High blood glucose level



R

Rusholme

Guest
Recently I did a quick blood test using one of those small machines with which people with diabetes
regularly monitor their glucose levels (a relation of mine has this machine because she's been
diagnosed type 2 diabetes).

The result was 145 mg/dl, which surprised me quite a bit as I do all the usual blood tests at a
hospital lab once a year and the glucose level has always been found to be normal (last time it was
77 mg/dl). About an hour and a half before doing the quick test with the above mentioned machine
however I had eaten three small buns - these contained among other things, raisins, milk and of
course quite a bit of sugar. Assuming the machine was working correctly, could the high glucose
level have been caused merely by this acute episode of gluttony? Or would it be sensible to see a
doctor/do other tests?

Thanks for your advice.

PS I'm in my early 30s.
 
On 2004-02-22 13:12:46 -0500, "Rusholme" <[email protected]> said:

> Recently I did a quick blood test using one of those small machines with which people with
> diabetes regularly monitor their glucose levels The result was 145 mg/dl, which surprised me quite
> a bit. About an hour and a half before doing the quick test with the above mentioned machine
> however I had eaten three small buns - these contained among other things, raisins, milk and of
> course quite a bit of sugar.

A random blood glucose of 145 is probably normal under those circumstances. To be diagnosed with
diabetes, one would need to have two *fasting* (nothing to eat or drink except water for at
least 8-10 hours) blood glucose levels greater than or equal to 126 mg/dL, taken on different
days; or, any random blood glucose level in exess of 200 along with symptoms of diabetes
(polydipsia, polyphagia, polyuria, etc.). A random (non-fasting) blood glucose level of >160
mg/dL suggests the need for retesting. A two-hour glucose tolerance test can also be used, but
the fasting blood glucose level is much easier to perform, and less expensive. Impaired fasting
glucose ("pre-diabetes") is defined as a fasting blood glucose level of greater than or equal to
100 mg/dL, but less than 126. If you should ever observe values such as these with your
glucometer, see your doctor.
 
Rusholme writes:

> The result was 145 mg/dl [...] About an hour and a half before doing the quick test with the above
> mentioned machine however I had eaten three small buns - these contained among other things,
> raisins, milk and of course quite a bit of sugar. Assuming the machine was working correctly,
> could the high glucose level have been caused merely by this acute episode of gluttony?

Yes. It's a bit higher than might be expected, but it depends a lot on exactly what was in those
buns, and other factors.

> Or would it be sensible to see a doctor/do other tests?

You might want to do a few tests to see if it is consistently high. Try measuring it after not
eating anything for eight hours or so. Then measure it just before you start a meal, then one hour
after, then two hours after, then three hours after. Normally it should be back to 110
mg/dl or better by the two-hour mark. If it's on the high side, or if it's high even when you
haven't eaten, see a doctor and get some more precise tests done. If you want to be completely
safe, go to the doctor to begin with and have her set up a lab test (such as a glucose-tolerance
test, which is similar to what I've just described) to get more accurate results.

> PS I'm in my early 30s.

Not usually much of a factor. Are you overweight? That's the leading cause of Type 2 diabetes. If
you're fat and you have Type 2, often losing weight will return your glucose to normal.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
On 2004-02-22 15:46:32 -0500, Mxsmanic <[email protected]> said:

> You might want to do a few tests to see if it is consistently high. Try measuring it after not
> eating anything for eight hours or so. Then measure it just before you start a meal, then one hour
> after, then two hours after, then three hours after. Normally it should be back to 110
> mg/dl or better by the two-hour mark.

No, don't do that. A proper glucose tolerance test requires a *measured* glucose load. You aren't
goign to get statistically useful results from at-home experimentation. *Fasting* blood sugars (not
a do-it-yourself glucose tolerance test) on the other hand, are easy to
do.
 
anon writes:

> No, don't do that. A proper glucose tolerance test requires a *measured* glucose load. You aren't
> goign to get statistically useful results from at-home experimentation.

You can get crude results. If it's 240 mg/dl after two hours, it's safe to assume there's a problem.
If it's 94 mg/dl, it's safe to assume that there isn't. Intermediate values might require more
investigation.

> *Fasting* blood sugars (not a do-it-yourself glucose tolerance test) on the other hand, are
> easy to do.

True, but they don't say much about how well you tolerate a glucose load, which can be an important
indicator of a possible future problem.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
On 2004-02-22 20:38:32 -0500, Mxsmanic <[email protected]> said:

>> *Fasting* blood sugars (not a do-it-yourself glucose tolerance test) on the other hand, are
>> easy to do.
>
> True, but they don't say much about how well you tolerate a glucose load, which can be an
> important indicator of a possible future problem.

I use a GTT as more of a confirmatory test when the fasting blood sugars are borderline. The
following is copied directly from the clinical practice recommendations of the American Diabetic
Association, which I happen to agree with:

The best screening test for diabetes, the fasting plasma glucose (FPG), is also a component of
diagnostic testing. The FPG test and the 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) are both suitable
tests for diabetes; however, the FPG test is preferred in clinical settings because it is easier and
faster to perform, more convenient and acceptable to patients, and less expensive. An FPG 126 mg/dl
(7.0 mmol/l) is an indication for retesting, which should be repeated on a different day to confirm
a diagnosis. If the FPG is <126 mg/dl (7.0 mmol/l) and there is a high suspicion for diabetes, an
OGTT should be performed. A 2-h postload value in the OGTT 200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/l) is a positive
test for diabetes and should be confirmed on an alternate day. Fasting is defined as no consumption
of food or beverage other than water for at least 8 h before testing.
 
anon wrote:

> On 2004-02-22 15:46:32 -0500, Mxsmanic <[email protected]> said:
>
>> You might want to do a few tests to see if it is consistently high. Try measuring it after not
>> eating anything for eight hours or so. Then measure it just before you start a meal, then one
>> hour after, then two hours after, then three hours after. Normally it should be back to 110
>> mg/dl or better by the two-hour mark.
>
>
> No, don't do that. A proper glucose tolerance test requires a *measured* glucose load.

