Diabetes, emotions, resilience and mental health - DBlog Week Day 4

Today's Diabetes Blog Week topic recognises that living with type 1 diabetes is not just about looking after our physical health,  "What things can make dealing with diabetes an emotional issue for you and / or your loved one, and how do you cope?". Read how others have responded to this topic by visiting the Day 4 link list.

Today is also described as 'Throwback Thursday' in that this topic was also covered a few years ago, in 2014, which coincidentally, was the last time I took part in DBlog Week. You can read my previous post here, and to be honest I think I feel pretty much the same today.

It's important for us to recognise that living with a long term condition, particularly one as fickle, irritating and contrary as Type 1 Diabetes makes each of us more vulnerable to depression.

It is OK not to be OK. And it is very much OK to talk to your clinic, Doctor or care team about it. You need to do that. It won't be easy. It will take courage, but if you are struggling emotionally you deserve to be supported and to receive the help you need.

Many of us are familiar with the ebb and flow of emotions from gently pottering along with diabetes just being part of the background noise of our lives and with a general sense of well-being set against feelings of despair, hopelessness and that diabetes is a weight that simply cannot be carried. Many of us too, will know that the dividing line between those two states is sometimes precariously fragile. Your mental health is just that, health. We need to look after ourselves as whole people, and that means looking after our minds, and paying attention to them, just as much as we put effort in to blood glucose management, eating well and exercising.

I think part of the challenge for healthcare professionals is that it is much easier for them to focus on the numbers. The hard facts that can suggest how 'well' a person with diabetes is managing their condition. From the outset we begin to be surrounded by a cloud of numbers, targets and measurements. Each supposedly able to predict our long-term future health. And it is almost impossible in that context not to see those checks and data as some sort of reflection on whether you are 'succeeding' or 'failing' as a person. Whether you are 'trying hard enough', 'doing well enough'.

It's a toxic environment.

And much has been written about the language we use in relation to these pieces of information. Test. Target. Control. Compliance. Adherence. So many opportunities for self-judgement.

And it's important to remember that fluctuating glucose levels have a profound effect on the brain and on the emotions. So at the very point we see those frustrating numbers, where we know we did everything we knew to try to avoid them, our minds are less able to cope with the situation.

If we are not careful we put ourselves in an impossible position where every day is filled with opportunities for perceived 'failure'. Where we see our best efforts as never 'enough'. Where we feel that we are failing before we begin.

But this is absolutely not the case.

You need to recognise how well you are doing. How resilient you are. How you are able to live your life and simultaneously perform the function of a major bodily organ every single day.

Some times it works well and you are happy with how your BG behaved, other days... not so much. But you battle on, you brilliant, tenacious, feisty, beautiful piece of humanity. And tomorrow you will do it all again.

And make no mistake, the juggling of all those complicated factors that go into every single one of your self-management decisions would fry the most genius of minds. And the out of range results you see are so often not even down to you at all. Well, OK, that one was. But hey, we knew that before we did it eh? And life is for living, right? But for the most part, if managing type 1 was simply a matter of eating the right foods and taking the right doses and everything always worked out all the time and never changed we would have had this licked a long, long time ago.

The variables in your life will overlap and interact. Some cancelling each other out, others magnifying. And your diabetes itself will not have the good grace to sit still and behave predictably.

Perfection really is not possible. You are doing your best - even on the days when you can barely manage to do anything. You can do that. You can keep yourself going. And tomorrow you can go again.

Never neglect your state of mind. Get the right professional support if you need it, and reach out to people in the #doc to share the burden. Commit to being careful with your own inner voice and taking time to affirm yourself and acknowledge that despite the difficulties type 1 diabetes brings, you are winning small victories every day. You are able to achieve more than you can imagine.

“To achieve greatness, start where you are, use what you have, do what you can.”
Arthur Ashe

Cholesterol confusion and climate change

Photo by Malcolm Koo (Creative Commons)

There are two types of people in the world - those who repeatedly suggest there are two types of people in the world and those who don't.

When it comes to cholesterol and heart disease however, there seem to be three types of people in the world: Firstly those who think fat is bad, cholesterol causes heart disease and statins should basically be put in the water supply; Secondly those who suggest cholesterol is a natural healthy substance, saturated fat is fine and doesn't affect serum cholesterol anyway and that statins are at best ineffective and at worst part of an evil plot by Big Pharma to make vast sums of money and hang the consequences to anyone who takes them. Thirdly there is the group that watches the two extremes bicker and squabble. That reads report after report each debunking the other's 'evidence' shrugs our shoulders and wonders what on earth to make of it all.

You may be able to tell that I am firmly in the third group.

