When I was diagnosed in October of
2003, I knew it was possible and that diabetes was in my family. I
admit I knew very little about diabetes and that I needed to start
learning.
What I didn't appreciate was a doctor
calling me a liar about knowing I had diabetes, even after I had told
him to check with my doctor. Then I asked my doctor if he had been
contacted and the answer was no. Needless to say, things got tense
and I demanded an apology in writing from the doctor. Never received
one, and two months later the doctor was no longer employed by the
hospital.
The reason the doctor was so upset was
because I was on the operating table at the time of diagnosis. The procedure was being done
to balloon several arteries and implant a stent in another artery.
And yes, healing the area where they started to procedure took
longer, but it did heal.
I did have the internet, but was not
sure where to start. In talking with my doctor, I did have the loan
of two books from his library that were about diabetes. I also did a
lot of talking to my pharmacist and she gave me some ideas of where
to look – the American Diabetes Association being one of them.
I did learn fast that the teachings of
the ADA were not for me. The booklet for recording my blood glucose
readings was set for the readings of the ADA suggestions and this
seemed overly high for what I was reading on the internet. Several
of the diabetes forums also were careful to promote the ADA way and
the moderators were busy keeping people from promoting non-ADA
positions. Two of the forums are ghost forums today with very little
activity.
Research is not backing either of the
two schools of thought for blood glucose levels or even the idea that
lowering blood glucose levels drastically is an invitation to
cardiovascular problems. I remember the ACCORD study that was
canceled because the death level was too high. Analyzing the data in
hindsight has proven invaluable, proved some ideas, and refuted
others.
While the jury is still out since there
have been conflicting studies about the good or bad of tight
management of blood glucose levels. Yet, the current recommendations
for good A1c's still hovers at 6.5% for young people (generally under
the age of 60) and at 7.0% for older people (generally over the age
of 59). This means that the blood glucose levels look like this:
- 7.0% A1c = 154 mg/dl (recommended by the American Diabetes Association)
- 6.5% A1c = 140 mg/dl (recommended by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists)
- 5.9% A1c = 123 mg/dl (this is near the top of the pre-diabetic range)
- 4.5% A1c = 83 mg/dl (this is considered about normal)
- 4.1% A1c = 71 mg/dl (readings below this level can be dangerous for type 2s)
Those first two numbers—154 and 140
mg/dl— are pretty high compared to the three bottom levels. In
general, the two official levels are in the range that will promote
gradual progression to complications. This is why those of us in our
support group attempt to have A1c's at 6% or lower. Some even stay
below 5% on a regular basis.
This blog from Diabetes Health makes
the several statements which I do not believe in and will never
promote, but it may be acceptable to some people, especially doctors.
