Is diabetes dangerous?

@Karl85 there .... giving the staffdiabetes....
If we look at it with that prism, what encouragement are we going to give children who just debuted, who will reach old dust facts?I have met people who have been evolving for more than 50 years and today, no problem, it is only a matter of taking care of a little more than the rest.

50 years of evolution but with what glycosiladas? ... Is it that there is the key.

From what I have understood before, a glycosilada of 7 was given by good control, now the doctor tells you 6.5 and the most demanding fall to 6.

I understand that these changes The only explanation they can have is to stop considering 7 as a safe level.And I can't find any reasonable reason not to share these appreciations based on logic.

I know there are people who already make a great effort to be in 7, but we are not going to tell the one who is in 7 being able to be in 6 with an effort that does not matter one thing.

What disease is not?

@Karl85 I will tell you that you can't be 6 from glyd or effort ... I was in my last analytics at 6.5 and I can assure you that I take care of me very much, there are times that I have punctured up to 11 times a dayWhen by hormonal or file x he was not able to go down;As 0.5r of carbohydrates for lunch, 2-3r in food, at dinner 1-2R, removing what work sitting the rest of the time I don't stop, almost daily I make static bike.I look at the glycemic indices of everything and not "sin" nothing ...
On the other hand, do you think that 50 years ago there were sensors, glucometers and insulins were so good as to have perfect gyzes?well no.
My educators always tell me that my values ​​never see them, that my gyrose is perfect and that if I still have like this I will have problems, that is what I want to believe ...

I think about it backwards.Hallucino with which years ago there were people without complications not having sensors or glucometers and with the insulins of that time.
Therefore we have everything to take care and not have them.

Hi Cassie Good morning, I think you're a bit annoying with what I have written and it wasn't my intention so I apologize.

It is difficult because everyone writes from their own reality and not all cases are the same.I only raise a reality that I am seeing now in my father and elderly people in their surroundings, who tell them 7 as a goal and palmadita on the back.

My father eats sweets every day, then the medication balances the balance and glycosiladEverything is fine and keep it up.This bothers me because I consider that the doctor does a "gas" job that is not really benefiting my father's health, and of course if the doctor told him sweet stop he would cut a lot and his glycosilada would be much bettersure.

That is the reality of my father and older people in their surroundings.I know there are other realities, type 1, type 2 complicated ...

What I say is that the closer to normal it is possible to be, the better, but we also tell you that there are so many studies that one does not even know what sometimes to think.In this study, for example, they say that having glycosylated below 6 in diabetics predicts heart problems in the same way as very high glycosylated

Link

@Karl85 are right, head doctors simplify the effects of diabetes to adults, almost all type 2, and hala, pa'lante.Total, for what they have left, to deprive themselves of anything.
But with all diseases, not just diabetes.
@Cassie you have to do what one can to be fine, sometimes the glyc will be 6.7 and another 5.6, the satisfaction is to know that one does everything that can and have the quiet consciousness.

@Karl85 I thank you, a little did it bothered me, I took it to the personal field, but I am not resentful .... Hahahaha I have met people who assume that if you do not have good glying is that you do not put from your part and notThere is nothing further from reality, in type 1 it is very difficult to download from 6, that's why I'm going to put the bomb, to add the help of another technology that is at my disposal and help me more to be my best possible.
In what I totally give you the reason is that there are doctors who believe that when a person is older, they are completely evicted.My father is type 2 for about 4 years (now he has 80) and since then he takes metformin and point.They do not analyze him to see his gydate, from time to time I make measurements and it is in the clouds, but they have never told him that he does anything special .... He eats sweets, ice cream, we go what he wants... He is not deprived of anything ... and although I have made him see, he does not want to change either, I do not know if they will think that for what may be that he feels like it or that the complications come with many years of evolutionAnd it is no longer worth doing strict diet ... and that 30 years ago had a heart attack!That when you have a certain age they no longer control such a librab ...