I have tried to write this post many times before. Almost always after the release of some study or other which shines light on it (from either direction) in a pretty conclusive way. But each time this happens, almost without fail, within a day or two I will see something else that eloquently argues exactly the opposite point of view - and I find myself back at square one. So I have given up waiting until I have made up my mind one way or another and decided to just pour it all out. To try to explain my confusion - probably mostly to myself. It will be rambling, contradictory, borderline-incoherent, and in reality I should probably re-read it and get rid of at least two thirds of it. But I'm not going to spare you that, dear reader. You will just have to suffer along with me.

At the outset it is crucial to remind you that I have absolutely NO medical expertise whatsoever. This is not advice (perish the thought!). I don't understand most of this stuff enough to apply it to my own situation, let alone anyone else's. I know people that take Statins and get on well with them. I know people that have had terrible experiences with Statins and would not touch them with a bargepole.

The last time I nearly wrote this post was April this year when I read this report of the HOPE trial. I found this particularly interesting, because it talks specifically about 'primary prevention'. That's medical shorthand for giving people some medicine to prevent a thing happening that they might be at increased risk of.

“Statins work beautifully, resulting in a high significant relative risk reduction of 25%,” said Yusuf. Further, statins were “relatively safe,” though there was a small excess in muscle pain, but not rhabdomyolysis, in the statin-treated group.

Wow! 25% less chance of heart attack or stroke. Sounds pretty worthwhile. And HOPE-3 focussed on a population at 'intermediate risk'. So these are benefits that were shown to exist even where increased risk was only fairly modest. This caught my eye because you don't have to live with type 1 diabetes for long before people start telling you that you are going to die of a heart attack. That's what does for most of us, apparently. However perky your blood glucose management is generally, living with T1 you will almost certainly be having significant glucose excursions that 'nonnys' would never have. Of course you can significantly reduce your theoretical risk by keeping a lid on your blood glucose levels and HbA1c - but therein lies the snag for people trying to view any of this research and apply it to their own situation. Risk calculators don't work if you have T1. And primary prevention studies that take a cohort of people with a UK-average HbA1c of 9% or so, might have a different risk to you as an individual depending on your own fortunes wrestling the Diabetes Gremlins. Benefit shown to those at 'intermediate risk' was certainly interesting though. I've not had a heart attack, I'd like to keep it that way and I'm getting older year by year.

I had promised my clinic that I would continue to keep an open mind about the cholesterol issue, and perhaps this was it - the primary prevention study I had needed to convince me that it was worth trying a Statin and seeing how I got on with it, in the hope that my undoubted increased risk of heart-based shenanigans might be reduced by 25%.

The elephant in the room, of course, is the term 'relative risk'. Studies, particularly Statin studies, are quite keen on using that frame of reference as it usually gives a nice Big Attention Grabbing Number. So if your risk of something happening was 0.1% and it dropped to 0.08% it might sound pretty meagre. But you could express the same change as a 20% reduction in relative risk, which sounds much more weighty. Hmmmmmmm.

Hot on it's heels, if not chronologically but more in terms of the way I stumbled across things was this rather sensationalised tabloid reference to a study by Professor Harumi Okuyama, of Nagoya City University, Japan. This time, taking Statins can actually apparently *make things worse*. Harden your arteries and increase your risk of heart attack.

This was followed swiftly by this piece by Cardiologist and confirmed Statin sceptic Dr Aseem Malhotra which raises some well-worn questions over the entire evidence-base behind cholesterol-lowering drugs and the refusal of the companies to release the raw data on side-effects.

"biased reporting in medical journals, commercial conflicts of interest and medical curricula that fail to teach doctors how to understand and communicate health statistics was contributing to an epidemic of misinformed doctors and misinformed patients."

reputed French Cardiologist Dr Michel De Lorgeril's own analysis reveals that all studies published after 2006 reveal “no benefit” of statins for cardiovascular prevention in all groups of patients.

I'm not even going to open the can of worms that links Statins prescribed to people without heart disease and a doubling of their risk of developing Type 2 Diabetes. Frankly I have enough on my plate with the diabetes I already have.

And again here, from just this week. Another article that confidently suggests nails in the coffin of the cholesterol hypothesis.

Dr John Abramson, a health policy expert from Harvard Medical School, looked at the HOPE-3 trial and told me the effects were meagre indeed: “91 people have to be treated with a statin for 5.6 years in order to prevent 1 non-fatal heart attack or stroke.” Another way to say this is 90 of the 91 people who take statins for that long won’t see a benefit (and some will experience adverse side effects).

The observant among you will be smiling that exactly the same HOPE trial mentioned above with glowing 25% reductions in risk and very low side effects is now being interpreted as having almost no effect whatever *except* the possibility of side-effects. Though of course, for the 1 person out of 91, the 'not having had a heart attack' would probably be seen as quite a benefit. I wonder how you get to know that you are that 1 person and not one of the other 90. How exactly you notice that something is not happening to you because of a tablet rather than it just not happening to all the others.

