I have been diagnosed with pre-diabetes: fasting glucose of 115 and H1AC of 6.1. I have made radical changes to my diet but I don't think my body liked having so many fruits and vegetables and I was wondering if anyone else has experienced something similiar?

I am sore all around my ribcage (front and back) and I am also am sore in the kidney areas. I get occasional sharp pains from these areas. I am wondering if this is just my body rebelling from my new diet or if have have something more serious like an infection or pancreatic cancer.

I am not sure whether you went by the ADA diet or not, however, fruits are sugar and should be limited in order to control diabetes.

I personally was diagnosed with borderline diabetes with A1C 7. I changed my diet to lean meat, 2 servings (1/2 c. each) green veggies for lunch and again for dinner, oatmeal for breakfast. I consumed no fruit for a long, long time. I also avoided starch foods. I lost 65 lbs over time. My A1C dropped down to 5.2 but after adding more foods to my diet it has gradually increased up to 6.2 and now back to 6.1. Just had recent steroid injections in knees and feel sure my A1C this time will be way too high. Steroids do raise the BS for a long period of time.

Losing weight, if overweight, will go a long ways in controlling diabetes. Exercise is essential also. One mile walked on treadmill will lower my BS 20 points.

Testing will help determine which foods are no-no for you. Everyone does not react to foods in the same way. "D" is a very individual disease.

Misty
D&E for 6 years

Type-1 is an auto-immune disorder, your body attacks it's beta cells.

In Type-2, there are a number of different causes: some people have "insulin resistance", plenty of insulin in their blood but the cells somehow prevent it from working correctly (i.e., transferring sugar from blood across the cell walls). Others have reduced insulin production, from any number of causes.

But Type-2 ain't an auto-immune all-out attack which kills every single one of the cells, and no amount of sugar eating will make it so.

Think first, then write. ;)

Ok I have a question for ya'll about the sugar thing, I was told by my dietician that most veggies have starch in them(of course some higher than others)so why don't they tell us to cut them all out? Then we could just starve to death! Sorry, I am just wondering out loud here....I'm new to all this and wonder the difference. I have heard about good carbs and bad carbs, anyone know the difference? These are questions that confuse me, and I know they probably do others as well. I'm not trying to be a smart a**, I just need to have a since of humour about all this. I was told not to drink any fruit juice at all, so what is the difference in this and eating fruit? I know they all have sugar. I try not to eat any fruit anyway(I think green veggies are the way to go for me).

First, "good carbs" versus "bad carbs". The "good carbs" are the ones which digest slowly, causing less of a "spike" in your bG after you eat. In a low-carb diet, you still get plenty of calories and energy... you get it by eating more meats (preferably lean), and fats (tree nuts, oils, preferably not too much saturated/solid fat, that's why lean meats are preferred). DEFINITELY AVOID trans-fats, avoid anything which contains "partially hydrogenated xxxxx oil".

Back to carbs: The term for this digestion speed "spike" factor is "Glycemic Index", (GI). When combined with serving size and factoring out fiber, the effective "glycemic load" (GL) for a given food is the easiest use-- just multiply your serving size (weight) versus the serving size in the table by the GL, and you have your GL. Lower values are "better" if you want more even digestion. The most comprehensive list on the web which includes both GI and GL that I've seen is Rick Mendoza's table, at
http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm

Be sure to include the "www", otherwise you'll find yourself at the city of Mendoza, Argentina (a town where tourists go to visit wineries). Interestingly, even pure sugars of the fastest variety (Dextrose), taken in tablet form, aren't much "quicker" than instant mashed potato, parsnips, plain white bread (baguette), and many middle eastern flatbreads. The table is also offered as an XLS download, so that you can sort on different columns (e.g., list the low-GL foods first, instead of listing by food category).

Warning: High-School Chemistry Follows:Now I'll go back to those horrible "partially hydrogenated" oils, because you should also be interested in "good fats" versus "bad fats" (not just "good carbs" vs. "bad carbs"). "Partially hydrogenated" is a chemical process to make a liquid oil, such as corn oil, into a more solid product, like margarine. The bad problem is that when they do this chemically, there's a 50/50 chance for the "Single Hydrogen" carbon atoms to end up in a left-handed orientation versus a right-handed orientation. ("Fully hydrogenated" fats have two Hydrogens on every carbon atom, this issue doesn't happen... although excess saturated fat is a bad thing).

