Lowering A1 c to below 6 with drugs and insulin and no diet. Is it safe?

RosalieM
By RosalieM Latest Reply 2015-02-27 16:39:01 -0600
Started 2015-02-27 10:16:07 -0600

This was the subject of the accord trials that failed. It is my suggestion, so far that it is not safe.
I believe there is a cover up by The American Diabetes Association. Achieving an A1c of under six with the use of drugs and insulin and no diet instructions, resulted in excessive deaths from low blood sugar and heart disease. The diet is crucial and it was totally missing. Now the ADA has set a new standard for A1c of 7. Below 6 is normal for a non diabetic. The ADA still insists diabetics can eat what everyone else eats. They recommend no diet but watch carbohydrate intake. I suspect that the reason they set the A1c at 7 is because it can be more easily achieved with less of their killer drugs. With lifestyle, and very low carbohydrate intake, an A1c of 7 can be safe, It has worked for me for over 20 years. But I take no drugs and have not for years. If I get new information, I will alter this stance to fit new facts. Question everything!


7 replies

MarkS
MarkS 2015-02-27 15:05:26 -0600 Report

Okay, you need to get your facts straight. First, this was not a study conducted by the ADA but rather the NIH and the data was published over 7 years ago (i.e., NEJM 2008). Secondly, it was done in Type 2 diabetics that were at high risk for heart attack or stroke. Thirdly, both study groups (i.e., intensive therapy vs. standard therapy) received standard of care therapy, which included metformin, thiazolidinediones (TZDs, primarily rosiglitazone), insulins, sulfonylureas, exanatide, and acarbose. Though the intensive group did take more medications to achieve control (half of the participants in the standard group achieved an A1c less than 7.5 percent, and half of the intensive group achieved an A1c less than 6.4 percent). Control for a Type 2 diabetic is considered 7 to 7.9 for A1c; after the study, which was not expected since it a study on Type 1 diabetes found just the opposite, the ADA recommended that for Type 2 diabetics an A1c of 7 or less be maintained. And another important fact that you failed to mention "However, compared to participants in the standard group, those in the intensive group who began the study with no history of heart attack or stroke, or with lower blood sugar levels (A1C level 8 percent or less) had fewer combined cardiovascular events – fatal and nonfatal heart attacks or strokes – during the study." And I would like to know where you came up with the statement that "The ADA still insists diabetics can eat what everyone else eats" - that is incorrect. I think you need to go to the ADA site and read the section on "What Can I Eat."

RosalieM
RosalieM 2015-02-27 15:52:55 -0600 Report

Mark,
I think we may be talking about two different studies, the one I am talking about was done by the government and the ADA working together.

esjesjesj
esjesjesj 2015-02-27 10:53:10 -0600 Report

I live my life by the rule that there are enough coincidences in the world to make a conspiracy theorist out of anyone. Having said that, the accord/advance controversy just won't go away. To me it's clear that the drugs used in the accord study cause serious cardiovascular problems when the A1c gets low enough.

The second reason for why doctors don't want "tight control" and that's because you don't have tight control. What you have is wildly swinging numbers with the duty cycle that gives an A1c that appears to be good but really does have dangerously high and low values.

The analogy of used, and this works for me but not for everyone, is driving between Boston and New York City. 200 miles, takes four hours which means an average speed of 50 miles an hour. But you have a stack of speeding tickets because you traveled two hours at 100 miles an hour and sat by the side of the road with a friendly state policeman for another two hours. Same average, vastly different results.

The only safe way to try and get tight control is to use a CGM or that new device from Abbott labs and get many more measurements than you could with the typical jab and whose BG meter. Only after you have really good data can you now use use changes in diet or insulin safely to bring your numbers down. The key to good diabetic control is measuring. Everything else is just scientific wild ass guess.

haoleboy
haoleboy 2015-02-27 16:17:35 -0600 Report

In almost 8 years as a type 2 on metformin and a low carb / high fat diet with an A1c at or under 6.0 for almost 7 1/2 years now I have never seen a low below 78 (only under 80 twice) or a high over 184 (rarely over 140) I have tested as much as 8 times a day but lately only once or twice … so when do these "wildly swinging numbers" occur and why is it impossible to comprehend that a type 2 can actually maintain "normal" blood glucose levels without endangering their health?
I just don't get it.

Steve

Jibber Jabber
Jibber Jabber 2015-02-27 16:39:01 -0600 Report

grin…I know I am a newbie…but lately my "swings" have been about 15-20 points post meal…and I am under 6…probably way under 6…lets hold hands and swing together…weeeeee!!!

RosalieM
RosalieM 2015-02-27 15:50:59 -0600 Report

Esj,
I couldn't agree more. I suspect it may be safer to have a more steady blood sugar that may give you an A1c of 7 than wildly swinging blood sugar levels that give you a an A1c of 6 Also keeping circulation and blood pressure healthy and staying off drugs may contribute as well. I can't prove it, but I am pretty much betting my life on it. So far after very many years I am still winning my bet.

suecsdy
suecsdy 2015-02-27 10:22:23 -0600 Report

I am not courageous enough yet to try it without the insulin, even though I am at pretty low doage right now. Maybe when I have more experience under the belt and everything else well in hand. I am under 7 now and hope to be under 6 soon if my surgeries and kidneys don't screw me up too much.