The Diabetes Forum Support Community For Diabetics Online banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
HI everyone...

When I saw my Dr this week....She is so impressed with my BG results and the results of following my low carb diet...that she said in 4 weeks we are going to start pulling back on the medication.

She asked me to do something during these 4 weeks.... she asked me to deliberately spike myself with food....just a couple of times before I see her next...

Her theory is that if I eat something that usually spikes me and the spike is not as big as in the beginning (when I was on different meds)...then we will know that the medication is covering BG reaction...If I spike myself and have a huge reaction then she will know that it is the low carb diet MORE than the meds keeping me steady and we will be able to pull back more on meds as long as I stay low carb....

So last night I ate a piece of white toast with peanut butter on it... Just one piece...

Within 10 mins I began to feel like I had drunk a bottle of champagne...I became extremely tired.....
30 mins after that my BG had dropped from 6.6 to 5 and then an hour after that I was at 8....
I didn't eat anything else, the amount of carbs in the one slice was 15g...

I would like to understand the mechanism of why I felt tired and woozy and why my BGs fell and then rose??

I REALLY hope that all makes sense :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,491 Posts
...So last night I ate a piece of white toast with peanut butter on it... Just one piece...

Within 10 mins I began to feel like I had drunk a bottle of champagne...I became extremely tired.....
30 mins after that my BG had dropped from 6.6 to 5 and then an hour after that I was at 8....
I didn't eat anything else, the amount of carbs in the one slice was 15g...

I would like to understand the mechanism of why I felt tired and woozy and why my BGs fell and then rose??

I REALLY hope that all makes sense :)
If I had to GUESS I'd suggest that you were hitting a blood sugar low before the digestion process of the toast/peanut butter 'kicked in'. This is why you went lower before going higher.

Obviously, with getting to 8.0 (144) from a lower reading, the white bread certainly spikes you. (The peanut butter would actually help keep the spike lower, because the protein and fat helps slow digestion...)

As such, the low-carb is doing the job well, and you should stick to it.

My question is, WHY ARE YOU ON LIPITOR? (Read This.) There is absolutely no benefit to statins (cholesterol-lowering medication) for women. None.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,162 Posts
There is absolutely no benefit to statins (cholesterol-lowering medication) for women. None.
Except for women who have a history of heart attack or stroke. And this bites because several of my closest women friends fall into one of those categories.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,491 Posts
Except for women who have a history of heart attack or stroke. And this bites because several of my closest women friends fall into one of those categories.
To date none of the studies regarding secondary prevention with statins has shown a reduction in overall mortality in women.

When I say "studies" I mean large, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Doing some meta-analysis of several studies to show that there "might" be some benefit isn't evidence of anything. (It's hard to find a 'meta-analysis' study that DOESN'T advance a particular interest or theory... that's the beauty of meta-analysis, you can basically make it say what you want...)

There is scant, spotty evidence (casual relationships only) that statins prevent secondary cardiac events for women. There is NO evidence of a reduction in overall mortality.

All the experts agree more testing needs to be done before a definitive conclusion can be reached, yet women make up the minority of the studies, and the drug companies, though marketing to women, aren't anxious to shell out the money for the studies... (perhaps because they already know the results?)

There is absolute evidence that statins not only prevent secondary cardiac events for men, but reduce overall mortality in those with pre-existing cardiac history. Not so for women.

Again, there is NO known benefit for women taking statins, regardless of primary or secondary benefit. Any suggestion there is comes from drug companies pushing suspect data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shalynne

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,368 Posts
I think what that shows is that when you eat simple carbs your pancreas reacts with way too much insulin causing you to fall, then your liver senses you are low and reacts with extra glucose. Many times with Pre D's, this happens and they often mistake it for hypoglycemia and think they need more carbs. Several times in the past few years I have tried to add carbs, it hasn't worked for me. Every time my bgs creep up. Even with a low HbA1c ,5.3, and a weight under 120, I still need to be on a very low carb diet and lots of metformin.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,162 Posts
There is absolute evidence that statins not only prevent secondary cardiac events for men, but reduce overall mortality in those with pre-existing cardiac history. Not so for women.
I'm aware that most studies use men, and the medical community has been slow to acknowledge that our bodies are indeed different. Years ago I read a case where they were using men for some ovarian study. Maybe I made this up, but it's a strong memory. This doesn't mean we're never alike, however.

But as I read this, there are no studies showing statins useful for women with prior cardiac events, but there have been no adequate studies period.

Now, if like my friend I'd've had a quintuple bypass, I'd have to ask myself, 'how lucky do I feel?' I see that as a different kettle of fish entirely. Not having had a heart attack, bypass, stents - but with wretched lipids - it's easy for me to reject statins which I have.

The answer is to do appropriate studies for women - like now now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,491 Posts
...Years ago I read a case where they were using men for some ovarian study....
That wouldn't surprise me ONE BIT, lol...

But as I read this, there are no studies showing statins useful for women with prior cardiac events, but there have been no adequate studies period...

...The answer is to do appropriate studies for women - like now now.
Exactly. The only problem with that is most research actually points to it not being effective for secondary events for women... so it's doubtful the drug companies will spend the money on those studies. (Or, if they DO fund the study, and it doesn't support the drug for women, it would NEVER see the light of day...)

Now, if like my friend I'd' had a quintuple bypass, I'd have to ask myself, 'how lucky do I feel?' I see that as a different kettle of fish entirely. Not having had a heart attack, bypass, stents - but with wretched lipids - it's easy for me to reject statins which I have.
I'm worried the risk far outweighs the benefits.

In most research that shows a possible benefit for women, the number-crunching goes something like this: If 100 women (who've had previous cardiac events) take the drug continually for 3 years, it may prevent a secondary heart attack in anywhere from 1 to 10 of those women (depending on the study and how you extrapolate the data).

That being said, there's a "possibility" that between 1% and 10% of that group "may" benefit over the course of several years.

However, when you look at the massive list of possible side-effects of the statin drugs... including much-higher incidence of cancer, new diabetes diagnoses, memory-loss, and more, you have to wonder if it's even remotely worth the risk...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,399 Posts
I've gone back and forth on this in my own mind.

My LDLs are truly alarming, I'm severely diabetic for a newly-diagnosed T2, and I've got an illustrious family history of heart disease, stroke and hypertension (though not as sparkling as the diabetic history ... and I have no personal history of those conditions).

Statins were basically invented with my name on them. Gotta admit it.

BUT then ... I look at the side effects. Though I'm told they're minor, and only 1% of patients are troubled in any way, shape or form, every time I do a bit of research it strikes me that the number must actually approach 100%, over time, with a level of severity that's far from trivial.

Muscle destruction severe enough to make everyday mobility impossible, let alone any kind of exercise program. Brain fog impeding all other daily activity ... including management of conditions such as diabetes. And I should gladly embrace all these glorious life changes for no change in mortality?

No, thanks!
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top