Your blood sugars are at a very dangerous level and many doctors would want you to get Emergency Room treatment if they could not see you immediately. If you don't have insurance, that can be very expensive. One alternative might be an urgent care or doctors on duty type facility that might be able to provide appropriate treatment at a more affordable cost. It is urgent that you do see a doctor.
The primary dietary factor that raises blood glucose levels is carbohydrate but protein will also increase BG levels albeit at a much slower pace. The whole grain cereal that you ate was a very poor choice when BG levels are an issue because, whole grain or not, it has a very high carbohydrate content. Of the three macronutrients, fat is the only one that does not affect BG levels.View Thread
I thought that it might serve a useful purpose to put your statement in a graphic to emphasize the extremely serious nature of the options you have been presented with. An A1c of "only" 6.4 represents satisfactory control by contemporary protocols but I had experienced severe neuropathy when my own A1c measured only 6.1. Dr. Richard K. Bernstein , in one of his monthly webcasts, stated that he had one patient (female) who suffered from serious neuropathy issues when her A1c measured only 5.6 (yikes! It only shows that we are all different). In any case, poor glucose control leading to impaired wound healing is the number one cause of foot ulcers in diabetics. The monkey wrench in that statement is that current protocols define "good" or satisfactory glucose control as any A1c value "under 7.0". For some diabetics (a minority, I might add), that does work and they may go through life without developing any detectable complications. For others, like me (and possibly yourself), who are more sensitive to gluco-toxicity, we may develop all kinds of symptoms that, if not treated aggressively, can develop into more serious complications. Dr. Bernstein is a leading proponent of normalizing blood sugars in diabetics (that's true normal; not the vague pie-in-the-sky "under 7.0" value). He has stated that he has been successful in preventing amputations in patients simply by aggressive correction of the underlying cause, poor glucose control. I was able to heal my own neuropathy-related problems by normalizing my blood sugars (lowering my A1c to 5.2 and eventually to 4. but my problems were never as serious as what you are experiencing. If you need an incentive, be aware that the average survival period following an amputation is only 2 years, 4 months. Some patients live quite a bit longer and some less depending upon other health conditions/factors they may have. But those are the grim statistics.
Refreshing to see that you're a fan of the original film starring Michael Renne instead of the disappointing remake. I only wish resurrection was a simple as uttering a simple phrase to restore someone back to life via an outside vector (i.e., the robot).View Thread
When I accepted that I was diabetic, I sought the natural route as well. I was in denial for a few days after my initial self-diagnosis but had my affliction subsequently confirmed by one of the top endocrinologists in the County (had to pull a few strings to get an appointment on short notice), Even though my A1c measured "only" 6.1, the nerve damage I was experiencing was confirmed via a battery of tests and sophisticated equipment. My Endo prescribe Actos for me which is normally not a first line drug. However, he was a research physician and had many patients who had achieved terrific results with it. I took it religiously but complemented the medication with "natural" supplements using a long list that included standardized extracts of various sorts such as banaba leaf, cinnamon (aqueous), chromium, vanadium, blended products like Dr. Whittaker's Glucose Essentials, magnesium, CoQ10 (ubiquinol), grape seed, curcumin (Jarrows 95), bitter melon (both extracts and the fresh fruit itself), alpha lipoic acid, biotin, SOD (superoxide dismutase), and a list of others as long as your arm. I took the supplements in divided doses with my meals and separate from (at least 2 hours before/after) my daily Actos dose to minimize or avoid possible interactions. The preceding comments are just to let you know I left no stone unturned.
