Not a complaint about my random bg's

For a change of pace, a different post from me that is not a gripe
about randomly high or low bg's:

My average bg for the past two weeks just happens to be 104, with a
standard deviation of only +/-28. That is remarkably good (for me)!
Yeah, there are a few high numbers and a few low numbers, but stepping
back from the details and looking at the big picture that's probably
better than I've ever done.

It's sometimes very easy for me to get sidetracked by a few
phenomenally high numbers that get thrown in. There are so many
numbers (25 years times 365 days times maybe an average of 6 bg's a
day works out to more than 50000 finger pricks so far in my life) and
a certain fraction of them are necessarily either too high or too low
and I occasionally get so focused on the messed up numbers that I lose
sight of the big picture.

Sometimes I think that I latch too strongly onto the obsession that
others here have with their spikes and feel bad about some of my bg
numbers which are so much higher than the spikes that a lot of people
like to gripe about. If I step back from the outliers and look at the
ones that are not so bad, things don't look so bad! Woo-hoo!

Things don't always run so smoothly. If I can keep this up for 6 more
weeks until my next A1C, it'd be wonderful to see a nice low number
there too, and help convince me that I control the horizontal, I
control the vertical, and it's not all just random chance where my
average numbers end up.

Tim.

Tim Shoppa wrote:
> For a change of pace, a different post from me that is not a gripe
> about randomly high or low bg's:
>
> My average bg for the past two weeks just happens to be 104, with a
> standard deviation of only +/-28. That is remarkably good (for me)!
> Yeah, there are a few high numbers and a few low numbers, but stepping
> back from the details and looking at the big picture that's probably
> better than I've ever done.
>
> It's sometimes very easy for me to get sidetracked by a few
> phenomenally high numbers that get thrown in. There are so many
> numbers (25 years times 365 days times maybe an average of 6 bg's a
> day works out to more than 50000 finger pricks so far in my life) and
> a certain fraction of them are necessarily either too high or too low
> and I occasionally get so focused on the messed up numbers that I lose
> sight of the big picture.
>
> Sometimes I think that I latch too strongly onto the obsession that
> others here have with their spikes and feel bad about some of my bg
> numbers which are so much higher than the spikes that a lot of people
> like to gripe about. If I step back from the outliers and look at the
> ones that are not so bad, things don't look so bad! Woo-hoo!
>
> Things don't always run so smoothly. If I can keep this up for 6 more
> weeks until my next A1C, it'd be wonderful to see a nice low number
> there too, and help convince me that I control the horizontal, I
> control the vertical, and it's not all just random chance where my
> average numbers end up.
>
> Tim.
>

My endo feels 75 - 80% of readings within target range is good for a T1.
She's always instructed me to look for trends. She encourages lots of
overnight testing because insulin needs can drop significantly while
sleeping. She's always very concerned about frequent or severe lows.

Vicki

On 21 May 2007 13:28:50 -0700, Tim Shoppa <shoppa@trailing-edge.com>
wrote:

>Things don't always run so smoothly. If I can keep this up for 6 more
>weeks until my next A1C, it'd be wonderful to see a nice low number
>there too, and help convince me that I control the horizontal, I
>control the vertical, and it's not all just random chance where my
>average numbers end up.

Here's hoping for a good, long, predicable run then - and I hope I
haven't jinxed you!!

Nicky.
T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid
D&E, 100ug thyroxine
Last A1c 5.5% BMI 25

On Mon, 21 May 2007 13:28:50 -0700, Tim Shoppa wrote:

> For a change of pace, a different post from me that is not a gripe
> about randomly high or low bg's:
>
> My average bg for the past two weeks just happens to be 104, with a
> standard deviation of only +/-28. That is remarkably good (for me)!
> Yeah, there are a few high numbers and a few low numbers, but stepping
> back from the details and looking at the big picture that's probably
> better than I've ever done.
>
> It's sometimes very easy for me to get sidetracked by a few
> phenomenally high numbers that get thrown in. There are so many
> numbers (25 years times 365 days times maybe an average of 6 bg's a
> day works out to more than 50000 finger pricks so far in my life) and
> a certain fraction of them are necessarily either too high or too low
> and I occasionally get so focused on the messed up numbers that I lose
> sight of the big picture.

I'd also mention that it's quite easy for the meter to give a spurious
reading now and again. I've seen several readings I didn't believe, and on
retesting several times found it was significantly out of line.


>
> Sometimes I think that I latch too strongly onto the obsession that
> others here have with their spikes and feel bad about some of my bg
> numbers which are so much higher than the spikes that a lot of people
> like to gripe about. If I step back from the outliers and look at the
> ones that are not so bad, things don't look so bad! Woo-hoo!
>
> Things don't always run so smoothly. If I can keep this up for 6 more
> weeks until my next A1C, it'd be wonderful to see a nice low number
> there too, and help convince me that I control the horizontal, I
> control the vertical, and it's not all just random chance where my
> average numbers end up.
>
> Tim.

