Healthy Diabetics Die Sooner...

At least, that's the current fear according to this story:

The 10,000-patient study, dubbed ACCORD, was supposed to answer a big question: Could pushing blood sugar to near-normal levels, below today's recommended target, help protect these high-risk patients' hearts?

Instead, the National Institutes of Health took the rare step of halting part of the study 18 months early — citing 257 deaths among aggressively treated patients compared to 203 among diabetics given more standard care.

First up, what does "aggressive treatment" look like? Were these diabetics beaten when caught staring at Ding-Dongs? But I digress...

The goal of the study was to produce an A1C reading of below 6, which translates to a blood sugar reading of 135 ("normal" is 80-120). Most docs encourage diabetics to get below 7 (170) and the AACE recommends being below 6.5. (I had this one annoying Doc who told me that I was 6.4, however lower is always better. What a dork. How's that for incentive? That's like telling someone that their resting heart rate of 50 is good but lower is better. Until when? Zero?)

Here's what I find curious about all of this. It's something I've never read about or seen studies about. It's just a diabetic thing that *I know*, which may not be true for you. You ready? Here it is:

I feel better when my blood sugar is 150 than I do when it's 100. I have more energy. I'm more alert and more creative. I run faster and can do so for a longer period of time.

Also, at 150, you're not spilling sugar into your urine so your kidneys couldn't care less, either.

Now, keep in mind, that 150 is close to 200, and once I'm at 200, I don't feel good. But 150 *to me* feels good. And - at least - according to one study, it'll make me live longer.

Let's hear it, baby: 150 is the new black!

Comments

  1. Anne Findlay10:10 AM

    here's another perspective by Sheri Colberg-- http://blog.shericolberg.com/?p=65#more-65

    For me, how I feel depends on my average. For example, when I was first diagnosed, I was shaking like crazy at 200. I agree, floating around 90-100, I might feel a bit on the verge of being low, but I wonder if this is just because my average BG is much higher than that.

    For sure, seeing a BG of 90 during run puts me on alert!

    ReplyDelete
  2. jpnairn10:26 AM

    Yes,
    We feel more normal at "not normal" blood sugars because we're diabetics. If we take the "normal" range, 80-120, (I've heard that for different people this range is different.) a person without diabetes probably feels better with a blood sugar of 115. At 80, a person without diabetes is going to feel grumpy, tired, and hungry.
    Because our blood sugars are usually higher, we feel "low" at higher blood sugar levels.
    Anyway, if you google around for other articles on this topic, you'll find that the researchers wanted it stressed that the people who died were already at an elevated risk.
    It is still, of course, recommended that diabetics keep their blood sugars as close to normal as practical, to prevent all of those other nasty "complications" of diabetes.
    There has been a lot of effort to straighten out the sensationalism that tainted a few articles that came out following this announcement.

    http://www.dlife.com/blog/archives/2008/02/the_media_blows.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unknown12:10 PM

    Thanks Anne and Jerry,

    Anne - I didn't know Sheri Colberg had a blog. Very cool.

    Jerry - The key word in your post is "practical." Too many times, I see and hear doctors saying to keep blood sugar as low as "possible."

    Frankly, I could keep mine lower, but I think the results would move me into more "impractical" situations.

    I guess my point is this: if endocrinologists recommend a 6.5 or lower and I feel great at a 6.4, why would I want to go lower?

    ReplyDelete
  4. erika12:54 PM

    I've been trying the Bernstein Diet for the past 2 weeks, which keeps your BG below 100, and my mood has been better, but my energy level sucks. I can barely run, and when you start a run low it is darn near impossible to maintain....let alone bring it up to a higher level. Sounds like you've found a happy medium, and if it works for you...stick to it. I'd be very happy with 150 if I could stay there...I have the problem of always being either too high or too low. I think mood is most affected when BG swings up and down. If you can keep it consistent, you are much better off.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Unknown12:59 PM

    re: "I think mood is most affected when BG swings up and down."

    I couldn't agree more. I think that's a HUGE part of feeling good.

    ReplyDelete
  6. jpnairn9:38 AM

    I think we pretty much agree on this. *IF* we could stay consistently in the range between 80 and 120, or better yet, between 90 and 110, that would be great, and we'd all be glad to do it.
    But I haven't been able to get close to that.
    Lower is not always better. It isn't better if you find yourself waking up on gurneys frequently.

    There are doctors who think control is impossible, so whatever numbers you get are OK, and there are doctors who think that we should always have perfect control.
    A few doctors understand that we just do the best we can, walking the tightrope between too high and too low.
    I know you don't believe "healthy diabetics die sooner..." but there seems to be an increasing rather than decreasing amount of ignorance about diabetes in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Unknown10:15 AM

    You're right, Jerry. I don't believe healthy diabetics sooner. At least, I hope not!

    Frankly, though, I don't think media stupidity is remotely isolated to diabetes. There are just so many more outlets for content to get published today and when you have more outlets for content, you also get a lot of BAD content.

    I see the media screw up diabetes the same way they screw up industries I've worked in, and for every good article, it often seems there are 3 bad ones which dull the affect of good writing.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The gun in my basement.

Image
In my basement, I have a safe. And in that safe, under expired passports and birth certificates, there's a gun. It's unloaded. Hasn't been loaded in probably twenty years, and yet every time I take it out, I check to make sure. If you're a gun nerd, it's a 9 shot .22 revolver. On this website , it says that "it is true that many people have been killed by a .22 LR in the course of history," but the writer concludes that this weapon is a bad choice for self defense. I didn't buy it for self defense. I didn't even buy it. It was my father's and after he died, my mother gave it me, along with an Elgin watch he'd worn for years. The watch was weathered and worn and I took it to be restored. The jeweler refused, saying it was worthless. Two decades later, the watch is still in my jewelry box. There's no need for it to be locked up. I have no idea if this gun is in my possession legally. No idea if my father had a permit for it, or w...
Read more

Happy D-Blog Day, Uh, I Guess...

So according to diabetics blog-wide, today is D-Blog Day, the day when those of us affected by diabetes are supposed to blog about it. Or draw awareness to diabetes... Or something like that. I'm really a bad poster child for the disease. Not because I'm not in great control (actually, I am), but because I've just never been bothered by the disease so much. Red sums it up well in Shawshank Redemption: "Get busy living, or get busy dying." So if living means three blood sugar tests a day, so be it. If living means being hooked up to an insulin pump, go to it. That being said, I feel for anyone with diabetic kids... I'm a tough guy about the disease. I wouldn't be if my kids had it. If either of my kids had diabetes, I'd be screaming about the politicians who are spending money on wars instead of research, and I'd be yelling about the schools that make it difficult to be a diabetic in the classroom. But my kids don't have diabetes, so instead I ...
Read more

The Bright Side

“ And if you ever get scared, look on the bright side: You’ve got a new life.” – Amos Lee Last month, I was diagnosed with Lyme disease. Since then, I’ve tried to write this essay a few times. The first attempt followed a narrative arc rife with suspense, with a few years of frustrating doctors’ visits, mysterious symptoms that came and went and the all-around sentiment that the batteries that powered my body were no longer able to sustain a charge or be fully refueled at the end of the day. But if you Google Lyme disease, you realize there’s nothing unique about that story. In fact, the reality that my own diagnosis came only two years after all of this started makes this a much shorter story than it is for many. The theme of the second version was more pitiful, tinged with regret about what this had taken from me over the past two years and what it might take in the future. But honestly, that one didn’t get far at all. If there’s a good time for something like ...
Read more