And yet... and yet... Most doctors and scientists in the world seem to remain convinced of the link between heart health and lower cholesterol.

My basic problem
Over the last 4 or 5 years I have read a number of posts and articles from people who raise questions over the whole lipid/fat/cholesterol/heart hypothesis. I know that for some of you this will ring alarming tin-foil-hat klaxons, but articles like this (higher cholesterol associated with lower mortality overall *including* heart disease) and this (what causes heart disease anyway) are an entertaining read - and I cannot help it - but they do seem make a lot of sense to me.

I know that for some (many? most?) healthcare professionals some of these characters are a sort of... well, if not exactly laughing stock - certainly not voices to be taken seriously. People who insist that everyone else has it wrong and only they know the truth. Eyes roll. "OK then, if you say so. Never mind dear."

Perhaps it is precisely because I am not medically educated, that I have not learned and trusted the basics of the 'status-quo'. I have less invested in one way of thinking about cholesterol and heart health - and so it is easier for me to read these other arguments and think, 'Well that's interesting.'

Of course, proponents of the mainstream viewpoint will point to decades of scientific research and understanding that have brought us to where we are. For them the lipid-heart hypothesis is an unshakeable fact. And this or that or the other study* has shown that lowering cholesterol really does work. Most of their peers think the same. So take your tablets and feel safer.

*('Funded and published by the people that make the tablets!!' cry the sceptics)

And around and around I go...

• Lots of studies over many years show (apparently) convincing benefit of Statins for heart disease with very low risk of side effects
• Sceptics say the 'adverse event' data are under-reported and the pharma companies refuse to release the raw information for independent analysis
• When it comes to secondary prevention (people who have already had a heart attack) the evidence is much clearer. Most people seem to agree that they work and work well
• Even among cholesterol sceptics or neutrals there is a thought that it might be some activity of Statins other than cholesterol reduction (such as reduction of inflammation or stabilisation of plaques) that confer benefit
• Statins are the most profitable drug in the history of the world - vested interest doesn't even begin to cover it
• And yet I do not subscribe to the view that All Big Pharma Is Evil either - of course pharmaceuticals is a business and the companies have a requirement to make money for their stockholders - but I do think that it is in their interest to create 'products' actually help people, those will be much easier to shift after all

Climate change
The other day, all this made me think about climate change. A decade ago there was a funny little film by Davis Guggenheim and Al Gore called 'The Inconvenient Truth'. We don't even think about it much any more really. As I am sure many of you will remember, the eponymous 'truth' was that the actions of the human race had built up over time and were affecting the climate of the entire planet. Greenhouse gasses, climate change and all that. What struck me was the way that the voices that first raised these ideas from as early as 1896 were initially dismissed perhaps even ridiculed for their line of thinking. Not only that, but now that global warming has been firmly adopted into the scientific mainstream there are still contrary voices. Voices who will insist that for all the evidence that it is unmistakeably happening all around us that climate change is Nothing To Do With Us. That the whole thing is a hoax. A scam. Deniers who will wrap their arguments in convincing-seeming scientific language of planetary cycles, solar variation and internal radiative forcing. There's a conspiracy theory for everything it seems.

And I wonder where we are with cholesterol and heart health? Who is on which side? Will the ones who are being ridiculed ultimately turn out to have got it right? Or at least, made steps in the right direction? Will the mainstream position change in the light of more and better and more independent evidence? Or has the mainstream got it right already and are the cholesterol-deniers just confusing everyone.

I really wish I knew the answer. Because however many times I try to unpick this I always end up here. Shrugging and thinking... well I don't know! Which doesn't really do enough to convince me to take a tablet every day for the rest of my life.

#135shoes - 108 unnecessary amputations a week

Diabetes UK have been working on their 'Putting Feet First' campaign for some time now, but today is the day they are really trying to hit hard with it. They are staging an event in Westminster featuring 135 shoes scattered across a lawn, each bearing a note of the impact that amputation, or living with the threat of amputation can bring. The statistic is horrifying, but even more gut-wrenching is the byline. Eighty percent of these amputations could have been prevented. Eighty percent. It strikes a particular chord with me as I am aware that Bristol, where I live, has a particularly high rate of amputations compared to the national average.

Having lived with diabetes for over 25 years I have spent quite a lot of time trying not to think about complications, but if you are lucky enough to still have all ten toes attached, just think for a moment about the impact on your every day life of losing one or both of your feet. Of the additional challenges that would come with a million every day moments. Stairs, nipping to the shops, running for the bus, running for pleasure, sports, shoes, paddling in the ocean, walking the dog... And for 108 of those 135 people, this devastating event might have been prevented.