"Tim Shoppa" <shoppa@trailing-edge.com> wrote in message
news:1179779330.382137.135700@36g2000prm.googlegro ups.com...
> For a change of pace, a different post from me that is not a gripe
> about randomly high or low bg's:
>
> My average bg for the past two weeks just happens to be 104, with a
> standard deviation of only +/-28. That is remarkably good (for me)!
> Yeah, there are a few high numbers and a few low numbers, but stepping
> back from the details and looking at the big picture that's probably
> better than I've ever done.
>
> It's sometimes very easy for me to get sidetracked by a few
> phenomenally high numbers that get thrown in. There are so many
> numbers (25 years times 365 days times maybe an average of 6 bg's a
> day works out to more than 50000 finger pricks so far in my life) and
> a certain fraction of them are necessarily either too high or too low
> and I occasionally get so focused on the messed up numbers that I lose
> sight of the big picture.
>
> Sometimes I think that I latch too strongly onto the obsession that
> others here have with their spikes and feel bad about some of my bg
> numbers which are so much higher than the spikes that a lot of people
> like to gripe about. If I step back from the outliers and look at the
> ones that are not so bad, things don't look so bad! Woo-hoo!
>
> Things don't always run so smoothly. If I can keep this up for 6 more
> weeks until my next A1C, it'd be wonderful to see a nice low number
> there too, and help convince me that I control the horizontal, I
> control the vertical, and it's not all just random chance where my
> average numbers end up.

Well done Tim! Have you made any changes that would account for this new
trend?

Ozgirl wrote:
> Well done Tim! Have you made any changes that would account for this new
> trend?

I can't say that I have.

I have been learning the intricacies of Humalog and Lantus over the
past year or so. Before that I did a quarter century on R+N and got
pretty good at it. Maybe I'm finally starting to figure out how
exactly Lantus is not truly flat, and how humalog gets kind-of
randomly absorbed.

I have been fine-tuning my Lantus doses recently by the half-unit.

I have sometimes, instead of trying to force my insulin to match what
I eat, instead eating to match the insulin. I know, I know, breaking
the rule I've been trying to set a good example on. I spent a lot of
time with R+N eating to the insulin. Maybe it's not so much a hard and
fast rule but something that should be bent to fit real life!

At my last endo visit, my doc gave me the "I know you can do better
than this" lecture when I had an A1C in the low 6's. (Actually the
reference range at the lab had shifted and that low 6 was more like an
"old" mid-to-high 6). Maybe that was some motivation. He didn't really
try to teach me anything new (I've been playing the diabetes game
since he was in grade school!), but he did answer some specific
questions pretty well. He likes asking me about my work, he thinks
I've got a pretty cool job :-).

Tim.

On 21 May 2007 13:28:50 -0700, Tim Shoppa
<shoppa@trailing-edge.com> wrote:

>For a change of pace, a different post from me that is not a gripe
>about randomly high or low bg's:
>
>My average bg for the past two weeks just happens to be 104, with a
>standard deviation of only +/-28. That is remarkably good (for me)!
>Yeah, there are a few high numbers and a few low numbers, but stepping
>back from the details and looking at the big picture that's probably
>better than I've ever done.
>
>It's sometimes very easy for me to get sidetracked by a few
>phenomenally high numbers that get thrown in. There are so many
>numbers (25 years times 365 days times maybe an average of 6 bg's a
>day works out to more than 50000 finger pricks so far in my life) and
>a certain fraction of them are necessarily either too high or too low
>and I occasionally get so focused on the messed up numbers that I lose
>sight of the big picture.
>
>Sometimes I think that I latch too strongly onto the obsession that
>others here have with their spikes and feel bad about some of my bg
>numbers which are so much higher than the spikes that a lot of people
>like to gripe about. If I step back from the outliers and look at the
>ones that are not so bad, things don't look so bad! Woo-hoo!
>
>Things don't always run so smoothly. If I can keep this up for 6 more
>weeks until my next A1C, it'd be wonderful to see a nice low number
>there too, and help convince me that I control the horizontal, I
>control the vertical, and it's not all just random chance where my
>average numbers end up.
>
>Tim.

