View previous topic | View next topic

How was your day?

Page 161 of 170
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 160, 161, 162 ... 168, 169, 170  Next

1340118.  Sat Jan 04, 2020 4:40 pm Reply with quote

I've just had email contact with the second youngest 'child' (though she's now 20) of my older half brother from dad's first marriage. Half brother changed his surname upon marrying and that upset my dad as the German, etc was important to him.

But the lass has told me stuff I didn't know so some gaps have been filled for me now.

1340193.  Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:07 pm Reply with quote

Term started. That is how my day was.

1340417.  Fri Jan 10, 2020 1:15 pm Reply with quote

The quality of my day can also be expressed succinctly.


Have now found it.

It hadn't actually left the house, but that's another issue.

Now all I've got to do is transfer the contacts list from sim to sim, having bought a new phone as I cannot be out of contact if I am going to get any work, or medical support.

1340728.  Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:20 pm Reply with quote

My day was unremarkable; this term looks as if it will contain quite a lot of work but relatively little drama. I'll take that.

But I did have a brief conversation with a Year 13 class about a subject that I suppose we shouldn't really be discussing in school viz smoking. Even when I was supoosed to I refused to give "Smoking is bad" lectures, since I do not want to be one of those holier-than-thou former smokers.

I'm not going to encourage the activity either, but most in Year 13 are old enough to legally do it and some of them do. While I don't volunteer the information, if asked I will tell girls that age that I used to do it.

Anyways, a girl this afternoon commented that she is now finding that her cigarettes go out more often than they used; I do unoffically know that this particular girl has been smoking since she was 14 or so. Does she need to suck harder - a suggestion which would undoubtedly lead to gigglage - or are the makers of cigarettes genuinely using less saltpeter than they used?

1340731.  Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:40 pm Reply with quote

I know nothing about it, but is she smoking a cheaper or more inferior brand because they could have less of that stuff.

1340733.  Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:00 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
supoosed to

What a delightful typo!!!

1340734.  Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:11 am Reply with quote

And I didn't even spot it because I read what I expected to see

1340746.  Fri Jan 17, 2020 6:21 am Reply with quote

Saw my friend Mychael off yesterday on his flight back home. He didn't want to leave, but he's got work to get back to (and so do I). He's already making plans to return around May or early June -- the weather should be better, and with any luck we both might be able to walk better as well. At the moment he's got a bad leg, and I've got a damaged knee and injured foot, so we were restricted to hobbling short distances like a couple of old crocks.

He was visiting here for nearly a month. It was a solid pleasure to have him, but it's good to get back to normal again too. I've got to get cracking with work as of today. There are household chores needing to be done, too.

1340845.  Sun Jan 19, 2020 2:31 pm Reply with quote

I'm back, just in case anyone noticed my absence.

Felt less than pukka over the weekend, so presented myself at doctor's on Monday. Went back on Thursday for blood test, that evening I got a phone call from the person doing the blood test, who told me my blood sugar was way too high and he was calling an ambulance for me. Thus I ended up in Hereford (45 miles away) having assorted tests and very little sleep, also rejoining the club that me and tets don't talk about........
Upshot is that I have to go back on Tuesday to talk to the diabetic specialist, even though they are fairly sure I don't actually have diabetes, just side effects from the cocktail of drugs I consume since the transplant.
Hereford hospital is a pleasant enough place (for a hospital) but the food is unappetisingly bland, and the caterers seem to have no concept of gravy or sauces, making for very dry meals..

Ho hum, updates as and when.

Oh yeah, nearly forgot. When discharge time came, it emerged that they had lost my bloody shoes! Only 10 "croc" knock offs, but pretty inconvenient all the same!

1340847.  Sun Jan 19, 2020 2:40 pm Reply with quote

I thought you had been a bit quiet of late. So maybe you are a "bit" diabetic, some of the time?
Be careful, or you will end up breaking the 12th commandment -- Thou shalt not become an interesting medical case.

1340857.  Sun Jan 19, 2020 5:30 pm Reply with quote


At my last diabetic review I was told that my HbA1c is too high for a non-diabetic and too low for a diabetic (48mmol/mol). So I am told I must eat normally AND follow a low-carb diet, probably on alternate days or something!


1340860.  Sun Jan 19, 2020 5:59 pm Reply with quote

Please forgive my ignorance, because diabetes is one medical condition which those close to me have been fortunate enough to avoid.