Many of the people who live very real and very human lives behind this cold, hard statistic will be living with Type 2 Diabetes. They will be used to having people assume that this is all their own fault. That they should be ashamed of themselves. That they have only themselves to blame. Because type 2 is a 'lifestyle' disease, right? "Too many cakes and not enough exercise you poor, waddling excuse for a human being". Blah blah blah. So on top of the physical trauma and day to day difficulties faced, they will be heaped upon with guilt for the enormous cost of their treatment to the tax payer. What remains of their self esteem crushed beneath the weight of media, public and family opinion and in some cases even a medical profession that seems to overtly judge them as failures.

But is it really as simple as that? And even if you think it is, what fruit does that mindset bear?

Personally I don't believe that it is. There is a lot in this article, You did NOT eat your way to type 2 diabetes, that makes a lot of sense to me. Now that's not to say that I dismiss the concept of personal responsibility entirely. Of course not. If some people had made changes perhaps they could have dodged their diabetes diagnosis. But it just seems to me that many (most?) people who live with Type 2 diabetes were doing pretty much what everyone else was doing, it was just that their metabolisms weren't up to dealing with the semi-toxic combination of a modern Western diet and a massively wealthy and profit-hungry food industry.

But getting a diagnosis of diabetes (of either type!) surely should not inevitably lead to 135 people each week undergoing expensive life-altering surgery. Our understanding of managing long term conditions, like diabetes, seems to be improving year on year, and yet many of the outcome measures seem to be  getting steadily worse.

How can we change the balance so that there are only 81 shoes on the lawn?

Here are a few thoughts from my unqualified, unmedical viewpoint:

1. Get your feet checked every year
   This is for us lot with diabetes really. Foot checks are supposed to be part of your annual review every year. Go to your appointment and make sure you get your pulses and sensitivity checked. If there are any problems you want them spotted early.
   
2. Stop telling people that diabetes is inevitably progressive
   This is less a factor for us living with Type 1, but many with Type 2 are set up to fail from the outset - if something is inevitable, why bother putting in effort to prevent it? Effective managment of diabetes is a relentless slog, we need to be encouraged that the effort is worth it. Don't blame people if they need more or different medication as time goes on, but never make them feel like it is not worth trying, that there is nothing they can do. Focus more on the positive benefits of effective management in the short and long term.
3. Stop telling people that type 2 is 'mild'
   Incredibly this still seems to be suggested to some people. That type 2 is not really very serious and doesn't need much attention paid to it. I much prefer the quote about diabetes and tigers: "Living with diabetes is like living with a tiger. If you feed it, groom it, never turn your back on it; you can live with a tiger. If you neglect it; it'll pounce on you and rip you to shreds."
4. Start telling people to watch their carbs
   Diabetes is a long term condition. People were diagnosed with it years ago, and told the information that was felt appropriate then. Some years ago people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes often significantly increased their 'starchy carb' intake on the advice of their healthcare professionals. Almost all sources now seem to acknowledge that moderating carbohydrate intake - and not just sugar, ALL carbohydrate - is beneficial for people with diabetes. Now I'm not going to open the low-carb can of worms here, because what I am talking about is really more to do with better BG outcomes than any arbitrary label you might place on a number of grams of carb a day that you might feel works for you. Which leads me nicely on to...
5. Allow motivated patients to check their Blood Glucose
   The vast majority of people living with diabetes in the UK have type 2. And the vast majority of them are told, time and time again, that they do not need to test their blood glucose levels. That the 6-monthly HbA1c test is enough. I could write a long and ranty post about how we seem to have got ourselves into this mess (including the Farmer et al study that is still used as an official reason why SMBG - self monitoring of blood glucose - for type 2 is not recommended) but I would rather talk about the motivated people I see on diabetes forums. They fund their own strips because their surgery won't. They test before and an hour or two after eating something (whenever they generally get their highest reading). They look at the results and the quantities and types of foods eaten and make adjustments. They use the very pre- and post-meal target values that are in the same NICE guideline that denys them access to SMBG. And as a result? They are able to actively tailor their diet to suit their own diabetes, many are able to reduce or emilinate medication and their HbA1cs usually fall well outside of the 'danger zone'. And if they can do it... so can hundreds and thousands more if given the right testing framework, simple guidance and 6 month's or a year's worth of strips for that intensive early testing.

Well done to Diabetes UK for highlighting this important topic. I hope some action can be taken to reduce the enormous, unnecessary, financial and personal cost behind these statistics.

Release your inner diabetes Hobbit - Guest post for Diabetes UK

My diabetes, yesterday.

