I do take a vitamin D supplement (2000 iu) if I’m not getting at least 30 minutes of continuous sun exposure per day, and I walk 2-3 miles no less than 4x per week in the winter, with more sprints or jogging during warmer weather.
I was not aware, prior to this discussion, that simply carrying too much excess fat can contribute to blood sugar abnormalities, but it’s testament to the reasoning behind why it’s important to maintain healthy BF levels. The standard literature always just stresses the impacts of poor diet on the pancreas, coupled with lack of activity in general, but I never thought of a connection between adipose tissue itself and higher blood sugar.
Update - my A1C is 5.8 which, while the nurse from the doctor’s office indicated is slightly high for my age and activity levels, is not yet at a point where they feel it necessary to prescribe oral medication for pre-diabetes. Given the family history on the maternal and paternal side with both grandfathers, she suggested continuing to be strict about eating well and perhaps shaving off some excess weight.
On that note, I was a bit surprised that I am up to 212 lbs on the scale at the doctor’s office. I have an old digital scale at home that has been fluctuating between 196-202 when I periodically weighed myself, so I am indeed fatter than I thought, and it’s probably long since been off on its accuracy. At 6’2" in stature, I could realistically get down to the low 190s and still probably be in the very low teens BF wise.
[quote]EyeDentist wrote:
5.8 is a great number–congrats. But def should proceed with the weight loss you mentioned.[/quote]
I guess it is great compared to the possibility of being borderline diabetic. 95% of the non-diabetic population falls in the range of 4.6 to 5.9 so its still definitely something I’d watch.
[quote]EyeDentist wrote:
5.8 is a great number–congrats. But def should proceed with the weight loss you mentioned.[/quote]
I guess it is great compared to the possibility of being borderline diabetic. 95% of the non-diabetic population falls in the range of 4.6 to 5.9 so its still definitely something I’d watch.[/quote]
The OP has been told he is pre-diabetic–it’s the title of the post–so obviously my comment is intended to be interpreted in that context.
Two fasting blood sugars of 107 and 110 are basically diagnostic of prediabetes or of insulin resistance.
It is POSSIBLE that someone could have 2 random fasting blood sugars in the 105-110 range though due to illness or stress or delayed gastric emptying from a large meal, or
from morning cortisol that is a little out of bounds.
But a 5.8 A1C is indicative of an average daily blood sugar of 120. It does not rule out the two fasting blood sugars. They are the diagnostic test. If the fasting blood sugar were 5.3, indicating an average blood sugar of about 106 then the 107 and 110 fasting blood sugars are not typical of your daily blood sugar so we could possibly chalk the fasting blood sugars up to anomalies, but the 5.8 probably does more to confirm than refute prediabetes given 107 and 110. A1C is affected by the past 3-4 months, and 2 months of prediabetes may push an A1C to 5.8, but its on its way to 6.4 for example.
Anyway I am pretty sure that the 2 fasting blood sugars of 107-110 are considered to trump a high/normal A1C of 5.8. The good news is that a 5.8 means that there is insignificant harm done. People will do nothing, develop diabetes and come in with A1C of 12. There are very little health effects of an A1C in the low 6’s except that they predict future diabetes, and correlate to other bad habits. And clearly it is time to act!
What are you guys take on healthy individuals having red blood cells that live longer, thus having longer opportunity for glycation of hemoglobin and then showing A1C ranges that may be pre-diabetic? It is also my understanding that there is quite bit of variation in the length of how long red blood cells live between individuals, calling in to question the reliability of A1C testing.
I can see this holding true for ranges that fall into the pre-diabetic range 5.7- mid 6’s. I would imagine when you start to push into the 7’s that regardless of how long your red blood cells live, hemoglobin wouldn’t accumulate that much sugar.
[quote]schanz_05 wrote:
What are you guys take on healthy individuals having red blood cells that live longer, thus having longer opportunity for glycation of hemoglobin and then showing A1C ranges that may be pre-diabetic? It is also my understanding that there is quite bit of variation in the length of how long red blood cells live between individuals, calling in to question the reliability of A1C testing.
I can see this holding true for ranges that fall into the pre-diabetic range 5.7- mid 6’s. I would imagine when you start to push into the 7’s that regardless of how long your red blood cells live, hemoglobin wouldn’t accumulate that much sugar. [/quote]
My reading does not indicate that healthy people can be in the 6.0-6.4 range because their RBC’s live longer. The A1C’s are based on healthy people.
The caution today about LOW HbA1C’s is that glycation and anemia (which is common in autoimmune and idiopathic disease states) reduces RBC lifespan so that some people with diabetes will have their blood sugar level UNDERestimated by A1C. For example I know anemic diabetics with A1C’s of 4.2 but have used 24 hour monitoring to show that their treated average blood sugar is around 110-120 which would be an A1C of 5.4 to 5.8
PEOPLE do vary though due to dietary variations and genetics so I would not consider a 5.8 (without high fasting or postprandial blood sugar) to be a problem. A1C just does not necessarily vary due to good health and long lived RBCs.
