Anyone with Gestational diabetes? - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 48 Old 02-09-2011, 12:09 PM - Thread Starter
 
lisab82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

At 26 weeks tomorrow I was just told I might have Gestational diabetes. I had a feeling this may happen as I am a heavier girl and diabetes run's on my mom side of the family. I am just passed the border line and my doctor wants me to re take the test to see for sure. I feel so alone in this, I am hoping with some excercising and changing my eating habits (which I can already see being hard as everything I want to eat I almost always have...I know thats a terrible way to think when pregnant but I can't help myself).

 

Anyone have any suggestions, words of wisdom..or going through the same thing? I'm so sad...i'm praying I can fix the problem before I have to go back for my retest praying.gif

lisab82 is offline  
#2 of 48 Old 02-09-2011, 12:36 PM
tzs
 
tzs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,624
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

i just got the call this am that i failed by one point. have to do the big test but i'm thinking that it won't be an issue and the OB doesn't think it should either. plus, dd was one tiny baby so i don't think it'll put me on the "big baby" list even if i fail. it just sucks cause this time around it seems like much more of a struggle physically and i keep doing poorly on these d*nmed tests (i had a crappy quad screen earlier...and i don;t even believe in that horrible test...i just did it to make my OB happy so that he could feel like he was actually "doing" something.) ugh!

 

but i did tell dh that he has to be nice to me today because of it so maybe that's the upside.


Reluctant 'Sconie, chassid and mama to sweet toughie Ada Bluma 9/9/09 and loving pittie-mix ("Judge the deed, not the breed!")
tzs is offline  
#3 of 48 Old 02-09-2011, 02:03 PM
 
KarenMT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: MA
Posts: 863
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Did you fail the 1 hour GTT test?  A lot of women fail that and then are fine on the 3 hr test.  I go for my 1 hr GTT on Monday and although they don't ask you to fast, I usually go first thing in the morning as it seems people who go mid-day after eating several meals fail more (mind you this is anecdotal).

KarenMT is offline  
#4 of 48 Old 02-09-2011, 04:55 PM
 
Nutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by lisab82 View Post

Anyone have any suggestions, words of wisdom..or going through the same thing? I'm so sad...i'm praying I can fix the problem before I have to go back for my retest praying.gif


Well, before you worry too much I would encourage you to read the works of Michel Odent, & Henci Goer on the topic of GD.  The bottom line from my research (& my midwife concurred) is that treatment for GD (careful nutrition, regular excercise, insulin) does NOT improve outcomes for mother or baby.  The only thing that a GD diagnosis leads to is an increased risk of cesarean for Mom (and possibly an earlier detection of type II diabetes post-pregnancy). Michel Odent calls GD a diagnosis looking for a disease.

 

Hope this helps...! 

 

Sarah

Nutter is offline  
#5 of 48 Old 02-09-2011, 05:06 PM
 
clutterbug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,046
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nutter View Post

Well, before you worry too much I would encourage you to read the works of Michel Odent, & Henci Goer on the topic of GD.  The bottom line from my research (& my midwife concurred) is that treatment for GD (careful nutrition, regular excercise, insulin) does NOT improve outcomes for mother or baby.  The only thing that a GD diagnosis leads to is an increased risk of cesarean for Mom (and possibly an earlier detection of type II diabetes post-pregnancy). Michel Odent calls GD a diagnosis looking for a disease.

 

Hope this helps...! 

 

Sarah


 

I haven't read on GD much lately but I had the general feeling that maybe the evidence had grown to support treating it.  So I was kind of surprised at my midwife appointment today that as you said, Nutter, the jury really is still out about this (at least, depending on who you ask ;) ) and that the primary risk is still baby's size (and associated risk of baby not fitting), plus the higher risk for mom to develop Type II later in life.  I am leaning toward not doing it this time around...in the past, I have opted to do the screen, but mainly because I felt like I should to avoid rocking the boat (was picking and choosing what to rock the boat about, I didn't want to rock it every time! :P)

clutterbug is offline  
#6 of 48 Old 02-10-2011, 12:30 AM
 
sillysmile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Thanks for the references, Nutter - I'm definitely going to read those as soon as I have time.