Last weekend we finally got around to watching the last part of Peter Jackson's mammoth 'Hobbit' trilogy "The Hobbit: Battle, battle and a bit more battle" on one of those newfangled instant video services (pauses to wistfully remember trawling the aisles of tiny, ramshackle video rental shops all those decades ago). During one of the epic-wide-shot-sweeps across the thundering conflict there emerge, through dust and fracturing hillsides, several enormous, lumbering cave trolls - staggering about, squashing people and generally getting in the way.

They reminded me more than a little of my diabetes.

Except that my diabetes doesn't often wear a little wooden backpack-style platform of Orcs throwing rocks. Although some days...

I think it was the thick-headed stagger of them that made me draw the comparison. The turgid movement. The stupidity and utter disregard for anyone or anything around them. Yup, my diabetes can be all of those things. Slow, stubborn and very hard to work around.

The heroes of the film, by contrast, are tiny, fleet of foot and scamper around very nimbly. Dancing and chasing in and out, between legs and around corners, while the grunting Diabetes Troll laboriously lifts its impossibly-heavy hammer for another ill-aimed swipe.

But there is obvious peril here. Running rings around the hapless troll is all very well, but unless you keep your wits about you, and ideally keep your distance from the 'complications' hammer sooner or later you run the risk of getting squashed.

Mercifully, diabetes complications are pretty slow moving for the most part. And an occasional out-of-range reading here or there does not necessarily mean that our kidneys pack up immediately or our eyes are instantly fried [Good job too looking at my BG results this week!]. But there is a danger in that. It is all too easy to become a little complacent. Doing something now that (you hope) will reduce the chances of *something* not happening 5, 10 or 20 years from now is not a brilliant action-reward feedback loop. What someone once described as, "We work hard so that nothing happens... We hope that all of that "something" we do leads to nothing - Nothing is a pretty lousy reward".

All that effort and nothing to show for it. Are we doing enough? Do we need to do more? And we can't rely on our feelings to measure these things. There are no pain-measuring nerve endings in many of the places that our Diabetes Troll might be taking a swing at. And the swing itself might be so slow as to be almost unnoticeable until it's right there upon you.

And that is why the 15 Healthcare Essentials recommended by Diabetes UK are SO important. The first 9 or 10 represent really important annual checks which allow you to keep an eye on your Diabetes Troll. And if you discover that you are straying a little too close for comfort, having these checks done every year allows you to take action early to reduce your risk of getting squished. Between 10 and 15 there are really important parts of your care package which will allow you to improve your hammer-dodging skills, brush up on your swordplay and make sure your mind, as well as your body are ready for the fight.

15 Healthcare Essentials Checklist

1. Get your HbA1c measured at least once a year
2. Have your blood pressure measured and recorded at least once a year
3. Have your blood fats (such as cholesterol) measured every year
4. Have your eyes screened for signs of retinopathy every year
5. Have your feet checked every year
6. Have your kidney function monitored annually, including having your urine tested for protein
7. Have your weight checked
8. Get support if you are a smoker
9. Receive care planning to meet your individual needs
10. Attend an education course to help you understand and manage your diabetes
11. Receive care from a specialist paediatric team if you are a child or young person
12. Receive high quality care if admitted to hospital
13. Get information and specialist care if you are planning to have a baby
14. See specialist diabetes healthcare professionals to help you manage your diabetes
15. Get emotional and psychological support

Around 80% of the budget spent on treating diabetes in the UK goes on sorting out complications. Just think about that for a moment. 80p out of every pound. All the cost of medications, test strips and fancy diabetes gadgetry are utterly Hobbit-like when set against the monstrous scale of the cost of helping those for whom things have not worked out so well.

The vast majority (around 90%) of people living with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes have never been offered or have never attended a structured education course which could give them the skills to live better with diabetes every day.

Way less than half of the people living with Type 1 in the UK are getting the checks that they should every year. The actual figure, according to the National Diabetes Audit is just over 40%.

People are not finding out early enough that their eyes, kidneys or nerves are starting to show a little wear and tear. It is never too late to make improvements to your own diabetes management, or get the right treatment and support. Many, many people have used information from their 15 Essential Healthcare Checks to dodge the hammer-blow and nimbly dart out of reach of the troll's swing. Early warnings are just that. Improve your diabetes management and in many cases those early signs can be stopped in their tracks - sometimes they can disappear altogether.

If you live with diabetes, or know someone who does - make sure you read that list and make those appointments. Being told, 'It's all looking fine' does not make these visits a complete waste of time. It's an important annual opportunity to make sure you are staying one step ahead of the trolls.

See also: 15 checks, diabetes audits and prawns

Gimme 5 - a new hypo strategy

It is. Is it? Isn't it?

