Prediabetes - how is it diagnosed?

Hi,

I just had a GTT done at my six-week postpartum visit, having had
gestational diabetes in this pregnancy as well as my previous
pregnancy. The GD was diet-controlled, so it was not really very bad.

Yesterday's GTT results were: 105 at fasting, and 67 at two hours
after ingestion of 75g of glucose.

>From what I've been reading, the 105 at fasting would point to a
prediabetic condition, although the guidelines were changed on this
only in 2003 - prior to then, 110 was the cutoff point for fasting,
while it is now 100.

The endocrinologist at the hospital said I should repeat the test in a
few months, and then come and talk to her.

To put things in more context, while I did fast for 9 hours prior to
having my fasting blood drawn, I had had about 50g of carbs for
dinner, including 25g of carbs in the form of chocolate for desert.

So, my question is, I'm really anxious about the results of
yesterday's GTT, but should I really be worrying yet?

We do have DM in my family, but my father was able to control his with
diet till he died at age 70 from an unrelated illness.

Thanks for your thoughts.

On 26 Apr 2007 14:00:43 -0700, Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward
<penelope@rescueteam.com> wrote:

>So, my question is, I'm really anxious about the results of
>yesterday's GTT, but should I really be worrying yet?

Doesn't feel that way to me - those are pretty normal results. What
you could do is to take it as a wake-up call - evaluate your diet and
exercise lifestyles and see what you can improve. Not that the
ankle-biter isn't going to throw a few wrenches into that : ) You
could also buy a blood glucose meter and a few test strips, and
occasionally test your fasting and your response to carby meals. Take
the endo's offer of a retest in a few months. Even if you switched
into full-blown type 2 tomorrow, a wait of a few months is not going
to be a tragedy - and if you spot a trend that warrants a trip to the
endo early, go bang on his door.

Nicky.

On 26 Apr 2007 14:00:43 -0700, Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward
<penelope@rescueteam.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I just had a GTT done at my six-week postpartum visit, having had
>gestational diabetes in this pregnancy as well as my previous
>pregnancy. The GD was diet-controlled, so it was not really very bad.
>
>Yesterday's GTT results were: 105 at fasting, and 67 at two hours
>after ingestion of 75g of glucose.
>
>>From what I've been reading, the 105 at fasting would point to a
>prediabetic condition, although the guidelines were changed on this
>only in 2003 - prior to then, 110 was the cutoff point for fasting,
>while it is now 100.
>
>The endocrinologist at the hospital said I should repeat the test in a
>few months, and then come and talk to her.
>
>To put things in more context, while I did fast for 9 hours prior to
>having my fasting blood drawn, I had had about 50g of carbs for
>dinner, including 25g of carbs in the form of chocolate for desert.
>
>So, my question is, I'm really anxious about the results of
>yesterday's GTT, but should I really be worrying yet?
>
>We do have DM in my family, but my father was able to control his with
>diet till he died at age 70 from an unrelated illness.
>
>Thanks for your thoughts.


This link answers the question in your title:
http://www.joslin.org/managing_your_diabetes_546.asp
"In general, people who have a fasting plasma blood glucose
in the 100-125 mg/dl range are defined as having impaired
fasting glucose (IGT)". The ADA has now decided
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi...suppl_1/s43#T3
that "Patients with IFG and/or IGT are now referred to as
having "pre-diabetes".

Just thoughts, as you requested. I'm not a doc, just a type
2 patient.

Putting together your genetic background, your GD and your
fasting of 105 I think it's time to accept that diabetes is
already in your life. We're not talking about whether you
are diabetic, but the degree of progression.

If you want to slow that progression down, or even possibly
halt it, consider acting as though you are already a
diabetic. The first thing I recommend is that you obtain a
blood glucose meter and learn how to use it.

The most significant changes you can make yourself are in
lifestyle - mainly diet and exercise. The subject that
causes most arguments is diet. My suggestion is read as much
as you can, then sift it all through your own common sense
and, when in doubt, check with your medics.

I'll offer three sources of initial reading. The first is
the best advice I received after my own diagnosis, the
second is from my own experience and the third is a book
written specifically for you by a "Patient Expert" I had the
privilege of meeting last year. She knows more about this
subject than I'll ever learn.

