Robert Kesterson wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:23:21 -0600, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> ... I would add that a fasting blood glucose level close to 100 is 
>> not, in my estimation, ideal.
>
> Just curious -- what is?  (I'm really not sure what I should be aiming 
> for, other than "under 100"?)
>
According to what I've read (the reference is buried in this office 
somewhere), the pancreas "thinks" BG should be under 84 mg/dl; that is, 
if it's 84 or higher, the pancreas puts out insulin.  If it's under 84, 
the pancreas rests.  So I'm inclined to agree with my pancreas, that BG 
should be under 84.  Getting it there isn't (for me) easy, however.  
Mine tends to stay in the low 90s, although I can sometimes push it 
down.  Interestingly, I've noticed that fasting or eating no carbs do 
not help to get my FBG down.  I get best results with low, but not zero, 
carbs--maybe 20-30g/day.  Also, although I'm not a big fan of aerobic 
exercise, a little of that, with some medium-intensity intervals, seems 
to help too.  I wouldn't generalize any of this to anyone else, 
however.  I think that a BG meter is a good thing to own and use.  I 
think that I, and no doubt others, may have overactive gluconeogenesis 
responses (if that makes any sense), so that when we eat no carbs at all 
(or fast), we end up producing more glucose in the liver than we would 
have gotten if we'd just eaten a little bit of carbohydrate.  That's 
pure conjecture, but it fits my observations, in my own case.

Todd Moody