Here is a conversation I have had at pretty much every annual review I have ever had for my diabetes:

HCP: How many hypos are you having?
Me: Well... erm... that kinda depends on what you mean
HCP: What?
Me: On how you define 'hypo'. What you mean by it. What number or experience you use.
HCP: Erm... well... I... er...

You might think that it is a fairly simple question. Anything below 4.0mmol/L right? "Four is the floor" and all that.

Except that in the US it would be below 70mg/dl (3.9mmol/L) not below 72mg/dl (4.0mmol/L) - so suddenly there are a whole bunch of results that don't 'count' if you live over the pond just to make the US version a round number.

The matter is even more complicated by inherent meter inaccuracy. I have to say I trust my current Contour Next USB more than any other I have ever owned. Previously if I wasn't sure of a result I would immediately retest and could get a new result perhaps a mmol/L or two different in either direction. With my Contour Next USB, double checked results are more often than not *exactly* the same, or at most within a few decimal places. But this aside, ALL blood glucose meters are only legally required to work to within +/- 20% of a lab value. As I have pointed out before this can mean that your 4.0 (72) reads anywhere between 3.2 (58) and 4.8 (86). So which of those sub-4s would you count if some of them might be over 4 with a different strip or from a different finger? I can't spend my whole life (and all my test strips) triple-checking everything and taking the mean value...

But even if we set aside the imperfections in the data feed and assume that all the numbers are the actual numbers, it still isn't that simple. Particularly if, like me, you have ever experienced a degree of hypoglycaemia unawareness. Because you, dear non-diabetic reader, could be quite happily pottering along right now with a plamsa glucose concentration of 3.8mmol/L and no warning signs, and no one would care a hoot. For me and rest of the pancreatically-challenged horde though... things are different. If we don't get clanging warning signs at every 3.9 there is a breed of healthcare professional that will believe you are a danger to yourself, society at large and will be lucky to make it down the stairs without collapsing into a coma.

Don't get me wrong. I do not underestimate the severity of Impaired Awareness of Hypoglycaemia. Far from it. I have lived with it, and through it, and (particularly if associated with Severe Hypoglycaemia as it so often is) it is miserable for you, your family and everyone you are close to.

But if people without diabetes can be 3.8 and not hypo... then... well... er... Are we pancreas impersonators supposed to perform better than a fully-functioning non-D?!

Added to this - some guidance describes treating levels below 4.0mmol/L to avoid hypoglycaemia. From this standpoint 3.x-3.9mmol/L could be seen as offering a sort of 'buffer zone', a tiny whisker of breathing room before things might start getting messy. But 3.what?

This study suggests that most non-diabetic people will begin to experience some early warning signs in the region of 3.6-3.9mmol/L

While this study puts the level at which the brain begins to malfunction as 3.0mmol/L. And this, after all, is what we are actually trying to avoid at the end of the day.

But you don't have to have lived with diabetes for very long before you realise that the more 3.7's you have, the harder they are to spot. And the more likely you are to start getting 3.2s. And so on... and so on...


Plus ca change
And so it goes... I have some sub-4s, I try to have fewer. Some months it works. Other months it doesn't. Sometimes people are advised to 'run a bit higher' for a while (though there is little evidence that this relaxing of targets actually works to be honest). And I'm always caught by not really knowing how important a handful of readings between 3.5 and 4.0mmol/L are in the absence of Severe Hypoglycaemia and with relatively reliable warning signs that usually kick-in around 3.0-3.5mmol/L. And yet some clinic appointments make me feel like an abject failure for missing a 3.8 here or there. And the lower your HbA1c, the more twitchy your clinic tends to be about how many 'hypos' you are having - the very people who will be asked about your fitness to drive, for example. It's a quandary.


New strategy... Gimme 5
So as of this month, I have decided to try something new. I have been treating 5.0 as if it were 4.0. Any reading below 5.0 I have been treating as if hypo with fast-acting carbs (I have never been a follow-up carb person). And anything below 5.5 I have been treating more moderately with a smaller amount of fast carbs and/or a short sharp TBR - say 30-60 minutes dropped down to 10%.

Results so far are fairly encouraging. As an approach it certainly hasn't resulted in the general hike in BG averages that I have seen previously when trying to get rid of a few more of those pesky dips below 4. Hard to be sure and I'd have to run the system for a few more months but my best guess is that I might have lost perhaps 25-40% of sub-4 readings so far.

What do you think? Am I the only one who drives themselves nuts over this? How do you go about hypo-busting?

All supporters need support.

Mine is a supporters voice. As Mike's wife I would like to say I am there to support him in all that he needs. I try; though I freely admit to getting as fed up of diabetes as everyone else, I am not a particularly patient person. Anyway, I think the point is that I try. I'm pretty sure we all want to try, all us supporters; but it is not straight forward.