Testing to discover what foods do to you, and what to do
about it:
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/NewlyDiagnosed.htm

Getting started:
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/2006/10/d-day.html

Prediabetes: What You Need to Know to Keep Diabetes Away
by Gretchen Becker.
It may be in your library, if not it's on Amazon at
http://tinyurl.com/32jmn7
I haven't read that one - my own copy of her book is "The
First Year: Type 2 Diabetes: An Essential Guide for the
Newly Diagnosed". http://tinyurl.com/38gqvo
Either is good - and no, I don't get a commission:-)


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

"Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward" <penelope@rescueteam.com> wrote in message
news:1177621243.599701.201730@o40g2000prh.googlegr oups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I just had a GTT done at my six-week postpartum visit, having had
> gestational diabetes in this pregnancy as well as my previous
> pregnancy. The GD was diet-controlled, so it was not really very bad.
>
> Yesterday's GTT results were: 105 at fasting, and 67 at two hours
> after ingestion of 75g of glucose.
>
>>From what I've been reading, the 105 at fasting would point to a
> prediabetic condition, although the guidelines were changed on this
> only in 2003 - prior to then, 110 was the cutoff point for fasting,
> while it is now 100.
>
> The endocrinologist at the hospital said I should repeat the test in a
> few months, and then come and talk to her.
>
> To put things in more context, while I did fast for 9 hours prior to
> having my fasting blood drawn, I had had about 50g of carbs for
> dinner, including 25g of carbs in the form of chocolate for desert.
>
> So, my question is, I'm really anxious about the results of
> yesterday's GTT, but should I really be worrying yet?
>
> We do have DM in my family, but my father was able to control his with
> diet till he died at age 70 from an unrelated illness.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts.

One way is the GTT like you said. I was not aware that they dropped the
numbers though.

Another way is two high or slightly high numbers. Example: My SIL always
had high morning fastings. Somewhere around 140 if I remember correctly.
And numbers higher still after she ate. But her numbers for the rest of the
day were always in normal range no matter what she ate. She was then
classified as pre-diabetic, although some would dispute this. She has since
lost over half of her body weight and now her numbers are in normal range,
but she does still watch what she eats.

If I were you, I would continue to be careful with your diet. I had GD and
after the baby was told I did not have diabetes. Eventually I went back to
eating the beans and rice for most of my meals and the high carb diet caused
my numbers to soar. By the time I was diagnosed, damage had already set in.
Apparently at the time, I could easily control with diet and exercise. But
I wasn't in control because I didn't think I had diabetes!

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:46:11 +0000, Alan S wrote:

> On 26 Apr 2007 14:00:43 -0700, Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward
> <penelope@rescueteam.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I just had a GTT done at my six-week postpartum visit, having had
>>gestational diabetes in this pregnancy as well as my previous
>>pregnancy. The GD was diet-controlled, so it was not really very bad.
>>
>>Yesterday's GTT results were: 105 at fasting, and 67 at two hours
>>after ingestion of 75g of glucose.
>>
>>>From what I've been reading, the 105 at fasting would point to a
>>prediabetic condition, although the guidelines were changed on this
>>only in 2003 - prior to then, 110 was the cutoff point for fasting,
>>while it is now 100.
>>
>>The endocrinologist at the hospital said I should repeat the test in a
>>few months, and then come and talk to her.
>>
>>To put things in more context, while I did fast for 9 hours prior to
>>having my fasting blood drawn, I had had about 50g of carbs for
>>dinner, including 25g of carbs in the form of chocolate for desert.
>>
>>So, my question is, I'm really anxious about the results of
>>yesterday's GTT, but should I really be worrying yet?
>>
>>We do have DM in my family, but my father was able to control his with
>>diet till he died at age 70 from an unrelated illness.
>>
>>Thanks for your thoughts.
>
>
> This link answers the question in your title:
> http://www.joslin.org/managing_your_diabetes_546.asp
> "In general, people who have a fasting plasma blood glucose
> in the 100-125 mg/dl range are defined as having impaired
> fasting glucose (IGT)". The ADA has now decided
> http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi...suppl_1/s43#T3
> that "Patients with IFG and/or IGT are now referred to as
> having "pre-diabetes".
>
> Just thoughts, as you requested. I'm not a doc, just a type
> 2 patient.
>
> Putting together your genetic background, your GD and your
> fasting of 105 I think it's time to accept that diabetes is
> already in your life. We're not talking about whether you
> are diabetic, but the degree of progression.
>
> If you want to slow that progression down, or even possibly
> halt it, consider acting as though you are already a
> diabetic. The first thing I recommend is that you obtain a
> blood glucose meter and learn how to use it.
>
> The most significant changes you can make yourself are in
> lifestyle - mainly diet and exercise. The subject that
> causes most arguments is diet. My suggestion is read as much
> as you can, then sift it all through your own common sense
> and, when in doubt, check with your medics.
>
> I'll offer three sources of initial reading. The first is
> the best advice I received after my own diagnosis, the
> second is from my own experience and the third is a book
> written specifically for you by a "Patient Expert" I had the
> privilege of meeting last year. She knows more about this
> subject than I'll ever learn.
>
> Testing to discover what foods do to you, and what to do
> about it:
> http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/NewlyDiagnosed.htm
>
> Getting started:
> http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/2006/10/d-day.html
>
> Prediabetes: What You Need to Know to Keep Diabetes Away
> by Gretchen Becker.
> It may be in your library, if not it's on Amazon at
> http://tinyurl.com/32jmn7
> I haven't read that one - my own copy of her book is "The
> First Year: Type 2 Diabetes: An Essential Guide for the
> Newly Diagnosed". http://tinyurl.com/38gqvo
> Either is good - and no, I don't get a commission:-)
>
>
> Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
> d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
> Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