 

I almost flunked my 1hr test during my first pregnancy and had a big baby (8#13), but then again my DH is 6'6" and I was 41.5 wks.

 

This time I really flunked my 1hr test (166, cutoff 139), so I'm going to get the 3hr test as soon as I get over this cold. I'm pretty bummed out by the whole thing, but trying not to get ahead of myself.

 

My sugars have been running 110-115 after meals, and I haven't had any really carb-heavy meals.. so I'm suspecting that I'm probably on the borderline.

sillysmile is offline  
#7 of 48 Old 02-10-2011, 05:48 AM
 
Nutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepetals View Post


I haven't read on GD much lately but I had the general feeling that maybe the evidence had grown to support treating it.  So I was kind of surprised at my midwife appointment today that as you said, Nutter, the jury really is still out about this (at least, depending on who you ask ;) ) and that the primary risk is still baby's size (and associated risk of baby not fitting), plus the higher risk for mom to develop Type II later in life.  I am leaning toward not doing it this time around...in the past, I have opted to do the screen, but mainly because I felt like I should to avoid rocking the boat (was picking and choosing what to rock the boat about, I didn't want to rock it every time! :P)

 I think it's not so much that having GD puts you at higher risk for developing Type II, but that some women are already at risk for Type II, and the state of pregnancy unmasks that risk in the form of "GD".

 

Some other interesting tidbits re: GD testing are that the urine dip sticks have a 11:1 false positive ratio, and the 1 & 3 hr tests can both be strongly influenced by things such as your stress levels/the presence of adrenaline during the testing period.  Janelle Komorowski, CNM outlines all this in her Pregnancy & Birth Plan Guide which you can download as an ebook for $10.
 

Not that I'm saying nutrition and blood sugar levels are unimportant in pregnancy!!!  I personally think that following a low glycemic index diet, which focuses on *real* food, is probably a good idea for the majority of women in today's day & age, and the preliminary research shows that it can help reduce the 'big baby' risk.

Nutter is offline  
#8 of 48 Old 02-10-2011, 07:48 AM
 
kamalynsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I totally failed the 1 hour test too... I had to go in at 7:00 am to get it, so couldn't have breakfast beforehand... even so, at 1 hour my numbers came back 180.  Sooo... I'm heading back in for the 3 hour, but I do not have high hopes at this point.  The 1 hour one really did a number on me.  I didn't start feeling like myself again until about 30 minutes after I walked out the door, and even so I was kind of wiped for the day.  I probably wasn't helped by the fact that I was SUPER nervous about the test.

 

Of course, when we had our ultrasound our baby was measuring exactly 50th percentile on the growth charts, so I'm not too worried on the big baby front.


****5****10****15****20****25****30*@**35 ****40
Due May 4th!
kamalynsky is offline  
#9 of 48 Old 02-10-2011, 08:45 AM - Thread Starter
 
lisab82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Hi Ladies, I am a little relieved that I am not the only one going through this. I have to do my 3 hour test on Feb 22nd and like I said on my first thread I was a point and a half over. On my first test I went first thing in the morning but of course I am going to do the same thing again when I have to go back. My baby is measuring right on track so i don't have any concerns about having a big baby. (not yet anyways) but I am still going to try to keep my blood sugar low.  I am going to keep my fingers crossed and hope for the best!

lisab82 is offline  
#10 of 48 Old 02-10-2011, 10:49 AM
 
BeanieC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montclair, NJ
Posts: 42
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

What are the symptoms you feel with GD?  I mean I've read that you many have none..or my midwife has said you just don't feel good after you eat..Also, this may be dumb, but what actually causes it?  Is it genetic only, or your diet, weight?  I go for my test on Saturday and am freaking out too!!!

BeanieC is offline  
#11 of 48 Old 02-10-2011, 11:19 AM
 
clutterbug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,046
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nutter View Post

Not that I'm saying nutrition and blood sugar levels are unimportant in pregnancy!!!  I personally think that following a low glycemic index diet, which focuses on *real* food, is probably a good idea for the majority of women in today's day & age, and the preliminary research shows that it can help reduce the 'big baby' risk.