I recently met with a friend who was diagnosed with diabetes over ten years ago. I visited him in hospital, he had pneumonia along with a heap of complications which sounded suspiciously diabetes related. I asked him whether he had type 1 or type 2. He said, "I don't know." I'm not sure how well I hid my shock, I was pretty much lost for words. My friend lives with his mother. He was diagnosed when he was thirty. He is not adept at communication.

I also know his mother, who I am sure has all the feelings that any mother has when they find out their son has diabetes. I know from Mike's mum that that can include guilt, fear, and the desire to wrap in cotton wool and never let out of her sight ever again. My friend, unlike Mike, did not talk to his mother, and his mother, unlike Mike's, did not like to push for answers to the thousand questions simultaneously forming in her head. She has had to cope alone. She hasn't felt able to admit that her son's inability to communicate has left her at a loss as to how to support him. So what she does is try to look after him. She makes sure he always has a good big bowl of cereal for breakfast, and that there is always a choice of puddings on hand after his evening meal. He happily tucks in. The only piece of advice from a dietitian she has ever been present to hear is that a combination of grapes and banana is a really bad idea.

As the mother of a diabetic diagnosed in adulthood, she has never received any support. Mike's mum was in the same position, but blessed with Mike and then of course I came along and took him off her hands, again with no support and it is scary, but Mike helped me through. I am aware that Mike and my friend are at opposite ends of the communicative spectrum, most people must be somewhere in the middle. Mike is on his way to a long, healthy life, I wouldn't be surprised if he outlived me (my family have a history of heart disease). My friend is on his way to dialysis, losing his sight, losing his feet and dying before his mother. I believe his control would be greatly improved if his mother had been offered support. My guess is that most adult diabetics don't live alone, that many don't cook their own meals, so the responsibility for the control of their condition does not fall entirely in their hands. It can and should be shared.

All supporters need support.

Not counting - the cost. An open letter to Diabetes UK.

Dear Diabetes UK

I was diagnosed with type 1 Diabetes in 1991 and joined the then British Diabetic Association almost immediately. Over the years I have come to value the support, research-funding, campaigning and much of the information that the organisation provides. However I am writing this letter because I feel there is a significant and quite dangerous problem with the advice being given to newly diagnosed type 1 and newly insulin-using type 2 diabetics in the UK. I am appealing to Diabetes UK to work with the NHS and healthcare professionals to implement new guidelines which provide essential information to new insulin users.

The problem is this: People are being prescribed basal-bolus insulin regimes without sufficient information about carbohydrate counting.

The problem does not appear to be universal. Some HCPs still do things the 'old way' and provide information about measuring the quantity of carbohydrate to match insulin doses but in a few weeks' research I have come across dozens of people, diagnosed over the last 10 or 15 years who were told little or nothing about the relationship between carbohydrate and insulin when they started a basal-bolus regime.

Some patients have muddled through, working things out for themselves, others have sought help and advice from peers or online forums. Even more worryingly, some patients report that they have asked their clinic or surgery for more detailed information only to be told that, "We don't offer carb counting here...".

This is insane. This is quite frankly, not good enough.

People are being instructed on what doses of insulin to take, and only being told to eat a diet which is low in fat, high in fibre and contains 'some' starchy carbohydrate at every meal.

When you inject a bolus dose of rapid-acting insulin the clock begins to tick. If you have not eaten enough carbohydrate within something like 30-60 minutes then your blood glucose level will begin to fall. If your level was within guidelines before the meal then the risk of hypoglycaemia becomes almost a certainty. On the other hand, of course, if your meal contains too much carbohydrate then your blood glucose level will rise steeply above and beyond the recommended limits putting you at greater risk of developing diabetic complications.

However, and this is the nub of the problem, 'not enough' and 'too much' become meaningless if the diabetic has never been instructed to measure the amount of carbohydrate they are eating. The problems are all too real, and the solution all too simple.

Every diabetic put on basal-bolus MDI (multiple daily injections) therapy must be given instruction on estimating, measuring and monitoring the amount of carbohydrate in their diet.