Does that too high not to have it / too low to have it thing imply that you are on the cusp of being diabetic? (In which case, does this further imply that diabetes is a spectrum, rather than being a condition that one either has or doesn't?)

Or are you indeed an interesting medical case, one who exhibits some but not all of the indications which would be expected?

1340863.  Sun Jan 19, 2020 7:05 pm Reply with quote

I'm not a doctor, so treat my views with some scepticism, but FWIW...

It very much is a spectrum. There are "real" diabetics who either have had defective pancreas from birth or have one that failed. These people have much reduced (on non-existent) ability to produce insulin, so they are constantly concerned about blood sugar levels and have to regulate it manually. If you let it get too high you risk severe eyesight damage, poor blood flow in extremities, heart damage and even the odd limb or two falling off. If you let it get too low it can run away and you collapse into a coma - in a few seconds.

I have a colleague who is one of these. He measures his blood glucose five times in the working day and injects calculated amounts of insulin based on those results. Every time he eats or drinks anything other than water he checks his BG 30 minutes later and may have to do additional injections.

Near the other end of the spectrum there are people whose pancreas isn't firing on all cylinders and does a lousy job of regulating BG. It either produces too little, or it produces it too late (which creates a positive-feedback instability), or it just doesn't work consistently. These people mostly just eat boring diets and get checked every six months.

Between these two are people whose pancreas is working, but not enough. They are generally on drugs like Metformin to help the pancreas's detection/control mechanism and they check BG before and 1hr after major meals to find out what they can and can't eat.

Now my controversial theory. I'm beginning to suspect that as you get older your pancreas becomes progressively less able to respond to rapid changes in BG, but is otherwise functional. If you are one of these and you have a habit of eating/drinking the "wrong" things (loads of sugar, chocolate bars, carbs and full-strength Coke) it takes longer for your pancreas to switch on the insulin to metabolise it, and this manifests in what appears to be a high long-term BG level (measured using the HbA1c level). These people are treated as diabetic, but probably just need something to speed up pancreatic response coupled to a more grown-up approach to sweets!

The classical theory divides people into "non diabetic", "pre-diabetic" and "diabetic" based solely on the HbA1c number. The theory is that if you are "pre-diabetic" they you are damaging your pancreas, but it's still recoverable through changes to diet. The problem here is that there doesn't seem to be a mechanism for poor dietary discipline actually damaging the pancreas. Another problem is that once they have seen your levels at "diabetic" values they claim they can't classify you as "non-diabetic" or "pre-diabetic" because that's not possible, even though your numbers behave in precisely that way. Some DNs will grudgingly classify you as being "in remission", but there is no medical basis for this label.

And that's where I am. My numbers went stupidly high (155mmol/mol - a level so high that they actually wanted to admit me for continuous monitoring), but then dropped back firmly into the area adjacent to the non-diabetic/pre-diabetic boundary (37-47). This was achieved largely through reigning in the dietary stupidity but also with some assistance from metformin. But this is on the "3 month rolling average" given by the HbA1c measure. My observations from the short-term measure (finger-prick tests) is simply that my BG rises rapidly and then falls back - as if my pancreas has a slow acceleration, but still gets to full speed eventually. If I have coffee with real sugar first thing in the morning my BG spikes. But if I have a slow build-up (like Xmas dinner - a slow meal with lots of courses) I can even have chocolate roulade and a bowl of strawberries and ice cream at the end with only a very small rise in BG.

I've expressed this theory to the medics, but they are dubious. They're probably right and I'm probably wrong, but my theory does match my observations better than theirs!


1340864.  Sun Jan 19, 2020 8:04 pm Reply with quote

Thanks PDR. I learned a couple of things from that quite apart from the PDR Theory of Diabetes which is not endorsed by the official medical profession!

It's interesting that a medical professional can at the same time say that one does not "get better" from diabetes while suggesting that one maybe has done!

I have actually heard the notion of "getting better" before, from an acquaintance - a former cricketing colleague of husband's - whose diet revolves mostly around chips and beer. That fellow asserts that his doctor once told him "You are developing diabetes, sort your diet out pronto" but later told him "Hmm, seems to have gone away, I didn't say this but go back to chips and beer if you want to". I was skeptical, but from what you say above just maybe the doctor really did say that!

1340869.  Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:25 am Reply with quote

I've seen stories of women getting what's called gestational diabetes that only affects them while pregnant.


Page 161 of 170
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 160, 161, 162 ... 168, 169, 170  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group