Wondering about Insulin Resistance. As I know there is no specific insulin resistance test, do we know if it is a semi-constant level, that can be brought down slowly, or is it more similar to Bg levels, in that it can change rapidly? Sleepy ----------------- Eskimo/Inuit up! ----------------- T2- 3/14/01

"Sleepyman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Wondering about Insulin Resistance. As I know there is no specific insulin > resistance test, do we know if it is a semi-constant level, that can be > brought down slowly, or is it more similar to Bg levels, in that it can > change rapidly? Insulin resistance is tied in with fat. The more fat tissue you have the more likely you are to have insulin resistance. It wouldn't change rapidly, even with dieting, as it takes a while for someone to go from obesity to normal weight levels (or making more muscle and reducing the fat tissue). Reducing insulin resistance can happen with diet alone but most doctors prefer to give an insulin resistance drug to type 2's like Metformin as well as advise weight loss. Building muscle mass is a big help also. Insulin resistance does not mean a type 2 can't control their diabetes. Many obese type 2's control with very low carb. But losing the fat tissue and gaining muscle would help enormously, allow a bit more leeway re the amount of carbs a type 2 could eat every meal. Not all overweight, underexercised people progress to diabetes, there is still a genetic pre disposition (unless there has been a breakthrough I haven't heard about). So in a nutshell, keep weight close to normal and keep active (building muscle helps) and you may never get insulin resistance or if you have it already you can control the type 2 much easier.

Sleepyman <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]: > Wondering about Insulin Resistance. As I know there is no specific insulin resistance test, do we > know if it is a semi-constant level, that can be brought down slowly, or is it more similar to Bg > levels, in that it can change rapidly? There are actually a couple of methods for measuring insulin resistance, but they are usually reserved for research settings. As there are a number of mechanisms that cause insulin resistance, some understood fairly well and some not at all well, and there are a number of time scales involved. Some are reversible and some not. Three of the most common mechanisms for increasing insulin resistance are aging, weight gain, and sedentary life style. While these aspects are clearly related, it appears that they function to some degree independently. It is, of course, fairly difficult to do much about aging. Removing excess weight, or more properly body fat ratio, seems to have a range of difficulty in the population. None-the-less it is clear that reducing excess weight will reduce insulin resistance. Sometimes a relatively small weight loss will produce noticeable results. The time scale is, naturally, the time scale of the weight loss. Exercise effects insulin resistance on several time scales. There is an immediate effect during exercise as insulin independent glucose disposal pathways are opened up. As exercise becomes regular, other insulin resistance reductions appear and persist for various periods from a few days to a few weeks. It may take a few days to a few weeks to begin to see these results.

Sleepyman wrote in message <[email protected]>... >Wondering about Insulin Resistance. As I know there is no specific insulin resistance test, do we >know if it is a semi-constant level, that can be brought down slowly, or is it more similar to Bg >levels, in that it can change rapidly? > >Sleepy > There are a variety of Insulin Resistance Tests. Some are reserved for the Research Docs only (e.g. Euglycemic Insulin Clamp or Frequently Sampled Intravenous Glucose Tolerance Test (FSIVGTT) One test which your doc can run is the HOMA-R test. One measures fasting blood sugar and fasting insulin level simultaneously. The product of the the values is a measure of Insulin Resistance. Much, much, more than a normal person would want to know about HOMA can be found at: http://www.medforum.nl/idm/vascular_dysfunction_precedes____.htm http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/reprint/23/4/449.pdf The QUICKI test is mathematically equivalent to the HOMA test Of course, that measures your Insulin Resistance "that morning" I find that heavy exercise can affect my insulin injection requirements for 24 hours. Since I am chubby ( let us avoid the "O" word) I presume that I am tracking effects on exercise on Insulin Resistance. High blood sugars can (will??) produce temporary Insulin Resistance. Regards Old Al

One rule of thumb is the ratio of lipid blood values. In particular the ratio of trig / hdl, where a value of < 3 is taken as a good measure of resistence. >Wondering about Insulin Resistance. As I know there is no specific insulin resistance test, do we >know if it is a semi-constant level, that can be brought down slowly, or is it more similar to Bg >levels, in that it can change rapidly? > >Sleepy > >----------------- >Eskimo/Inuit up! >----------------- >T2- 3/14/01

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote: > One rule of thumb is the ratio of lipid blood values. In particular the ratio of trig / hdl, where > a value of < 3 is taken as a good measure of resistence. You sure that's not greater than 3 rather than less than 3? A tri/HDL ratio of less than or equal to 2.0 is ideal. Priscilla