 

This is where I am leaning with the whole thing...I will freely admit that my diet could be a lot better, and for me I think it would be more productive to really strive as a personal goal to focus on very healthy eating and getting more exercise as a means to not only control blood sugar, but keep blood pressure in check, and prepare in general for the work of labour.  I honestly think I can do better at this with encouragement from my midwife than going into the established system of seeing a nutritionist and being closely followed diet-wise etc.  I saw a nutritionist during my first pregnancy (after passing an early glucose screen with flying colours - the nutritionist seemed surprised when she read my results, which was the first of many times I bristled during our two appointments together) and I swear it was bad for my blood pressure.  I have issues with authority :P
 

I have been flipping around and there was one paper in 2005 that showed that treating GD reduced risk of hypertension in pregnancy by about 5% (however, a review I read of this said the study did not control well for confounding factors).  It seems to me that blood sugar control aside, eating a "GD diet" and exercising would be great for helping to keep blood pressure in check, anyway.

 

And yes, it's not the GD itself that gives you the higher risk for Type II later, it's that people who develop GD seem to be predisposed to developing Type II later on.  Poor wording on my part. :)

clutterbug is offline  
#12 of 48 Old 02-10-2011, 11:23 AM
 
sillysmile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm impatient and doing my own 3-hr test this morning.. hopefully a much more pleasant version :) Mine involves eating a very carb-heaving breakfast (59g) and then testing at 1 and 2 hrs. I'd test at 3 hrs, but I'm supposed to be giving a talk at that time. If my numbers don't shoot up from the combination of lots of carbs, being sick, and under a lot of stress, maybe I'll feel a little better. Or maybe it's just a nice excuse to add extra maple syrup to my greek yogurt..

 

I came across this interesting chart yesterday for anyone who's interested:

http://www.plus-size-pregnancy.org/gd/gd_testing.htm#More%20on%20the%20One-Hour,%2050g%20Screening%20Test%20%28Glucose%20Challenge%20Test%29

 

It basically gives your your average risk of GD based on your 1hr test result. I was relieved to see that mine was only 29% despite getting a 161 on the 1 hr. This is an old reference though, so I'm not sure if the diagnostic criteria are still the same.

 

My understanding is that there are a lot of risk factors (genetic and environmental). I'm pretty small and don't have any family history of diabetes at all, so I actually don't have any of the risk factors other than a previous big baby (who was almost 2 wks overdue, so I'm not really sure if that counts).

 

sillysmile is offline  
#13 of 48 Old 02-10-2011, 11:56 AM
 
kamalynsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

First - as to symptoms:  You might feel bad after eating high-sugar foods or excessive weight gain, but other symptoms are basically similar to pregnancy symptoms, so hard to pick out - things like being tired, excessive urination, that sort of thing.  Not everyone with GD will show symptoms, though...

As for what causes it... I'm not sure on that front.  I know that the risk factors are things like being 30+, having close relatives with diabetes, having previously given birth to a 9+ pounder, high blood pressure, too much amniotic fluid... it's an odd list.  So it looks like there are some things that are genetic, and some that are just caused by special circumstances.

SillySmile - how odd the rises and dips in that chart!  According to that, if I'd been 1 point higher, my likelihood of getting a positive result on the 3 hour would drop by 14%... I *really* want to know what's going on with those numbers (I actually wonder if some are typos?  maybe that 41% is supposed to be 61%).

I also found out when talking to the midwives that I would have been better off if I hadn't 'fasted' before the 1h test... if I'd had a healthy breakfast then, 3-4 hours later, done the test.  They told me that the glucose can basically 'shock' the system, triggering higher-than-normal numbers.  I probably wouldn't have been in the safe zone, but my numbers would have been better.


****5****10****15****20****25****30*@**35 ****40
Due May 4th!
kamalynsky is offline  
#14 of 48 Old 02-10-2011, 12:46 PM
 
BeanieC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montclair, NJ
Posts: 42
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Kamalynsky-thanks for your explanations, they were very helpful.  My midwife said the exact same thing as your midwife about not fasting before the 1 hour test, she said eat a healthy breakfast and not pancakes and syrup. LOL.  It seems it affects all sizes and types of people..I'm not going to worry about it either until I have to take the test..I'm just going to continue eating heatlhy and see what happens.  I can't change what's going to happen now!!!