What do you mean about "when you push into the 7.0s hemoglobin won’t accumulate that much sugar? The longer blood cells live the more they accumulate. A 1 month old RBC may be at 3%, but make up half of your RBCs. A 4 month old RBC may have 12% (healthy individual) but only make up 5% of your RBCs.
[quote]schanz_05 wrote:
What are you guys take on healthy individuals having red blood cells that live longer, thus having longer opportunity for glycation of hemoglobin and then showing A1C ranges that may be pre-diabetic? It is also my understanding that there is quite bit of variation in the length of how long red blood cells live between individuals, calling in to question the reliability of A1C testing.
I can see this holding true for ranges that fall into the pre-diabetic range 5.7- mid 6’s. I would imagine when you start to push into the 7’s that regardless of how long your red blood cells live, hemoglobin wouldn’t accumulate that much sugar. [/quote]
My reading does not indicate that healthy people can be in the 6.0-6.4 range because their RBC’s live longer. The A1C’s are based on healthy people.
The caution today about LOW HbA1C’s is that glycation and anemia (which is common in autoimmune and idiopathic disease states) reduces RBC lifespan so that some people with diabetes will have their blood sugar level UNDERestimated by A1C. For example I know anemic diabetics with A1C’s of 4.2 but have used 24 hour monitoring to show that their treated average blood sugar is around 110-120 which would be an A1C of 5.4 to 5.8
PEOPLE do vary though due to dietary variations and genetics so I would not consider a 5.8 (without high fasting or postprandial blood sugar) to be a problem. A1C just does not necessarily vary due to good health and long lived RBCs.
What do you mean about "when you push into the 7.0s hemoglobin won’t accumulate that much sugar? The longer blood cells live the more they accumulate. A 1 month old RBC may be at 3%, but make up half of your RBCs. A 4 month old RBC may have 12% (healthy individual) but only make up 5% of your RBCs.
[/quote]
“when you push into the 7.0s hemoglobin won’t accumulate that much sugar?”
That was worded kind of funny by me. What was I was trying to say is by the time your A1C was in the 7’s there is no argument that could be made for red blood cells living long enough for hemoglobin to accumulate that much sugar and that you likely have a blood sugar problem.
You are trying to say the same thing essentially for >6 A1Cs.
What is everyone’s opinions on the accuracy of the commercial/professional Tanita scales that hospitals use to conduct biometric screenings?
I had one done this past Monday and got the lab work back today, including another fasting glucose test - this was a work related biometric screening that is part of new efforts in conjunction with the ACA. It even gives a visceral fat rating, but I’m not sure how accurate electronic impulses are in gauging body composition, even with these professional machines.
Fasting glucose was still high on this one, at 101 mg/dl (admittedly I had eaten pretty liberally last Sunday due to Easter luncheon and dinner at family gatherings), but cholesterol and triglycerides were great. It has me at 17.8% BF at 210 lbs and a waist circumference of 37" - each, as previously noted, probably at least slightly contributing to my type II risk due to excess body fat.
I’ll go ahead and write this out, though there are more knowledgeable people here. I have read that both fasting glucose and AC1 can be as bad as 60% inaccurate (both for missing and false positives) for insulin resistance or pre-diabetic diagnosis’s (is that a word?). They both are supposedly pretty reliable for finding diabetes, but really suck for borderline people.
That would mean, that you most likely aren’t a full blown diabetic, but if you really want to know if you are getting close you basically have to do the long tolerance test.
Also, there are other things you can look for that may be affected if you are starting to have insulin problems. For example, low HDL and high triglycerides. The other thing I personally would want tested is inflammation markers. Elevated insulin and glucose even in non-diabetics can cause heavy inflammation in arteries and lead to heart attacks and strokes even without heavy plaque build up or blockages in arteries (which don’t actually directly cause heart attacks FTR). If you are insulin resistive, you are at substantially elevated risk for heart attack and stroke so it is much more than just wanting to avoid diabetes.
[quote]JR249 wrote:
What is everyone’s opinions on the accuracy of the commercial/professional Tanita scales that hospitals use to conduct biometric screenings?
I had one done this past Monday and got the lab work back today, including another fasting glucose test - this was a work related biometric screening that is part of new efforts in conjunction with the ACA. It even gives a visceral fat rating, but I’m not sure how accurate electronic impulses are in gauging body composition, even with these professional machines.
Fasting glucose was still high on this one, at 101 mg/dl (admittedly I had eaten pretty liberally last Sunday due to Easter luncheon and dinner at family gatherings), but cholesterol and triglycerides were great. It has me at 17.8% BF at 210 lbs and a waist circumference of 37" - each, as previously noted, probably at least slightly contributing to my type II risk due to excess body fat.[/quote]
…For example, some devices, like Tanita scales, send the current through one leg and out the other, which means your entire torso is missed. Some hand-held devices will send the current through one arm and out the other, missing the rest of your body. And while there is now one device that is able to send the current through every section of your body, it is still limited by all of the other problems associated with BIA.
