The new nutrition recommendations that the American Diabetes Association issued last week budged the premier American diabetes association into the 21th Century. It gave its limited -- and probably reluctant -- stamp of approval to low-carb diets. But the ADA moved little or no distance further in...
-
glycemic index
Rob
Friday, January 04, 2008 at 12:48 PMI think this is in conformity with Bernstein's comments on Glycemic Index. The problem is that if you use insulin you still have to account for all the carbs and excess proteins you consume. For us T2s with residual or better natural insulin production it may be possible to add some low index carbs back into our diet once we really have figured out how to get our BGs where we want. I am getting close to that point, but there are just too many variables to cope with on that task than to add another.
-
Significance
Steve
Saturday, January 05, 2008 at 06:50 AMWas that a typo? .43 percent? .0043??? How is this even measureable?re: Significance
David Mendosa
Saturday, January 05, 2008 at 10:56 AMDear Steve,
I puzzled to about the way that is expressed! In the original article (which I cited) it says literally:
Low-GI diets reduced HbA1c by 0.43% points (CI 0.72–0.13) over and above that produced by high-GI diets.
So I don't think it is a typo in my article or in the original. But I do think that the reduction is about half a percentage point, as us laypeople understand it.
Best regards,
David
-
A1c percentage
nonegiven
Monday, January 07, 2008 at 06:01 PMA reduction of 0.43% in a 7% A1c would get you an A1c of 6.57% Sometimes people forget that the A1c is expressed as a percentage.
- Font size
- Email This
- Bookmark
- Thank you for your input
- Save
- RSS
- Report Abuse
What the community is saying...
Thanksgiving Stuffing
Posted 11/22 Comments (2)
Those of us fortunate enough to be Americans have so...
David Mendosa
Medical Journalist Living with Diabetes and Author of Fitness and Photography for Fun, www.mendosa.com/fitnessblog
Profile >>