BeanieC is offline  
#15 of 48 Old 02-10-2011, 04:33 PM
 
sillysmile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

kamalynsky - I agree those are weird dips in the chart. I'm guessing that they just had a small sample size for that study, but who knows.

 

My glucose was up in the 170s an hour after I had my carb-heavy breakfast this morning, so I'm guessing that I'm going to need to follow a diabetic diet from now on. I just hope that I didn't put my LO at risk by not paying attention to diet up until now. The articles about the lack of concordance between management and outcomes are reassuring from that perspective, but I still find it hard to believe that high blood sugars have no detrimental effects on developing babies.

sillysmile is offline  
#16 of 48 Old 02-10-2011, 04:45 PM
 
sillysmile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

kamalynsky - I looked up the original article online, and there were only 17 patients in the group with the really weird dip (181-185). I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that if they had a larger sample the dips would go away. I'd put a link to the article, but I can only access it through my university's subscription. If you have any questions about it just let me know and I can try to look it up.

sillysmile is offline  
#17 of 48 Old 02-11-2011, 06:52 AM
 
kamalynsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Thanks, Sillysmile!  Those numbers did look odd, and I agree - the low group size seems like the culprit here.  And as the author of the website said, it's just one study.  Even so, it's nice to see numbers.  My years both in hard science and in non-profit work make me go "proof!  show me proof!  And methodology, and, and, and..."  My husband has a tendency to sigh at me when I question the 30 second blurb on a study...

 

Yeah - based on the research I've been reading, I'm going to try and avoid insulin.  It seems fairly controllable by diet & exercise, and insulin doesn't seem to add much benefit, while it does seem to add risk (to the mother, at least).  Obviously whatever happens will be in some level dependent on the hospital I'm currently going with (the midwife group at said hospital), and I'm very much keeping my fingers crossed that if I *do* fail the 3 hour it won't change my birth plan.  I don't know at what point they decide you're too high-risk to handle, or what changes they start making to your care.  That will be a long talk. 

 

Still, I've more or less been following a diabetic diet at this point anyways (not really consciously, it's just when I stopped to really think about it I realized there weren't many changes I'd make other than my breakfast bowl of cereal, and cutting back a bit on the sweets - but dark chocolate doesn't spike your blood sugar much at all, so I just need to grab some of that to munch on when I have a craving). 

 

My mom was diagnosed with diabetes about two years back, so I'm pretty familiar with the dos and don'ts - even so, I'll be sitting down with her and going "advice!  Give me!"


****5****10****15****20****25****30*@**35 ****40
Due May 4th!
kamalynsky is offline  
#18 of 48 Old 02-14-2011, 08:36 PM
tzs
 
tzs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,624
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

so OP, did you retest? 

i just did the 3 hour super test today after failing the original by one point and passed with flying colors. alot of worry and googling about nothing. my levels this time didn't even get anywhere near the cutoff. 

good luck to you too!


Reluctant 'Sconie, chassid and mama to sweet toughie Ada Bluma 9/9/09 and loving pittie-mix ("Judge the deed, not the breed!")
tzs is offline  
#19 of 48 Old 02-16-2011, 09:35 AM
 
kamalynsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Got my results from the 3 hour today and failed by exactly 1 point.  The group uses the 95-180-155-140 scale, and I came back at 85-187-155-77.  Yup, that 155 is what pushed me over.  Grumble!

 

So now I'm just waiting to hear when I have to go take the GD class, and then it's time to start monitoring my blood sugar levels.  The good news is I'm still counted as low-risk since I failed by such a slim margin.  At this point I'll still get my natural birth, I don't have to have an IV, and I can still do intermittent monitoring. These are big plusses.  I'm just not looking forward to the negatives.  *sigh*.