We have the same experience with respect to the parents Cassie and for what I see Ruthbia has also noticed this, the truth is that it scares a bit to see the passotism there is because at some point it will touch one to put yourself in front of some of some ofThese doctors who do not know if they suffer from lack of updated training or who directly go through what you comment to let them live happily their last years.But that is not worth that, what is worth it is that they serve him correctly and then he does what he wants, not that he makes a decisions that may have 1 year or 2 or 3 oflife.

Neither a sad diet, nor information sheet, nor anything.If at least they will use some psychology and told them you can take sweets for the week (then they eat 2 or 3 times a week, but they are no longer every day at least) but not that!

As for what you say about your case I am perfectly aware that a type 1 depends on insulin to regulate but it is true that many people do not know how to differentiate cases.In fact, most people do not have a relative who is type 1 often ignores differences.

In general there is a lot of lack of information as far as health is concerned.That I have seen in this country only important efforts with the issue of tobacco are made, everything else is in the hands of the people and their ability to obtain information.

I have come to the conclusion that to preserve the health irremediably one has to get the doctor's apprentice inside, because as one of these that passes from everything you are going to you.Since then I apply my own health control strategy with glucometer and tensiometer to daily, urine reactive strip 1 time to see if there are proteins or blood mainly ... come on that I even do my own homemade tests on my feetFrom time to time to see if I feel vibrations, punctures, pinches, pressure, cold and heat etc.

My father found glucose a little high at age 80, he was not very sweet, but some dessert did continue to take.
He died with 96 years, with a tired heart, without sequelae by diabetes.
I believe that with age all organs are failing a bit, including the pancreas.

Exact @regina That is why there was talk of type 2 diabetes in the elderly and type 1 called her child.
But with the life and food we carry, type 1 appear in adults and type 2 in children.

Link

I leave this coronary risk calculator here.Simply put age + smoker or non -diabetic or not + cholesterol data + blood pressure data

Link

Thank you very much, @karl85
I get 6.23%.Does anyone know if it is an acceptable risk or should I swallow statins as if there were no tomorrow?

It gives me very much, 3.85% hahaha

Salad Search in Google "Tables Regicor" and you will come out a link to the regicor website with the risk tables to download.

In these tables they explain that less than 5% is low risk, between 5 and 9.9% moderate risk, 10 to 14.9% high risk and 15% or more high risk.

I don't think you need statins with 6.23%, let's not take them, but I'm not a doctor:# ...

Also before going to statins, one has options to lower your risk trying to reduce blood pressure and trying to raise HDL cholesterol above 60 that has it below this value.

In the tables they say that HDL cholesterol greater than 60 = risk x 0.5 I understand that this means that the risk is reduced by half what the tables say.

ruthbia said:
It gives me ífimo, 3.85% hahahaI have inherited.

I suppose that for certain specific cases the tables will not be representative ruthbia, although for the general population they are reliable data.

They come from the Cardiology team of Josep Trueta Hospital in Girona, and regicor so I have been able to read would correspond to the unit's research part.

karl85 said:
salad search on Google "Tablas regicor" and you will come out a link to the regicor website with the risk tables to download.

In these tables they explain that less than 5% is low risk, between 5 and 9.9% moderate risk, 10 to 14.9% high risk and 15% or more high risk.

I don't think you need statins with 6.23%, let's not take them, but I'm not a doctor:# ...

Also before going to statins, one has options to lower your risk trying to reduce blood pressure and trying to raise HDL cholesterol above 60 that has it below this value.

In the tables they say that HDL cholesterol greater than 60 = risk x 0.5 I understand that this means that the risk is reduced by half what the tables say.

My blood pressure is 122/67 and I have 94 HDL and LDL 135. I do not take the statins because I am trying to improve the values ​​with diet and exercise.
At the moment I have uploaded the HDL but the "other" is in a stubborn 135 (for the moment)
Among the side effects of statins is that they produce insulin resistance, go!The most appropriate for a diabetic, right?
Thanks for the info.I will pull that thread to assess my cardiovascular risk