To answer your question, my dosages of Curcumin were 500mg three times a day (TID), alpha lipoic acid 600mg/biotin 5mg TID, magnesium (blended product) 400mg twice a day (BID), high potency B complex (in addition to multivitamin) BID. Vitamin D3 2000 IU TID, ginger root extract 250mg TID (taken together with Curcumin), Dr. Whitaker's Glucose Essentials (according to label directions). I discontinued some of the others since many of those products were already incorporated in the blended products that I was taking or I felt that the accumulated amounts could become toxic over time (examples include vanadium, chromium, and others). I also discontinued the SOD even though it is a natural substance produced in the body. I discontinued the Dr. Whitaker product after burning through my initial 6-months' supply (it costs around $50 per bottle so it wasn't an inexpensive trial) and felt it was ineffective, at least in my body.
I had heard of Protandim that is promoted as an Nrf2 "synergizer." That's just an advertising gimmick to say that it enhances SOD production in the body which reduces oxidative stress but IMHO, it also significantly increases pocketbook stress. I base the latter on the fact that it is sold primarily through multilevel marketing vectors and thus is highly suspect. You might want to read this web page before possibly wasting your money on this questionable product. If you do proceed with the use of natural supplements, be sure to keep detailed journals of your dosages and results. It will help you objectively evaluate whether the supplements are providing your body with any benefits and/or whether they are cost-effective. FYI, I still take alpha lipoic acid/biotin, curcumin, magnesium, grape seed, CoQ10, vitamin D3 and others but have reduced doses to one per day except for the vitamin D3 (still taking 2000 IU TID but also take an annual 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood test to make sure I stay within safe ranges). I have discontinued many other supplements as being either ineffective, not cost-effective, potentially toxic or no longer needed now that I am in genuinely good control of my blood sugar levels; not the damaging higher levels that the healthcare community at large accepts, even promotes, as being "in control."
I am assuming that the "15 or 16" that you mention in your post is an A1c value. That's equivalent to well over 400 mg/dL which amounts to "Slow Motion Suicide" if you maintain such high levels for an extended period of time. Here's an abbreviated interpretation that I found online. My own sentiments are similar and actual statistics (i.e., long term) bear out the accuracy of the conclusions. Damage begins at 110 mg/dl and beta cell die-off accelerates above 140 mg/dl.
The worst thing about diabetes damage is that it lacks an "ouch, ouch, ouch" factor. I called it that once to a newly diagnosed diabetic who had her four year old granddaughter present. She overheard my explanations about diabetes damage to her gramma and said, "You mean it doesn't hurt? You don't feel an owie?" If a four year old can understand that, then any adult can also: diabetes wreaks havoc on virtually every cell in the body but it doesn't hurt while the damage is underway. When the damage becomes extensive enough, one of the first things that will be "felt" is neuropathy (i.e., nerve damage). By the time other organ damage becomes self-evident, it could be too late to heal the condition and the only option may be to maintain it (keep it from getting worse).View Thread
You didn't provide any background information but that level is dangerously high and demands medical attention. Doctors have been known to send patients to the ER (for treatment with an insulin drip). Contact your doctor (even though it is a weekend) and seek his advice ASAP.View Thread
I didn't know the ADA finally formalized their A1c recommendation originally proposed in 2009. It's probably an indication of economic reality since A1c tests are so easy, quick and inexpensive to use. I completely disagree with the BG levels in the ADA chart that you posted, however, and the one below compares the ADA guidelines with those that LEF champions and that reflect my own personal views:
The LEF article from which I made the above comparison table is entitled What You Don't Know About Blood Sugar. It provides a different viewpoint from the one most patients are likely to get from the average healthcare provider (unless their doctor follows the Bernstein protocols). It is a worthwhile read irrespective of whether you accept or reject the arguments made. The article is well-researched and skeptics can read the original source documents before making a final judgment. View Thread
Depending upon your point of view, it isn't "normal" in the conventional sense but has been gaining popularity because of its low cost, ease, and speed. The ADA encouraged the practice some years ago. With an increasingly large percentage of the population with overweight and obesity-related problems, it probably is a wise choice to facilitate low cost early detection but followup procedures may be employed to confirm a preliminary diagnosis. Read this 2009 WebMD article for more details on the practice.View Thread