****5****10****15****20****25****30*@**35 ****40
Due May 4th!
kamalynsky is offline  
#20 of 48 Old 02-16-2011, 09:48 AM
 
gummibears's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I haven't had it yet. I'm set to take it next Tues at nearly 29 weeks along. Seems kinda late to be taking it, but that's what the midwife said..

gummibears is offline  
#21 of 48 Old 02-16-2011, 06:01 PM
 
Almamiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: southeastern nowhere
Posts: 973
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

After an ultrasound that showed me measuring almost 3 weeks ahead and failing the 1 hr by 1 point (141), midwife suggested I go on restricted diet, start testing, and see a nutritional counselor. I've been testing obsessively (fasting, 1 hour and 2 hrs postprandial) and my numbers look darn good. I called the nutritional counselor and emailed her my spreadsheet - she also said my numbers looked good. I told her I wouldn't be making that appointment...

 

At this point, I'm not willing to be classed GD - told my midwife I wanted to go ahead and do the 3 hr. I plan on continuing to watch what I eat and test (on the bright side, my diet is so freaking fabulous right now I just love looking at my spreadsheet and marveling at how healthily I'm eating!).

 

My highest fasting number has been 91 (all others in 70's and 80's), and my postprandials have been under 140 for 1 hr and 120 for 2 hr by nice margins (especially the 2 hr results).

 

I'm feeling pretty comfortable about what I'm doing - have an appointment with my midwife next week to discuss further.

 


 DD1 (8yrs) + DD2 (6yrs) + DS1 (4/25/11) = one crazy adventure!
Almamiel is offline  
#22 of 48 Old 02-23-2011, 07:10 AM
 
kamalynsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I did my GD class yesterday and the information presented drove me completely batty.  It was a 2 hour class and I really didn't want to get into an argument with the teacher since some of the info was good, but seriously... some of the things that woman said were just wrong.

 

At first, I thought she was just occasionally misspeaking.  I'm wonderfully sick (but was told to go to the class anyways), so as I sat there sipping my tea, my brain was definitely jumping around and focusing on bits and pieces that just sounded 'wrong' - I'll give her a pass for saying that if a baby gets too big, the placenta is more likely to get tangled around the baby's feet or neck - she clearly meant umbilical cord.  I don't know if that stat is true, but I let it go. 

 

But then she asked us to 'fess up' - did we ever feel the baby move after we ate?  Well, we shouldn't.  This was a sign that our babies were getting too much sugar they were desperately trying to burn it off by moving around - if we didn't get that under control, our babies were going to get too big.  She then went on to tell us that the goal was a baby somewhere in the 7lb range - if we had a baby in the 8 or 9 lb range, that was a sign we'd failed to control our GD and that it had impacted our babies - they'd probably have to be taken away to nicu, given a sugar water mixture and monitored closely for the next 12 hours.  When I asked about nursing instead of sugar water, she told me that first time moms can't nurse for the first couple days anyways, so not to worry about it and just let them give the baby the sugar water - it's what's best.  There were other things she went on about ("these babies have a tendency to pop out early!" - true, but I'm pretty sure that's because OBs have a tendency to induce GD ladies before 40 weeks), but those were the main ones that really just upset me.  I'm seriously hoping I can manage to keep my numbers in a healthy range so I can stay with the midwives - because seriously, if this is the way the main body of the hospital treats GD cases, I'm a bit nervous.


****5****10****15****20****25****30*@**35 ****40
Due May 4th!
kamalynsky is offline  
#23 of 48 Old 02-23-2011, 09:28 AM
 
clutterbug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,046
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Oh my. That's about all I can come up with.