I'll certainly agree with what Alan has spelled out - in your shoes with
what I know now, I'd certainly be looking at some diet modification and a
good exercies regime. I'd like to add a couple of resources which have
been very helpful to me: 'Diabetes for Dummies' has some excellent
dumbbell exercies you can do at home and Dr. Richard Bernstein's 'Diabetes
Solution'. Particularly the latter one you might check out from the
library just to look and see what may be ahead of you.

Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I just had a GTT done at my six-week postpartum visit, having had
> gestational diabetes in this pregnancy as well as my previous
> pregnancy. The GD was diet-controlled, so it was not really very bad.
>
> Yesterday's GTT results were: 105 at fasting, and 67 at two hours
> after ingestion of 75g of glucose.
>
> >From what I've been reading, the 105 at fasting would point to a
> prediabetic condition, although the guidelines were changed on this
> only in 2003 - prior to then, 110 was the cutoff point for fasting,
> while it is now 100.
>
> The endocrinologist at the hospital said I should repeat the test in a
> few months, and then come and talk to her.
>
> To put things in more context, while I did fast for 9 hours prior to
> having my fasting blood drawn, I had had about 50g of carbs for
> dinner, including 25g of carbs in the form of chocolate for desert.
>
> So, my question is, I'm really anxious about the results of
> yesterday's GTT, but should I really be worrying yet?

You should be concerned.

You likely have metabolic syndrome (MetS) which is "pre-diabetes."

> We do have DM in my family, but my father was able to control his with
> diet till he died at age 70 from an unrelated illness.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts.

The key to curing MetS is losing the visceral adipose tissue (VAT),
which is the underlying cause.

Here is how to do it:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp

This Approach now comes with a million dollar guarantee:

http://TruthRUS.org/Guarantee

May GOD bless you.

Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://EmoryCardiology.com

"Unlike the 2PD-OMER Approach, weight loss diets can't be combined
with well-balanced diets."
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love/TheTruth

