Paleo Phil wrote:
> I think your assumption of a single blood draw may be incorrect. Todd can
> correct me if I'm wrong, but I assumed that when Todd was reporting
> Stanley's FBG in the 90's it was based on a pattern of test results, not a
> single blood draw.
>   
That was my interpretation of what he said, yes.  But I want to 
emphasize that I have no information that Stanley's actual health was, 
or is, suspect.  That is, my personal BG goals are not based on a desire 
to "not end up like Bear Stanley."


> And I hope I didn't give that impression either--I gave a range of data
> which are considered optimal for humans, not a single target that is
> achievable for every individual, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Todd
> is trying to get into that range to try to optimize his health as best he
> can.
There are a number of things to consider.  For one thing, unlike LDL 
cholesterol, one can track one's own BG at reasonable cost.  More 
important, as I see it, is that the negative impact of both high BGs and 
high insulin levels are pretty well understood, in considerable detail, 
whereas the effects of elevated LDL on health, if any, are harder to pin 
down.  Indeed, it may just be that elevated LDL is sometimes a marker of 
elevated insulin, and the insulin is doing the dirty work.

Based on what I've read, if my BG is above 83 mg/dl, then my pancreas 
tries to get it lower.  If it's 83 or less, my pancreas leaves it 
alone.  If it goes much below 65, then my *liver* tries to bring it back 
up.  But that's not an issue for me or for most nondiabetics.  Very low 
BG is mainly an issue for diabetics taking insulin injections, since too 
much insulin can push BG *way* down very fast, causing coma and possibly 
death.  That's why they carry glucose tablets, in case they need to 
bring BG back up in a hurry.

Anyway, if my pancreas is wired to try to get my BG to 83 or less, then 
I know that when it is below that threshold, my exposure to insulin is 
as low as I can expect it to get.  Although I need surges of insulin to 
assimilate nutrients after a meal, the rest of the time I neither need 
nor want more than the minimum necessary to keep various metabolic 
processes ticking, the baseline amount.  So my goal is to do what I can 
to reach that baseline level most of the time.  It may turn out that I 
simply can't get there.  I'm still inclined to think that the closer I 
can get, the better.

> I'm no expert in this, but my guess is that FBG may be a sufficient measure
> for Todd to use if he is not experiencing any other symptoms of pre-diabetes
> or insulin resistance, but the other measures couldn't hurt. Todd explained
> that it is not feasible for him to get these other measures.
>   
I can get other measures at periodic intervals, but I can monitor my BG 
on a day-to-day and even hour-to-hour basis, if I want.  I can see the 
effect that various foods and meal timings have.  I don't have to wait 
months to see if what I'm doing is having any effect.  I now *know* that 
my practice of intermittent fasting is causing my BG to go down.  
Whether and how it will affect other things remains to be seen, but at 
least I'm not completely in the dark.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]