There are just a few natural fats which contain these "trans" bonds (e.g., milkfat from cows and sheep). Everything else in nature goes the other way, "cis" orientation. "cis" versus "trans" puts a kink in the molecule, and since a "fat" actually contains 3 fatty acid tails, the whole thing becomes shaped weird... one or more of it's legs is "broken", sticking out at a funny angle. The weird shape allows it to react with other structures in your body in unusual (and nearly always BAD) ways. These reactions are bad because, for millions of years, humans and our ancestors never ate ANY trans-fats before domesticating cows/sheep/goats. (And the proportion of trans-fat fat in the milk of these animals is FAR below the 50/50 proportion of artificial creations such as Margarine and Crisco.) It's actually ILLEGAL to make margarine in the USA Industrial way in most European Countries, they're way ahead of us on this.
</Chemistry Class>

A VERY recent study of "traditional ADA diet" versus "low-carb" was done at Duke University. The results (HGbA1c, Weight Loss, and surprisingly, blood fat levels!) for the "low-carb" group totally mopped the floor with the results of the other group. That one study is so compelling that I say, switch now. Do low-carb, and eat carbs with low GL.

It is the diet by the American Association of Diabetes. This diet has too many starch carbs for most diabetics.

I am on a low-carb diet(and lean meats), but I wasn't ever told about the low GL. I am only allowed 14 1/2 carbs a day(which I myself have had to lower, or I would never loose any weight)and allowed 6oz of lean meat per day. plus I have been told to read labels about calories as to not eat anything that has more than 30%of them being in fat at all. They gave me a list of what portions I should be eating, and what carbs had more fat, but nothing about the GL....that is still a bit confusing to me, and I am wondering if you could explain it a bit more for me(as I am kinda a goof ball, and new to all the diabetic terms)I'm going to reread your post again, and see if I can understand anymore of it. I have to be on a low fat diet, due to high cholesterol....I never thought I would be saying that at 32(THANKS STERIODS) So I am worried about what I should be eating with both of these problems, and what it is I should be looking out for, as I don't want to blow up anymore than I already have. Thanks for the link, I will get on checking that out, you have been alot of help in answering my question.

They gave me a list of what portions I should be eating, and what carbs had more fat, but nothing about the GL....that is still a bit confusing to me....
First part, Glycemic Index: Carbohydrates are lengthy, chain-like structures of (generally) of simple sugars. Both your stomach and your small intestine have enzymes which are especially "designed" (in whichever way you choose ;) ) to "unzip" these chains.

Some of those enzymes are so fast and effective, and some of those carbs so simple to attack, that they are rendered into simple sugars (glucose, fructose, etc.) almost instantly. That's how a simple starch, such as potato flour, can be absorbed nearly as fast as pure Dextrose emergency sugar tabs can.

If you don't want a RAPID sugar spike, then you don't want your food to be digested that way. You want carbohydrates which take a lot longer to "unzip". "Slow" carbs can be slow because our enzymes aren't as well designed, and also because the carbs may not be merely "present" with protein and fat molecules, but actually TANGLED UP among them. (As well as protein and fat tangles, carbs are often tangled up among carbs which require different enzymes to break them down. And just like the carb-with-protein tangles need slower protein-braking enzymes to help get at the carbs, a process which needs multiple enzymes attacking the multiple carb "tangles" is somewhat slower.)

Second Part, from Glycemic Index to Glycemic Load: Among the most extreme of these "carbs which need other enzymes" are those which we simply can't digest at all, "non-nutritive fiber": humans don't have any enzymes which can break them down, so they just go in one end and out the other. So to take a certain amount of food (by "weight" or mass), and factor out the non-food in it (weight of water, weight of the non-nutritive fiber above, and factor out the fat and protein) gives you the Glycemic Load.

With Glycemic Load you can go straight from the weight of food in grams (or ounces). With Glycemic Index, you have to look at the label and see how many grams of carbs are in it, then subtract any "non-nutrititive fiber), and THEN apply the Glycemic Index for that many carbs. Lots more math.