When I was diagnosed 20 odd years ago this was the case. I was introduced to a simplified 'exchanges' system, where fixed doses of insulin were matched with specified numbers of 10g 'exchanges' of carbohydrate at every meal. Even with that basic framework in place retaining good diabetic control is far from easy. Without, it is all but impossible. Consider this example:

Mr X, a newly diagnosed type 1 diabetic is told to administer 5 units of rapid-acting insulin to cover his evening meal and to eat low fat, high fibre diet which includes starchy carbohydrate. On Monday he has gammon, vegetables and new potatoes. On Tuesday he has soup and a wholewheat roll. Wednesday's meal is a wholewheat pasta bake. His meals, while in line with his dietary guidelines, contain approximately 50g, 35g and 70g of carbohydrate respectively, and yet he takes the same 5 units of insulin each time. One evening he is fine, another he goes hypo, another he ends up high. In 6 weeks he sees his DSN (diabetes specialist nurse) who tells him that his HbA1c is worryingly high and that he is having too many hypos. If his DSN looks at his blood glucose diary there will be a scattered pattern of highs and lows because, though the insulin doses are fixed, the carbs being eaten vary significantly and are not being measured or monitored. The amount of carbohydrate Mr X needs to match his fixed doses may be different to Mr Y. It may change over time, or if Mr X is more or less active than usual. But unless he is monitoring what he eats, he and his DSN will have no information on which to base informed changes to his regimen.

Some diabetics for whom 'MDI has failed' are put on insulin pump therapy. At which point they are automatically given instruction on carbohydrate counting, and rightly so. For many this is a lightbulb moment. But in all honesty there is little real difference in a 5 unit bolus given by pump and another by injection. Both will require a measured response in terms of carbohydrate eaten to avoid hypo- or hyperglycaemia.

I have no idea why it was thought better to give people less information to help them manage their diabetes. If you go back 15 years or so it seems everyone on insulin was taught the importance of counting carbs. When I was told by my own DSN that "we don't really do exchanges any more" I wondered what had replaced it. It horrifies me to think that what replaced a simple understandable framework was, in some cases, nothing. This can only have lead to poorer control, worsening HbA1c results and, by extension, more hospitalisations due to hypoglycaemia and a higher likelihood of patients developing costly (in all senses of the word) diabetic complications.

To advise people to take insulin without educating them about measuring the carbohydrate they need to eat in response is madness bordering on the negligent.

I urge Diabetes UK to work with the NHS and the government to ensure that every diabetic treated with insulin is given a simple framework of education, perhaps as little as a 10 minute consultation, that will help them understand the fundamental relationship between insulin doses, grams of carbohydrate and blood glucose levels.

Yours sincerely
Mike K

cc Dawn Primarolo MP Bristol South; Paul Burstow MP Minister of State for Care Services (inc Diabetes); The Editor, Balance Magazine

Update: If you reading this post has made you interested in carb counting yourself and your care team do not offer it, you might want to look at the Bournemouth (BDEC) online carb-counting course.

Update: The carb counting black hole

Walking the line (or why I don't like Mondays)

The other day I was reading on a forum where a fellow type 1 diabetic was struggling with a GP who was unhappy that they were testing too often.

Testing too often...

Someone else's GP had made a suggestion that anything more than two or three times a day was really a bit much. Actually I think they had talked their GP up from a prescription of 50 strips for 2 months. That's not much more than once a day. And certainly doesn't seem to acknowledge the DVLA guidelines for testing before (and every two hours during) any driven journey.

Sometimes it seems GPs just don't understand what it's like to live with diabetes day to day. Here's how it feels:

In the southwest of the UK there is the busy 'North Devon Link Road', for much of its length overtaking is forbidden by a pair of white lines down the middle just a few inches apart. Being a diabetic is like being asked to walk along that line. Blindfold. And backwards. As it twists and turns you'll have to avoid straying into the surging hypo-traffic rushing up on you from behind, or the thundering diabetic-complication lorries bearing down on you from ahead. A few times a day you are allowed to peep out from under the blindfold to see where you are and make a correction. Though if you look more than 6 or 7 times a day your GP may well say that you are looking a bit too often, and they have read a report that said it makes your walk more difficult. You just need to try a bit harder. Or you are trying a bit too hard. You should try walking a bit more towards the lorry side for a while. In fact what you really want to be able to do is to cut some little holes in the blindfold. But unfortunately those CGMS scissors are far too expensive. If you are lucky you might get one for a week, but if it's an old pair the doctor would look though the holes at the end of the week, then sew them up again.

Sometimes for all of us the road is wigglier than others. The traffic is especially heavy. The strategies and methods you usually rely on don't seem to work at all. Or work way too much. The road-walking equivalent of a dizzy spell.

The current cloud on my weekly horizon is Mondays. I seem to need a different set of insulin:carb ratios to avoid drifting teen-wards all day. Especially bad in the mornings, by evening meal while trying to correct I can overdo it and then drift low. Monday is the day furthest from a usual gym session, which might have something to do with it - exercise has a knock on effect for me for quite some time. I'm still having a tricky time of things working out what the current Monday ratio needs to be. I could tell you what it was a few months ago, but that doesn't work at the moment.

And that dear GPs is why we need to test so often. Very sorry if that is slightly financially inconvenient for you.