Nice to hear good news Tim:-)


Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Slovenia

"Tim Shoppa" <shoppa@trailing-edge.com> wrote in message
news:1179794105.364736.308800@y2g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
> Ozgirl wrote:
> > Well done Tim! Have you made any changes that would account for this new
> > trend?
>
> I can't say that I have.
>
> I have been learning the intricacies of Humalog and Lantus over the
> past year or so. Before that I did a quarter century on R+N and got
> pretty good at it. Maybe I'm finally starting to figure out how
> exactly Lantus is not truly flat, and how humalog gets kind-of
> randomly absorbed.
>
> I have been fine-tuning my Lantus doses recently by the half-unit.
>
> I have sometimes, instead of trying to force my insulin to match what
> I eat, instead eating to match the insulin. I know, I know, breaking
> the rule I've been trying to set a good example on. I spent a lot of
> time with R+N eating to the insulin. Maybe it's not so much a hard and
> fast rule but something that should be bent to fit real life!
>
> At my last endo visit, my doc gave me the "I know you can do better
> than this" lecture when I had an A1C in the low 6's. (Actually the
> reference range at the lab had shifted and that low 6 was more like an
> "old" mid-to-high 6). Maybe that was some motivation. He didn't really
> try to teach me anything new (I've been playing the diabetes game
> since he was in grade school!), but he did answer some specific
> questions pretty well. He likes asking me about my work, he thinks
> I've got a pretty cool job :-).

Feeding the insulin could cause a weight problem but if your weight is not
rising then you have probably found your happy area Now you have me
curious as to what your cool job is!

On 21 May 2007 17:35:05 -0700, Tim Shoppa <shoppa@trailing-edge.com>
wrote:

>Ozgirl wrote:
>> Well done Tim! Have you made any changes that would account for this new
>> trend?
>
>I can't say that I have.
>
>I have been learning the intricacies of Humalog and Lantus over the
>past year or so. Before that I did a quarter century on R+N and got
>pretty good at it. Maybe I'm finally starting to figure out how
>exactly Lantus is not truly flat, and how humalog gets kind-of
>randomly absorbed.

Some of us found that Lantus did last long enough and we ended up
either splitting the dose (slightly increasing it but taking it twice
a day) or adding N to it to cover the time period it was running out.

Some of us have also found that Novolog is more stable, fewer sudden
hypos because of uneven absorption as well as some rare irritating
side effects.


>
>I have been fine-tuning my Lantus doses recently by the half-unit.


?? how often? daily? every other day?

--
Mâck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper
Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.diabetic-talk.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org
http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco"



"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
President, or that we are to stand by the President
right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public."
....Theodore Roosevelt

(o ô)
--ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------

"I don't know half of you
half as well as I should like;
and I like less than half of you
half as well as you deserve."
....Bilbo Baggins


DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate...
..

Mack(c)(R) wrote:
> On 21 May 2007 17:35:05 -0700, Tim Shoppa <shoppa@trailing-edge.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Ozgirl wrote:
> >> Well done Tim! Have you made any changes that would account for this new
> >> trend?
> >
> >I can't say that I have.
> >
> >I have been learning the intricacies of Humalog and Lantus over the
> >past year or so. Before that I did a quarter century on R+N and got
> >pretty good at it. Maybe I'm finally starting to figure out how
> >exactly Lantus is not truly flat, and how humalog gets kind-of
> >randomly absorbed.
>
> Some of us found that Lantus did last long enough and we ended up
> either splitting the dose (slightly increasing it but taking it twice
> a day) or adding N to it to cover the time period it was running out.

Yeah, I "split the dose" early last fall with very good effect.


> >
> >I have been fine-tuning my Lantus doses recently by the half-unit.
>
>
> ?? how often? daily? every other day?

Not that often. If I avoid changing dose to deal with randomly high or
low numbers, that means I have to wait 3 or 4 days before I see a
pattern indicating a needed change. And usually changing it by a whole
unit is too much - a half unit is more appropriate.

Here the "works best with Lantus" rules are radically different than
with NPH. With NPH I would make the fractional change larger and do it
more readily.

I have substantially fewer overnight hypos with Lantus than with N,
even if the switch to Lantus didn't automatigically come with a low
A1C.

Tim.

On May 21, 4:28 pm, Tim Shoppa <sho...@trailing-edge.com> wrote:
<good news snipped>
> Things don't always run so smoothly. If I can keep this up for 6 more
> weeks until my next A1C, it'd be wonderful to see a nice low number
> there too, and help convince me that I control the horizontal, I
> control the vertical, and it's not all just random chance where my
> average numbers end up.
>
> Tim.

Good work and wishes for continued stability Tim.

I recently switched regimes too from premixed Novolog 70/30 -- I know,
training wheels, not appropriate for T1s, etc, etc., but I couldn't
afford two kinds of insulin, didn't want to try N or R -- to Lantus
and Humalog. I haven't seen any weirdness from the Humalog yet, and
the Lantus seems to be nice and stable for a full 24 hours. Last A1c
with the mix was 5.4 and this month I had a 5.7 on the new regime,
with fewer lows, and much more meal flexibility (Yay). Cut way back
on the emergency Smarties stashes. The biggest improvement is better
exercise tolerance because of lower background insulin between meals
from the Lantus. The protamine in the mix was peaking at really bad
times of the day for me.

--
Stan