That...could be bad. (Edit: But probably not for me)

[dvandom]

Just saw a piece on the evening news that a newly completed study shows that not only does aggressively suppressing blood sugar not help Type 2 diabetics, it can actually be harmful. So maaaaaybe I shouldn't be so pleased when I get a post-dinner number under 100 mg/dl.

Comments

[foomf.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah? One study, needs more proof, lots of other stuff out there saying to keep it below 150, and what does 'aggressively' mean?

[dvandom.livejournal.com]

Found a better source (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/nhla-ibs020608.php) than the evening news. Aggressively means A1C under 6, where control had A1C in the 7-8 range. My A1C has been in the 5.2-5.4 range lately.

However, they're checking for effect on heart disease alone, not any other causes of death. And the subjects had already high risks for cardiovascular mischief and who had been diagnosed with Type 2 some time ago. I'm a recent diagnosee with no prior heart disease diagnosis, so I fall outside the study parameters...it was really designed to see if getting blood sugar down would help people already at high risk.

Not feeling so bad now. :)

[foomf.livejournal.com]

Ah. I have no intention of using medication or other efforts to force myself below 6, though if I got into the high 5s I might not mind.

I'm in the high risk group. Dad's had three coronary bypass surgeries (apnea-and-emphysema damage, but they don't know if that's the only element) and my uncles ... one died of a heart attack 11 years ago, and he was only 14 years older than me; the other has had at least one bypass and a valve replacement (that latter due to a congenital disorder) that's due for a new replacement.