Sender: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:08:22 -0600 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
<op.u796d1s6wc4mme@titan> |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>Your day's results shows a low of 89, a high of 109, and an average of
>95. That may be higher than you'd like, but it doesn't seem alarming to
>me. The optimal range varies depending on who you are (and who you ask),
>but you're within the "90 to 110" range even after meals, which doesn't
>seem bad. (Note that if you were consistently lower in the past and this
>is a new higher range, that might be more of an issue.)
Thanks - that makes me feel better. I do know that protein and fat also
elevate BG but I guess I was expecting it to be less.
>My personal philosophy is if you are truly hungry, you should eat. If
>you're just fasting because you want to, that's one thing, but constant
>hunger just for the sake of a schedule doesn't sound like much fun to me.
I am thinking there is something wrong with my hunger satisfact-o-meter.
There are times I eat a huge me and an hour later I could eat again. I
tracked my calories on Monday. I ate a little over 4,000 calories yet was
still hungry at the end of the day. That just doesn't seem normal to me.
|
|
|