On Apr 26, 6:46 pm, Alan S <loralgtweightandca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2007 14:00:43 -0700, Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward
>
>
>
>
>
> <penel...@rescueteam.com> wrote:
> >Hi,
>
> >I just had a GTT done at my six-week postpartum visit, having had
> >gestational diabetes in this pregnancy as well as my previous
> >pregnancy. The GD was diet-controlled, so it was not really very bad.
>
> >Yesterday's GTT results were: 105 at fasting, and 67 at two hours
> >after ingestion of 75g of glucose.
>
> >>From what I've been reading, the 105 at fasting would point to a
> >prediabetic condition, although the guidelines were changed on this
> >only in 2003 - prior to then, 110 was the cutoff point for fasting,
> >while it is now 100.
>
> >The endocrinologist at the hospital said I should repeat the test in a
> >few months, and then come and talk to her.
>
> >To put things in more context, while I did fast for 9 hours prior to
> >having my fasting blood drawn, I had had about 50g of carbs for
> >dinner, including 25g of carbs in the form of chocolate for desert.
>
> >So, my question is, I'm really anxious about the results of
> >yesterday's GTT, but should I really be worrying yet?
>
> >We do have DM in my family, but my father was able to control his with
> >diet till he died at age 70 from an unrelated illness.
>
> >Thanks for your thoughts.
>
> This link answers the question in your title:http://www.joslin.org/managing_your_diabetes_546.asp
> "In general, people who have a fasting plasma blood glucose
> in the 100-125 mg/dl range are defined as having impaired
> fasting glucose (IGT)". The ADA has now decidedhttp://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/29/suppl_1/s43#T3
> that "Patients with IFG and/or IGT are now referred to as
> having "pre-diabetes".
>
> Just thoughts, as you requested. I'm not a doc, just a type
> 2 patient.
>
> Putting together your genetic background, your GD and your
> fasting of 105 I think it's time to accept that diabetes is
> already in your life. We're not talking about whether you
> are diabetic, but the degree of progression.
>
> If you want to slow that progression down, or even possibly
> halt it, consider acting as though you are already a
> diabetic. The first thing I recommend is that you obtain a
> blood glucose meter and learn how to use it.
>
> The most significant changes you can make yourself are in
> lifestyle - mainly diet and exercise. The subject that
> causes most arguments is diet. My suggestion is read as much
> as you can, then sift it all through your own common sense
> and, when in doubt, check with your medics.
>
> I'll offer three sources of initial reading. The first is
> the best advice I received after my own diagnosis, the
> second is from my own experience and the third is a book
> written specifically for you by a "Patient Expert" I had the
> privilege of meeting last year. She knows more about this
> subject than I'll ever learn.
>
> Testing to discover what foods do to you, and what to do
> about it:http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/NewlyDiagnosed.htm
>
> Getting started:http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/2006/10/d-day.html
>
> Prediabetes: What You Need to Know to Keep Diabetes Away
> by Gretchen Becker.
> It may be in your library, if not it's on Amazon athttp://tinyurl.com/32jmn7
> I haven't read that one - my own copy of her book is "The
> First Year: Type 2 Diabetes: An Essential Guide for the
> Newly Diagnosed".http://tinyurl.com/38gqvo
> Either is good - and no, I don't get a commission:-)
>
> Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
> d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
> Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
> --http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
> latest: Athens and The Adriatic- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thank you very much for this - I do think I would do myself a favour
to face this rather than hope that it was a one-off. More exercise and
fewer carbs can't do me harm. I do have a monitor but had run out of
test strips just before the end of my pregnancy, so didn't know where
I stood after I'd given birth. I have more test strips on order now.
I'll be ordering the books you recommended (with a young toddler and
an infant, there's no time to go to the library).

I don't have weight issues really - my current BMI is 22.8 and I still
have to lose 9 pounds from this pregnancy.

"The key to curing MetS is losing the visceral adipose tissue (VAT),
which is the underlying cause.

Here is how to do it:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp"

In case there are any new readers who might be taken in, the two pound
diet is trash science and does not cure diabetes. Reversing metabolic
syndrom is more effectively done by using exercise and sound nutritional
practices as to food choices in addition to weight loss.

Lack of exercise and some food choices are high risk factors for leading
to weight gain in and the syndrom part and the whole of the problem must
be addressed, the two pound diet does not do that. If it aids weight
loss it is an accident of what foods one chooses to consume. Two pounds
of some add weight and two of others can aid in weight loss for a given
height and activity level.

The author of the diet does not keep up with diabetes literature,
distorts science in pursuit of non-scientific agenda, and ignores
science which completely refutes his atenda.

One can with complete peace of mind ignore the source because the truth
is not in him.

Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward <penelope@rescueteam.com> wrote in part:

>Yesterday's GTT results were: 105 at fasting, and 67 at two hours
>after ingestion of 75g of glucose.

Do you really mean 67, or was it 167?
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu

the-truth@is-better.com wrote:
> "The key to curing MetS is losing the visceral adipose tissue (VAT),
> which is the underlying cause.
>
> Here is how to do it:
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp"
>
> In case there are any new readers who might be taken in, the two pound
> diet is trash science and does not cure diabetes. Reversing metabolic
> syndrom is more effectively done by using exercise and sound nutritional
> practices as to food choices in addition to weight loss.
>
> Lack of exercise and some food choices are high risk factors for leading
> to weight gain in and the syndrom part and the whole of the problem must
> be addressed, the two pound diet does not do that. If it aids weight
> loss it is an accident of what foods one chooses to consume. Two pounds
> of some add weight and two of others can aid in weight loss for a given
> height and activity level.
>
> The author of the diet does not keep up with diabetes literature,
> distorts science in pursuit of non-scientific agenda, and ignores
> science which completely refutes his atenda.
>
> One can with complete peace of mind ignore the source because the truth
> is not in him.