In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> wrote: >One rule of thumb is the ratio of lipid blood values. In particular the ratio of trig / hdl, where >a value of < 3 is taken as a good measure of resistence. This seems strange, as high triglycerides are considered bad and high HDL is considered good. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University [email protected] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

Priscilla Ballou wrote in message ... >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote: > >> One rule of thumb is the ratio of lipid blood values. In particular the ratio of trig / hdl, >> where a value of < 3 is taken as a good measure of resistence. > >You sure that's not greater than 3 rather than less than 3? A tri/HDL ratio of less than or equal >to 2.0 is ideal. > >Priscilla That one came up a while back. The 3.0 is a conservative estimate of "too high"; it identifies the abnormal conditions brought about by elevated Insulin Resistance. When you think about it, a conservative estimate of abnormal really shouldn't be that close to "ideal" lest you end up with a slew of false negatives. Regards Old Al

Herman Rubin wrote: > In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>One rule of thumb is the ratio of lipid blood values. In particular the ratio of trig / hdl, where >>a value of < 3 is taken as a good measure of resistence. > > > This seems strange, as high triglycerides are considered bad and high HDL is considered good. The lower the ratio the better; TG 200/ HDL 35 ration is 6; these are common diabetic values. TC 100/ HDL 50 ration is 2; these are cited as target values -- K'neH'a'Iw Uncloaking, Shields up.

I don't follow your question. The info I have seen is < 3, which is also what = to or < 2 would encompass. That number is using the US unit of measure, the number outside of the US is indeed a lower number for that measureing scale. > One rule of thumb is the ratio of lipid blood values. In particular the ratio of trig / hdl, where > a value of < 3 is taken as a good measure of resistence. You sure that's not greater than 3 rather than less than 3? A tri/HDL ratio of less than or equal to 2.0 is ideal.

You are correct, but in those with high insulin resistence the ratio is over 3, trig and hdl are not directly related. A trig of 300 and hdl of 50 has a ratio of 6. The numbers above are not unusual in a diabetic where trigs often sore even with a good hdl; such as the 50 in the example. High resistence leads to high trigs, which can in time lead to poor hdl numbers also, the trigs don't directly create the hdl level. >One rule of thumb is the ratio of lipid blood values. In particular the ratio of trig / hdl, where >a value of < 3 is taken as a good measure of resistence. This seems strange, as high triglycerides are considered bad and high HDL is considered good.

[email protected] quoth: >I don't follow your question. The info I have seen is < 3, which is also what = to or < 2 would >encompass. No, =< 2 would be included in <3. It wouldn't encompass it. (The smaller cannot encompass the larger.) > That number is using the US unit of measure, the number outside of the US is indeed a lower number > for that measureing scale. I think the confusion is in the way you worded it. You said that less than 3 was "a good measure of resistence." Do you mean that it's a good value in terms of resistence, or it's an effective measure of resistence? I read it as the latter, which seems backwards to me. A higher value would indicate greater resistence. 3 is a lower value and would not be so clearly indicating resistence. >> One rule of thumb is the ratio of lipid blood values. In particular the ratio of trig / hdl, >> where a value of < 3 is taken as a good measure of resistence. >You sure that's not greater than 3 rather than less than 3? A tri/HDL ratio of less than or equal >to 2.0 is ideal. Priscilla

In article <[email protected]>, K'neH'a'Iw <K'neH'a'[email protected]> wrote: >Herman Rubin wrote: >> In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>One rule of thumb is the ratio of lipid blood values. In particular the ratio of trig / hdl, >>>where a value of < 3 is taken as a good measure of resistence. >> This seems strange, as high triglycerides are considered bad and high HDL is considered good. >The lower the ratio the better; >TG 200/ HDL 35 ration is 6; these are common diabetic values. >TC 100/ HDL 50 ration is 2; these are cited as target values I definitely have insulin resistance. However, my last ratio was TG 80 / HDL 85. My previous ones were not that good, but were still less than 2. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University [email protected]u Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

Herman Rubin wrote: >>The lower the ratio the better; > > >>TG 200/ HDL 35 ration is 6; these are common diabetic values. > > >>TC 100/ HDL 50 ration is 2; these are cited as target values > > > I definitely have insulin resistance. However, my last ratio was TG 80 / HDL 85. My previous ones > were not that good, but were still less than 2. Mine are in that same range, but I don't know if I am insulin resistant or not. I assume I am because I am T2. -- K'neH'a'Iw Uncloaking, Shields up.