has anyone ever managed to kick the sugar habit?

Feral_Moon

I discussed it with my GP first. I also stopped taking statins (prescribed by a different GP) around the same time as my blood cholesterol levels dramatically reduced once I cleaned up my diet and started to exercise more despite switching to using butter, lard, full fat dairy and eating eggs daily!

teddysmum

I had my HbA1c etc tests , yesterday and received a GP surgery call today.


My reading has gone down to 6.4%, which is very pleasing (no need for meds, which were a possibility if the reading hadn't dropped), but now they say I have high potassium, so more tests in two weeks.


The caller (one of the nurses?) said it could be a fluke and hence the retests, but I'm already on blood pressure tablets because of reduced kidney function (actual blood pressure was fine and is now almost low).


I take statins, but these were prescribed, by my neurologist, before diabetes was diagnosed, so not for the usual 'diabetics need statins' reason.

[Deleted User]

Odd, I ve been on 6.2 or 6.3 now for around 4 years and no questions that I stay on bloody metformin, 2 a day. I m not too keen on the statins neither.Lots of bad press about them but the medical people think they re terrific. My statins were, rightfully I think prescribed because diabetics are much more open to strokes.

teddysmum

sacsquacco wrote: »

Odd, I ve been on 6.2 or 6.3 now for around 4 years and no questions that I stay on bloody metformin, 2 a day. I m not too keen on the statins neither.Lots of bad press about them but the medical people think they re terrific. My statins were, rightfully I think prescribed because diabetics are much more open to strokes.

I discussed statins with our diabetes nurse, around the time all the publicity began and she told me that the middle aged GPs thought the benefits far outweighed the disadvantages (I've had no side effects) and actually prescribed them for themselves.


The use of metformin seems to depend on practice policy. Our practice seems to start with diet and exercise, then bring in drugs when absolutely necessary, but I've met a few people, using other doctors, who were put on metformin as soon as diagnosed.


I am now 6.4 without drugs and you are lower, but taking drugs, so I suppose it depends on what you would be without them. I have met people who have gone back from insulin to drugs , so I suppose you could also downgrade.


Perhaps you could ask for a short trial.


I'm just going to watch the ITV programme about celebs being deprived of sugar.

moneyistooshorttomention

Feral_Moon wrote: »

Teddysmum, you're correct in that you don't need to be obese to be diagnosed with T2 diabetes. I received that diagnosis myself almost 10 years ago, despite being "slim" and wearing size 12 clothes but my waist to hip ratio was high which indicated I was carrying internal abdominal fat and suffering metabolic X syndrome.

A few tweaks to my diet (basically cutting out sugar and low fat foods) and increased exercise has seen my HbA1c reduce from 7.6% (60mmol) to around 5% (30mmol) which I can easily maintain without resorting to medication.

I would be interested to hear more about that please.

First question being - what is a "high waist to hip ratio"? How much smaller should the waist be than the hips? I'm guessing that the waist should be 10" smaller than the hips?

One thing I am wondering about is that many British women will have a waist a good bit smaller than their hips because the "British" shape is pear-shaped.

However, I'm more of a Swedish shape - ie bust and hips the same size. I've never been pear shape. So "Swedish" shape people would have a bigger waist in relation to their hips than "British" shape people iyswim.

Feral_Moon

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I would be interested to hear more about that please.

First question being - what is a "high waist to hip ratio"? How much smaller should the waist be than the hips? I'm guessing that the waist should be 10" smaller than the hips?

One thing I am wondering about is that many British women will have a waist a good bit smaller than their hips because the "British" shape is pear-shaped.

However, I'm more of a Swedish shape - ie bust and hips the same size. I've never been pear shape. So "Swedish" shape people would have a bigger waist in relation to their hips than "British" shape people iyswim.

'Pear shaped' women wouldn't ordinarily have this problem as it tends to affect 'apple shaped' women more.

There's more info in the following link along with a calculator to determine whether you're at greater risk depending on results.

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/waist-to-hip-ratio-calculator.html

Gloomendoom

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I would be interested to hear more about that please.

First question being - what is a "high waist to hip ratio"? How much smaller should the waist be than the hips? I'm guessing that the waist should be 10" smaller than the hips?

One thing I am wondering about is that many British women will have a waist a good bit smaller than their hips because the "British" shape is pear-shaped.

However, I'm more of a Swedish shape - ie bust and hips the same size. I've never been pear shape. So "Swedish" shape people would have a bigger waist in relation to their hips than "British" shape people iyswim.

The NHS suggests that a hip to waist ratio of over 0.94 puts you in the "higher risk" category. To get that with a 10" difference you would need a massive 170" hip measurement.

moneyistooshorttomention

Gloomendoom wrote: »

The NHS suggests that a hip to waist ratio of over 0.94 puts you in the "higher risk" category. To get that with a 10" difference you would need a massive 170" hip measurement.

:rotfl:I think that rather puts anyone out of that equation then for higher risk - even those with Kardashian shape that includes big backsides:rotfl:

Feral_Moon

Gloomendoom wrote: »

The NHS suggests that a hip to waist ratio of over 0.94 puts you in the "higher risk" category. To get that with a 10" difference you would need a massive 170" hip measurement.

How do you work that out? I think you've miscalculated.

Anyone who has a waist size almost the same or higher than their hip measurement will be classed as being in the high risk category. Lots of apple shaped women can have a 32" waist with slender 32" hips and appear slim yet will be carrying a large amount of internal abdominal fat putting them at high risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. This is what's mean as the waist:hip ratio. Having equal measurements gives you a ratio of 1 and the NHS states anything over 0.94 is high risk.

Feral_Moon

I was trying to think of women in the public eye which might fit this criteria for people to visualise and "Shirley Carter" on Eastenders is a prime example. Very slim but with a high waist:ratio measurement.