 

I guess despite passing three glucose screens in my previous 2 pregnancies, I must be a slip-through-the-cracks GD person, cause my first was over 9 pounds and second was 8.5 :P  I questioned my midwife pretty carefully about what a GD diagnosis (or a presumed one if I decline the screening and they just base it on baby's weight and my size) would mean for baby after birth if we end up at hospital.  Thankfully, she is happy with just nursing nursing nursing (which is good whether blood sugar is an issue or not, of course!) and is supportive no matter what I choose on the testing.  Were I to go birth at the hospital here (I am traveling an hour away for the birth so will be in catchment area for a different hospital), even if I screened negative 10 times from now till birth, if my baby was big like my first, they would be heel sticking every 30 minutes or something like that to check sugar, and offering sugar water as required.  Hospital policy. :(

clutterbug is offline  
#24 of 48 Old 02-23-2011, 11:10 AM
 
sillysmile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

kamalynsky - I'm so sorry that you had to deal with such an ignorant teacher. That would have infuriated me. I've read that early and frequent breastfeeding is usually the best treatment for hypoglycemia, and that it's extremely rare for it to be so severe as to require supplementation.

 

On another topic, I'm curious if anyone has any insight into the target ranges. What does the evidence support? Here's what I've been told:

 

My midwife (most lax):

fasting < 95
2 hr < 130

 

GD nurse, high-risk ob:

fasting < 90
1hr after finishing meal < 130
2hr < 120
before snack 120

 

University medical center:

fasting < 90
1 hr after finishing meal < 120 (130-140 where they start to worry)

 

There's a BIG difference for me between 120 at 1 hr and 130 at two hours. I'm trying to adhere to the most stringent criteria since I figure it can't hurt, it's really tough and I'm curious about the basis for these recommendations. If I have a medium-sized carb meal, I jump on the elliptical for 10-20 minutes and can drop my readings by 20-30 points to keep them in range. One nurse said that the more stringent criteria came out of a large study down in CA, but I haven't had the time to look it up yet and was wondering if others knew about it and where you stood on these guidelines.

 

Thanks!

sillysmile is offline  
#25 of 48 Old 02-23-2011, 12:21 PM
 
kamalynsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'd love to hear back on that too, Silly - I was given the <90 fasting, <120 at 1 hour post-meal set of numbers myself, with the requirement that if I have more than two readings over 140, I call immediately.  I meet with the midwives on it next week, so we'll be looking over my readings then and we'll see what they have to say about where *they* want my numbers.  I have a feeling it will be the same as what the class gave me, since it's through the same hospital. 

 

Everyone seems to have different standards, different points when they start insulin, different *everything* on this, and it's kind of driving me crazy with how arbitrary it all feels.  So yeah - if anyone has the research, that would be spectacular. 


****5****10****15****20****25****30*@**35 ****40
Due May 4th!
kamalynsky is offline  
#26 of 48 Old 02-24-2011, 07:27 AM
 
Almamiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: southeastern nowhere
Posts: 973
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

It is quite a challenge to find consistent info. I don't have studies on hand, but have found through obsessive googling that normal average fasting levels for pregnant women are mid-70's for fasting and a mean 105 for one hour postrandial. These are lower than the guidelines I've seen. I think that shooting for under 90 fasting and 120 one hour postprandial is the safest bet. More studies have come out in the last couple of years that give a better picture into "normal" pregnant levels (super hard to find info on this!!!). I was really irritated to keep finding variable targets and no mention of what's "normal."

 

I'll try to find time to link to some of the studies I've found later!


 DD1 (8yrs) + DD2 (6yrs) + DS1 (4/25/11) = one crazy adventure!
Almamiel is offline  
#27 of 48 Old 02-24-2011, 09:06 AM
 
BHappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: the beautiful Santa Cruz mountains
Posts: 999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

wave.gif

 

this article states there is a range of target blood glucose levels for diabetics. i do like to think of "normal" having a range, rather than a hard-fast number:

 

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/blood-sugar/DA00007

  • Fasting at least eight hours (fasting blood sugar level) — between 90 and 130 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) or 5 and 7 millimoles per liter (mmol/L)
  • Before meals — between 70 and 130 mg/dL (4 and 7 mmol/L)
  • One to two hours after meals — lower than 180 mg/dL (10 mmol/L)

 

http://diabetes.webmd.com/blood-glucose states the following blood glucose levels as "normal":

Fasting blood glucose:

70-99 milligrams per deciliter (3.9-5.5 mmol/L)

2 hours after eating (postprandial):

70-145 mg/dL (3.9-8.1 mmol/L)

Random (casual):

70-125 mg/dL (3.9-6.9 mmol/L)

 

my dietitian uses the following targets for gestational diabetes:

fasting: <90

one-hour after meal: <130

 

i don't understand why OBs and GD dietitians are looking for such low numbers. the only thing i can think is that they are playing it safe. they are trying to catch women who might be on the upper end of the range, and classify them as having GD.  i'm also a bit puzzled by the 1-hr vs. 2-hr after meal check. if i remember correctly, the 1-hr will show the peak, and the 2-hr will show how the sugars have been processed. is that right?

