Holly wrote:Wow Jack, thanks for that, I will actually send your post to my mate, saves me explaining it all to him.
I'm happy to hear you've been doing a good job helping yourself. Keep up the good work. Hope everything else is easing off a bit too for you, like the back.
Oh and I hope you'll find your way down to earth again when ever you're ready
Holly wrote:Nosyguest wrote:The blood test readings you mention of 46 and 51 are confusing. Are they his HbA1c readings (which is how Drs track diabetes as day to due fluctuate so the three monthly average reading is used)? If they are the figures aren't bad at all and equates arise from 6.2 to 6.8 ish. They cannot be a pin prick blood sugar reading unless it's not in the UK and the measurements are done differently.
Yes, it seems confusing. Apparently, the readings have changed. What's now 51, used to be a 7...not very dangerous, but already in the diabetes zone....When he was on 46, he was apparently still on a safe level, 51 has put him in the danger zone. It is very confusing for the ordinary person...but it looks like he is starting to adjust. Been shopping with him today....took us over 2 hours studying all the sugar contents on various products. Like we learned earlier...4g of sugar = 1 teaspoon. Loads of products he used to buy once, we put back on the shelf by just looking at the sugar content.
Anyway, we did buy a bar of chocolate ( 90% of cocoa) which has very little sugar and seems to be the healthiest...let me tell ya, forget it, it's horribly bitter and tastes like shit ...go for the 70%.
Guest wrote:Holly wrote:Nosyguest wrote:The blood test readings you mention of 46 and 51 are confusing. Are they his HbA1c readings (which is how Drs track diabetes as day to due fluctuate so the three monthly average reading is used)? If they are the figures aren't bad at all and equates arise from 6.2 to 6.8 ish. They cannot be a pin prick blood sugar reading unless it's not in the UK and the measurements are done differently.
Yes, it seems confusing. Apparently, the readings have changed. What's now 51, used to be a 7...not very dangerous, but already in the diabetes zone....When he was on 46, he was apparently still on a safe level, 51 has put him in the danger zone. It is very confusing for the ordinary person...but it looks like he is starting to adjust. Been shopping with him today....took us over 2 hours studying all the sugar contents on various products. Like we learned earlier...4g of sugar = 1 teaspoon. Loads of products he used to buy once, we put back on the shelf by just looking at the sugar content.
Anyway, we did buy a bar of chocolate ( 90% of cocoa) which has very little sugar and seems to be the healthiest...let me tell ya, forget it, it's horribly bitter and tastes like shit ...go for the 70%.
Check for carbs not just sugar and learn what hidden sugars are.
There are alcohol sugars which you don't see on the labels as sugars.
Look at a box of bnreakfast cereal and you'll see that the carb levels are as high as 90%!
That's deadly.
It's bad news just for an ordinary person trying to lose weight cos they only checked the sugar.
You must check the carb levels.
For snacks I'm into veg tinned fish pork scratching nuts.
Rolluplostinspace wrote:Is reheated pasta less fattening? And healthier for diabetics?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29629761
McAz wrote:I mostly use wholemeal pasta and noodles which I cool down and reheat when needed. I was told (by Jack?) it was better for diabetics, though I don't know why. Taste okay to me.
Oh, and don't eat eggs from Belgium, they've been found to contain an insecticide called fipronil. The FSA says:
"Our risk assessment, based on all the information available, indicates that as part of a normal healthy diet this low level of potential exposure is unlikely to be a risk to public health and there is no need for consumers to be concerned."
So definitely don't eat eggs from Belgium.
Return to The Sleeping Dogs' Snug
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests