Took the advice of the forum and checked my one hour reading after lunch. It was 138. Two hours after lunch it was 93. Is this good, ok, bad? I've been checking two hours post meals and have been normally under 120 for the past two months since I've been checking. I may start to so some one hour readings randomly to see any more spikes. Is a spike like this something I need to worry about? I know we try to keep our numbers low but if it rises over the magic 140 for a brief time is that cause for concern. Thanks for the great advice I know I'm going to receive.
Question on one hour reading
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Joined
·
9,421 Posts
I think the word "spike" has different meaning for different folks. For me, a spike is 20-30 point rise. Has nothing to do with what the high number is. For others, any reading over 140 would be considered a spike.
If you are over 140 for a brief time, it's not cause for great concern, only if this happens on a regular basis. Sometimes when I'm testing anew food, or just plain want to eat a few regular crackers, my BG will go as high as 150 or so. But this only happens now and then, maybe every 3-4 months. So it's not much of a concern to me, especially if it comes back down below 140 within an hour, which it does.
Each of us have to determine our own goals for our BG. Some will live close to the edge, just skirting that 140 number. Others hedge their bets by keeping to a lower upper-limit.
If you are over 140 for a brief time, it's not cause for great concern, only if this happens on a regular basis. Sometimes when I'm testing anew food, or just plain want to eat a few regular crackers, my BG will go as high as 150 or so. But this only happens now and then, maybe every 3-4 months. So it's not much of a concern to me, especially if it comes back down below 140 within an hour, which it does.
Each of us have to determine our own goals for our BG. Some will live close to the edge, just skirting that 140 number. Others hedge their bets by keeping to a lower upper-limit.
Joined
·
8,607 Posts
Volfan,
Short answer is "it depends"!
On the face of it, the 138 after one hour is right at the upper limit of what is considered safe (by folk who don't look forward to complications). The figure suggests that you don't have much of a phase 1 insulin response. Meals containing a lot of fast acting carbohydrate should therefore be avoided.
The 93 at two hours suggests that you do have a respectable phase 2 response and is quite reasonable.
However, one sample isn't that useful. What you need to do is to start a proper log system recording what your blood glucose was just before the meal, what was in the meal - in detail! - and your one and two hour post meal numbers.
After a few days you will begin to see the pattern of what foods cause you spikes and when they hit, be it within the hour or later. That will tell you what foods you need to avoid. You can get a detailed picture here - How to Lower Your Blood Sugar
Short answer is "it depends"!
On the face of it, the 138 after one hour is right at the upper limit of what is considered safe (by folk who don't look forward to complications). The figure suggests that you don't have much of a phase 1 insulin response. Meals containing a lot of fast acting carbohydrate should therefore be avoided.
The 93 at two hours suggests that you do have a respectable phase 2 response and is quite reasonable.
However, one sample isn't that useful. What you need to do is to start a proper log system recording what your blood glucose was just before the meal, what was in the meal - in detail! - and your one and two hour post meal numbers.
After a few days you will begin to see the pattern of what foods cause you spikes and when they hit, be it within the hour or later. That will tell you what foods you need to avoid. You can get a detailed picture here - How to Lower Your Blood Sugar
I ate a bowl of Mexican fiesta soup Which was a tomato base with rice and chili peppers, and ground beef. I had a salad with cut up turkey and a plain yogurt.
I agree - for me, I want to keep my blood sugar below 140 as much as possible, so a spike for me would be going over 140. I have only been working to address my diabetes for about 1.5 months, and think that striving to always be below 140 is a realistic goal for now. I don't want to frustrate myself by setting a goal that will leave me feeling at a loss. Eventually, I want to keep BG at the same levels as someone without Diabetes.
Me to Tim I've only been at it about 1.5 months. Wanting to stay "normal" as possible so something else kills me first lol.
One think people have to keep in mind in all the studies those that report good or bad results is how this numbers are calculated and what are there meaning. It goes for the 140 or results of effects of a potent drug or any think you see reported in a study. These are average of the results of all the participants and represent the mean of the sample studied. It is composed with all type of responders and outliers. That why sample size is also critical to evaluate the validity of the reports.
When we talk about 140 is were damage begins it doesn't mean that this numbers is the same for everyone just were the association of damage for the average number in the study began. But there can be a lot of variability on what that level may be for you. Some in the plot of any study will be hyper responders others will be non responder and then the majority grouped toward the middle from were they calculate a number. That is why you can not trust blindly the result of any study you need to find out how that work for you. There may be people that can tolerate higher hyperglycemia for longer and get no damage, but there may be others that which with more less exposure for a shorter time to higher blood glucose suffer damage. So 140 give you an idea but is not something that you can blindly follow. You also have to take into account the meter error allowances.
When we talk about 140 is were damage begins it doesn't mean that this numbers is the same for everyone just were the association of damage for the average number in the study began. But there can be a lot of variability on what that level may be for you. Some in the plot of any study will be hyper responders others will be non responder and then the majority grouped toward the middle from were they calculate a number. That is why you can not trust blindly the result of any study you need to find out how that work for you. There may be people that can tolerate higher hyperglycemia for longer and get no damage, but there may be others that which with more less exposure for a shorter time to higher blood glucose suffer damage. So 140 give you an idea but is not something that you can blindly follow. You also have to take into account the meter error allowances.
Not your fault - this little trick is available to mods only, so I fixed it for you.
Joined
·
9,421 Posts
Katim - exactly why I stay well below 140. I don't want to find out when it's too late that I'm one of those who will sustain damage at 130.
For you new folks, please don't be intimidated by those who run lower than you can at this point in time. This is a lifetime journey, so just take one step at a time and you'll get there. A lot depends on your own body's ability to process carbs - which is, of course, different for each of us. Some respond quickly to LCHF, others take some time. YMMV
For you new folks, please don't be intimidated by those who run lower than you can at this point in time. This is a lifetime journey, so just take one step at a time and you'll get there. A lot depends on your own body's ability to process carbs - which is, of course, different for each of us. Some respond quickly to LCHF, others take some time. YMMV
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!