in diabetic nursing
>>>> doesn't
>>>> know that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree, the threshold is much lower than 7. I just called out 7 since
>>> thats the value JK said was €œthe norm€. Its little wonder
>>> how
>>> medical
>>> errors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S.
>>
>> My doc, fairly young from India, wants to have type 2's shoot for 6.5 or
>> lower with the A1c, even into the 5's ideally.
>>
>> Cheri
>>
>>
>>
>
> Im no doctor but I am a T2, and I agree with that! My last A1C was 5.4.
>


Great to hear, and good for you. I have never achieved under 6, but I know
some who have.

Cheri

On 11/6/2018 7:55 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 23:19:18 GMT, Pamela >
> wrote:
>
>> On 22:38 6 Nov 2018, Boron Elgar > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:15:45 -0000 (UTC), Jinx the Minx
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cheri > wrote:
>>>>> "Jinx the Minx" > wrote in message
>>>>> news >>>>>> Pamela > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 00:37 5 Nov 2018, Jinx the Minx > wrote in
>>>>>>> news >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John Kuthe > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 10:16:50 AM UTC-6, Cheri wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> OK, so how do you know that it was only bad once? Is he testing
>>>>>>>>>> every day? Two hours after meals for instance?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Uh oh! All of a sudden, Cheri is an EXPERT in diabetic nursing!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And Cheri, I'll let you know I did my elective in diabetic
>>>>>>>>> nursing, so if you need to know anything in that area of nursing
>>>>>>>>> just ask me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What do they consider an OK A1c in the
>>>>>>>>>> UK for annual test? Not trying to be a smart aleck, just
>>>>>>>>>> curious.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheri
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 7 is the norm for an A1c level in the U.S. I don't know about
>>>>>>>>> anywhere else.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John Kuthe, RN, BSN...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 7 is considered diabetic in the U.S.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some sites sites say anything over 6.5 is diabetic. It's worrying
>>>>>>> someone like John who claims to have trained in diabetic nursing
>>>>>>> doesn't know that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree, the threshold is much lower than 7. I just called out 7
>>>>>> since thats the value JK said was €œthe norm€. Its little wonder
>>>>>> how medical
>>>>>> errors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>> My doc, fairly young from India, wants to have type 2's shoot for
>>>>> 6.5 or lower with the A1c, even into the 5's ideally.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheri
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Im no doctor but I am a T2, and I agree with that! My last A1C was
>>>> 5.4.
>>>
>>> Guidelines have recently been revised based on long term studies of
>>> risks and benefits. The suggestion used to be lower HbA1C levels in
>>> thinking that it would help reduce microvascular complications.
>>> Studies have not borne that out, thought so...
>>>
>>> T2 goals are now between 7.0 and 8.0.
>>>
>>> http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/26...in-1c-targets-
>>> glycemic-control-pharmacologic-therapy-nonpregnant-adults-type
>>
>> Doesn't that article say 7 or 8 is advised as the T2 threshold only for
>> patients with "multiple chronic conditions or shorter lifespan"?
>> Otherwise it's 6.5.
>>
>> Have I read it correctly?
>
> No. That was not a conclusion of the study, but one of the many
> organizational recommendations among those being evaluated.
>

This is what is stated on my test results page:

For someone without known diabetes, a hemoglobin
A1c value between 5.7% and 6.4% is consistent with
prediabetes and should be confirmed with a
follow-up test.
For someone with known diabetes, a value <7%
indicates that their diabetes is well controlled. A1c
targets should be individualized based on duration of
diabetes, age, comorbid conditions, and other
considerations.

On 11/5/2018 4:20 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 14:48:02 -0600, Terry Coombs >
> wrote:
>
>> Now , about the honey . Because of the way
>> microwaves heat , that is by molecular excitation , they destroy the
>> organic and microbiological stuff in honey . We eat enough to make a
>> difference , my wife has cut way back on antihistamines and other
>> sinus/allergy medications . I never took much , now don't take any at all .
>
> "...they destroy the organic and microbiological stuff in honey. "
> What exactly does that mean and why is it a negative?
>
> Again, most commercial honey sold is pasteurized, so are you trying to
> say that raw honey is somehow intrinsically healthier and not only
> better for you in some way, but that it mitigates allergies, too?
> Nonsense.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Â* Raw unfiltered honey contains microorganisms and compounds proven to
be beneficial to people . And yes , local honey does have a mitigating
effect on allergic reactions due to pollen . Pasteurized and
hot-filtered (yes , they heat it to thin it so it passes thru the
filters more easily) honey has none of these benefits . Believe what you
want , those are the facts .

--
Snag
Yes , I'm old
and crochety - and armed .
Get outta my woods !