The Tanita bio-impedance measurements are less than worthless. Less, because they can be deceptive. Lack of measurement is better than a probably-wildly-false measurement. They can vary by at least 6 points from measurement to measurement without any fat change, and even the average of multiple measurements can be drastically off.
It’s absolutely a marketing gimmick.
Skinfold is not bad at all for tracking changes, though getting an accurate figure for what the bodyfat percentage really is, is another matter. It’s not highly precise for that.
For tracking changes, you don’t even need to follow a formula or do any calculation except simple addition. Pick two or three spots that are easy to measure and (preferably) you’d be particuarly interested to see reduced, and track the changes. Depending on the bodypart and your standard for condition, a lean condition could be for example 6mm (maybe more if measuring a personally bad area.) So say you set an arbitrary goal of 20 mm total for your three sites, you started at 60 mm and you’ve dropped to 40 mm. You’re halfway to your goal.
Or you’re losing only 1 mm total per week. You’re on a 40-week pace, as an estimate.
You’re losing 2 mm total per week. You’re on a 20-week pace, as an estimate.
Precise? No. Useful? Yes. Better than Tanita? Absolutely.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The Tanita bio-impedance measurements are less than worthless. Less, because they can be deceptive. Lack of measurement is better than a probably-wildly-false measurement. They can vary by at least 6 points from measurement to measurement without any fat change, and even the average of multiple measurements can be drastically off.
It’s absolutely a marketing gimmick.
Skinfold is not bad at all for tracking changes, though getting an accurate figure for what the bodyfat percentage really is, is another matter. It’s not highly precise for that.
For tracking changes, you don’t even need to follow a formula or do any calculation except simple addition. Pick two or three spots that are easy to measure and (preferably) you’d be particuarly interested to see reduced, and track the changes. Depending on the bodypart and your standard for condition, a lean condition could be for example 6mm (maybe more if measuring a personally bad area.) So say you set an arbitrary goal of 20 mm total for your three sites, you started at 60 mm and you’ve dropped to 40 mm. You’re halfway to your goal.
Or you’re losing only 1 mm total per week. You’re on a 40-week pace, as an estimate.
You’re losing 2 mm total per week. You’re on a 20-week pace, as an estimate.
Precise? No. Useful? Yes. Better than Tanita? Absolutely.
[/quote]
I had used the bio-impenece style for keeping an eye on long term relative trends and tried to use it in a consistent procedure. I basically ignore the absolute measurement but if the % is going down, I figured I was heading in the right direction.
You don’t think it’s even okay for something like this?
If you have less variability between readings than some others do then it could work for you; for me I could read anywhere from 12-18% on the same day, or from morning to morning, which was so much variability that it would be near impossible without a tremendous amount of statistics to track any average change. I’ve known others with the same problem, as well as studies showing high variability though I don’t remember how much.
But if your readings were consistent morning to morning, then yes I’d think that being down a couple of points over a period of time would be meaningful.
A related problem is, when (for convenience) at say 200 lb, even a 2 point change is 4 lb which could represent a month’s progress depending on dieting pace. So if the thing is plus or minus even only 2%, then is a month’s apparent progress real, or is it the thing jumping around according to hydration rather than bodyfat, or other random error?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The Tanita bio-impedance measurements are less than worthless. Less, because they can be deceptive. Lack of measurement is better than a probably-wildly-false measurement. They can vary by at least 6 points from measurement to measurement without any fat change, and even the average of multiple measurements can be drastically off.
It’s absolutely a marketing gimmick.
Skinfold is not bad at all for tracking changes, though getting an accurate figure for what the bodyfat percentage really is, is another matter. It’s not highly precise for that.
For tracking changes, you don’t even need to follow a formula or do any calculation except simple addition. Pick two or three spots that are easy to measure and (preferably) you’d be particuarly interested to see reduced, and track the changes. Depending on the bodypart and your standard for condition, a lean condition could be for example 6mm (maybe more if measuring a personally bad area.) So say you set an arbitrary goal of 20 mm total for your three sites, you started at 60 mm and you’ve dropped to 40 mm. You’re halfway to your goal.
Or you’re losing only 1 mm total per week. You’re on a 40-week pace, as an estimate.
You’re losing 2 mm total per week. You’re on a 20-week pace, as an estimate.
Precise? No. Useful? Yes. Better than Tanita? Absolutely.
[/quote]
In fact, using most skin fold sites, your body fat is almost proportional to your skinfold thickness, so if you are starting at 18% and you reduce 3 skinfolds from 44 to 22, you are going to be real close to 9%, however I have seen people who get a very site specific drop in skinfold just because they are testing it 30x a day.