How does the 2PD work for blind people? Are there talking scales?

"How does the 2PD work for blind people? Are there talking scales?"

There are talking scales, but the two pound diet is even then trash
science and does not cure diabetes.

On Apr 27, 11:50 am, Jim Chinnis <jchin...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward <penel...@rescueteam.com> wrote in part:
>
> >Yesterday's GTT results were: 105 at fasting, and 67 at two hours
> >after ingestion of 75g of glucose.
>
> Do you really mean 67, or was it 167?
> --
> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchin...@alum.mit.edu

I really mean 67, not 167. I know, it's really low, but I guess my
insulin production went into overdrive at the onslaught of all that
glucose.

On 27 Apr 2007 10:21:06 -0700, Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward
<penelope@rescueteam.com> wrote:

>On Apr 27, 11:50 am, Jim Chinnis <jchin...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward <penel...@rescueteam.com> wrote in part:
>>
>> >Yesterday's GTT results were: 105 at fasting, and 67 at two hours
>> >after ingestion of 75g of glucose.
>>
>> Do you really mean 67, or was it 167?
>> --
>> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchin...@alum.mit.edu
>
>I really mean 67, not 167. I know, it's really low, but I guess my
>insulin production went into overdrive at the onslaught of all that
>glucose.

Not unusual. Do some googling on "reactive hypoglycemia".


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

On Apr 26, 5:00 pm, Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward
<penel...@rescueteam.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just had a GTT done at my six-week postpartum visit, having had
> gestational diabetes in this pregnancy as well as my previous
> pregnancy. The GD was diet-controlled, so it was not really very bad.
>
> Yesterday's GTT results were: 105 at fasting, and 67 at two hours
> after ingestion of 75g of glucose.
>
> >From what I've been reading, the 105 at fasting would point to a
>
> prediabetic condition, although the guidelines were changed on this
> only in 2003 - prior to then, 110 was the cutoff point for fasting,
> while it is now 100.
>
> The endocrinologist at the hospital said I should repeat the test in a
> few months, and then come and talk to her.
>
> To put things in more context, while I did fast for 9 hours prior to
> having my fasting blood drawn, I had had about 50g of carbs for
> dinner, including 25g of carbs in the form of chocolate for desert.
>
> So, my question is, I'm really anxious about the results of
> yesterday's GTT, but should I really be worrying yet?
>
> We do have DM in my family, but my father was able to control his with
> diet till he died at age 70 from an unrelated illness.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts.

hi

In sci.med.cardiology, * said...

> "How does the 2PD work for blind people? Are there talking scales?"
>
> There are talking scales, but the two pound diet is even then trash
> science and does not cure diabetes.

Blindness can be cured - in special cases. Nothing cures diabetes.
Especially not a disgraced and unemployed cardiologist lacking hospital
privileges - a doctor with a classroom education that becomes more dated
every day that he's not learning more deeply into his profession by
practicing his in the arena that is designed to teach him things that
cannot be learned in books or classrooms. Medical specialists learn more
on the job - after they become doctors. This being the case, it's
understandable that Dr. Chung is unaware that there is no cure for
diabetes - no matter how many pounds of cat meat one eats.

--
St. Jackanapes MD/PhD ~ Bearer of The One True Liver ~
Ordained Minister, Physician & Holy Saint of The Universal Life Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WEBSITE: http://www.jackanapes.ws | FORUM: http://www.voy.com/20630
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Diet with Dr. Chung: http://www.jackanapes.ws/2pdcat.html

In article <1177694466.146047.220450@b40g2000prd.googlegroups .com>,
Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward <penelope@rescueteam.com> wrote:

> On Apr 27, 11:50 am, Jim Chinnis <jchin...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward <penel...@rescueteam.com> wrote in part:
> >
> > >Yesterday's GTT results were: 105 at fasting, and 67 at two hours
> > >after ingestion of 75g of glucose.
> >
> > Do you really mean 67, or was it 167?
> > --
> > Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchin...@alum.mit.edu
>
> I really mean 67, not 167. I know, it's really low, but I guess my
> insulin production went into overdrive at the onslaught of all that
> glucose.

Which is a good thing. As far as I know, no one here is an expert in
this area and even the experts are unclear on the markers for
pre-diabetes. I would not be surprised if you are non-diabetic, but this
is a discussion you really need to have with your doctor.