 

i found it interesting to note that Modest elevation of blood sugar after meals is normal during pregnancy. as with everything, balance and moderation are so important.

 

i don't have GD. however, my last child was large at birth (i never did the glucose test), so this pg i am checking my sugars weekly just to monitor. :)

 

blessings!

 

 

 


~Karenchicken3.gifso happy to be mothering my four... DS ('94), DS ('94), DD ('00), and DS -- June 8, 2011, our UC baby!

BHappy is offline  
#28 of 48 Old 02-24-2011, 06:24 PM
 
gummibears's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I was informed today that I failed the 1 hour test by 20 points. :( Since then I've been terrified that everything I didn't want this pregnancy is what I'm going to end up forced to do.

 

Has anyone failed by such a large margin and passed the 3 hour test? I took the 1 hour test at 4pm and maybe that had something to do with it? I really don't know because my only risk factor is that I'm 33 years old. DS was small 7 pounds 14oz. Had no GD with him and nothing else aligns with a risk factor except this could explain all my infections I've been suffering with. I lost a lot of weight (around 15 pounds) before becoming pregnant and my BMI was normal, so I wasn't overweight or anything. No other signs have clued me in to even having a worry about flunking this test until now.

 

Scared... for me and the baby and I have no idea when the 3-hour test will be scheduled (they have to run it during office hours, but that means pulling DH out of work and DS out of school for the day to do it)

gummibears is offline  
#29 of 48 Old 02-25-2011, 06:25 AM
 
kamalynsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Gummi - I failed my one-hour by far more than you did... they were looking for under 130, I came in at 180.  But I only just failed my 3-hour... so there is hope, I promise (they wanted 95-180-155-140, I came in at 85-196-155-77.  I failed by one point).  I know it isn't *quite* the "score high on 1-h, pass the 3-h", but it's something!

 

Good luck, Gummi.  Fingers crossed.


****5****10****15****20****25****30*@**35 ****40
Due May 4th!
kamalynsky is offline  
#30 of 48 Old 02-25-2011, 07:45 AM
 
BHappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: the beautiful Santa Cruz mountains
Posts: 999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by gummibears View Post

I was informed today that I failed the 1 hour test by 20 points. :( Since then I've been terrified that everything I didn't want this pregnancy is what I'm going to end up forced to do.

 

Has anyone failed by such a large margin and passed the 3 hour test? I took the 1 hour test at 4pm and maybe that had something to do with it? I really don't know because my only risk factor is that I'm 33 years old. DS was small 7 pounds 14oz. Had no GD with him and nothing else aligns with a risk factor except this could explain all my infections I've been suffering with. I lost a lot of weight (around 15 pounds) before becoming pregnant and my BMI was normal, so I wasn't overweight or anything. No other signs have clued me in to even having a worry about flunking this test until now.

 

Scared... for me and the baby and I have no idea when the 3-hour test will be scheduled (they have to run it during office hours, but that means pulling DH out of work and DS out of school for the day to do it)


hug.gif i'm sorry. well, remember that the 1-hr is a screening, and not a definitive "test" that diagnoses GD. it is just a screening and that's all. and it catches many women who will never end up with GD.

 

if you don't want to do the 3-hr test, consider getting a glucometer (covered by some insurance) and monitoring your sugars at home with your own food.

 

try not to worry. i know what you mean about obstacles popping up in the way of the pg and birth that we want. just keep holding the picture of how you want it to be. love.gif

 

xo


~Karenchicken3.gifso happy to be mothering my four... DS ('94), DS ('94), DD ('00), and DS -- June 8, 2011, our UC baby!

BHappy is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off