Over time.

You aren't goign to get statistically useful results from
> at-home experimentation. *Fasting* blood sugars (not a do-it-yourself glucose tolerance test) on
> the other hand, are easy to do.

If you are measuring your blood levels you can get a pretty good indication be taking a reading
before and 2,5-10 minutes after eating a suger laden food. In normal people the pacreas reacts
almost instantly, and your levels should never spike significantly. On the other hand, the best
thing to do is see a doctor if you have any of the classic symptoms: Tiredness Hunger Frequent
urination Constant thirstiness.
 
Mxsmanic wrote:

>
>>*Fasting* blood sugars (not a do-it-yourself glucose tolerance test) on the other hand, are
>>easy to do.
>
>
> True, but they don't say much about how well you tolerate a glucose load, which can be an
> important indicator of a possible future problem.
>

Fasting sugars are a basal indicator of pancreas function. They can be high or low depending on the
individual (or normal or course). In diabetics hey can be high because of a lack of insulin
production or insulin resistance or low as a result of the lack of food. They can also be high for
the same reason if the body begins to metabolise liver stores of energy. They are high or normal,
then get really low, then get very high. This is called the "Bounce Effect".
 
On 2004-02-22 21:36:55 -0500, talkback <[email protected]> said:

> If you are measuring your blood levels you can get a pretty good indication be taking a reading
> before and 2,5-10 minutes after eating a suger laden food.

Please provide references for this assertion. I have never read *anywhere* of any diagnostic
utility in obtaining a 2, 5, and 10-minute serum glucose following the administration of a
nonstandard glucose load. There are legitimate tests available to diagnose diabetes; there's no
need to make them up.
 
anon wrote:

> On 2004-02-22 21:36:55 -0500, talkback <[email protected]> said:
>
>> If you are measuring your blood levels you can get a pretty good indication be taking a reading
>> before and 2,5-10 minutes after eating a suger laden food.
>
>
> Please provide references for this assertion. I have never read *anywhere* of any diagnostic
> utility in obtaining a 2, 5, and 10-minute serum glucose following the administration of a
> nonstandard glucose load. There are legitimate tests available to diagnose diabetes; there's no
> need to make them up.
>

Agreed. I was only suggesting something like this to the poster who apparently wanted to do his own
glucose tolerance test. Quite simply I was only suggesting that he check his level, eat a candy bar,
then take readings at a few intervals to see if he spikes.

Obviously a proper diagnosis based on lab work is the best way to go.
 
talkback writes:

> Agreed. I was only suggesting something like this to the poster who apparently wanted to do his
> own glucose tolerance test. Quite simply I was only suggesting that he check his level, eat a
> candy bar, then take readings at a few intervals to see if he spikes.

Actually, an argument can be made for completely random glucose tests (without respect to eating or
fasting states). After all, DM is essentially chronic hyperglycemia; if random glucose tests taken
over a long period are not particularly elevated, DM is not a problem. It's the sustained
hyperglycemia that causes the complications of DM; if a person doesn't have this chronic
hyperglycemia, it doesn't matter whether he "officially" has DM or not, as he'll never have the
complications.

I recall one studying suggesting that glucose levels consistently below 200 mg/dl were not
associated with any significant incidence of complications, but I don't know if current research
still supports that figure.

What glucose levels are given as targets to Type 1 DM patients?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Thanks to all those who responded, no matter the school
of thought they belong to. :)

No I'm not overweight (140 lbs average height). I repeated the test earlier today before I read your
responses, the result was 83 mg/dl and I'd had a quick lunch about three hours prior to the test, so
I think it's fairly safe to assume a test done after 12 hours fasting would be normal too?

BTW, the buns did contain a good deal of sugary stuff. It appears that raisins (one of the main
ingredients) are 72% carbohydrates, all of which are sugars. Plenty of "plain" sugar too, both mixed
in the dough and sprinkled on the outside of the buns when these were out of the pan. Overall, the
posts in this thread together with a quick look at a couple of web sites would lead me to believe it
was a sporadic incident.

Thanks again
 
Rusholme wrote:
> Thanks to all those who responded, no matter the school of thought they belong to. :)
>
> No I'm not overweight (140 lbs average height). I repeated the test earlier today before I read
> your responses, the result was 83 mg/dl and I'd had a quick lunch about three hours prior to
> the test, so I think it's fairly safe to assume a test done after 12 hours fasting would be
> normal too?

If you can't be bothered to see a doctor I don't understand why you are posting here. Your first
step is to get a proper assesment. Then if you you have any related questions post here. This really
is not the forum for the "How do I .." type questions. (in my opinion).
 
talkback writes:

> If you can't be bothered to see a doctor I don't understand why you are posting here.

Not every health concern requires a visit to a doctor, and if one is only in search of information,
I don't see why one wouldn't post here.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Mxsmanic wrote:
> talkback writes:
>
>
>>If you can't be bothered to see a doctor I don't understand why you are posting here.
>
>
> Not every health concern requires a visit to a doctor, and if one is only in search of
> information, I don't see why one wouldn't post here.
>

I agree, but your original post, if I recall correctly, indicated that this was an issue with you,
not just an educational query. If I'm wrong I apologize. My concern was that if in fact you might
have diabetes you should get medical attention as soon as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back