If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
GD again (FAO Ericka)
Hi ericka
This is from the ivillage site that you put forward to look at, and my comments in "The standard GD diet is a good one; adequate calories, limit simple sugars, moderate fat intake, eat whole grains and plenty of fruits and vegetables and eat smaller meals more frequently. Also beneficial is the advice to engage in moderate, regular exercise. If that was all that happened, identification as a gestational diabetic would be a good thing. This is what happened for me in 2nd pg and not 1st Some tracking of blood sugars to make sure they aren't drifting into the true diabetic range is probably also a good thing, as is identifying the one in a thousand women who has or will develop glucose values in that range. However, most women will find themselves caught up in frequent doctor visits, multiple daily blood tests yes and yes, but i dont mind overcautious, restrictive diets yes, but i think it is what i needed and wouldnt have strict enough without the gd dx and prescrbited treatment , possibly insulin injections no luckily, repeated fetal surveillance tests again, i wont argue against over cautiousness and a considerable chance of a labor induction or cesarean section had an elective c. " i thought that article was really interesting ericka, thanks. so many things there rang true, like the dx of gd being so arbitrary. i am curious, if you dont mind me asking, why are you against the GTT for yourself? DO you do the regular blood test yourself? IF the answer is yes, i am with you on that - the test is revolting, i am planning to screen, and i guess do regular screening 20 weeks +. anyway, i respect your views on this topic ericka, thanks for posting them. keep them coming, it is going to be a long 35 more weeks! christine #3 edd 16 april 05 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
GD again (FAO Ericka)
Mamma Mia wrote:
i am curious, if you dont mind me asking, why are you against the GTT for yourself? DO you do the regular blood test yourself? IF the answer is yes, i am with you on that - the test is revolting, i am planning to screen, and i guess do regular screening 20 weeks +. You didn't ask me, but I thought I would share anyway, so I hope you don't mind. ;-) I personally didn't do the test because I pee on test sticks all the time. Seriously, if anything were to actually go wrong, it would show up right away. We (i.e. DH, the midwife, and myself) all decided to use this method of detection rather than go for a test that will do nothing but make them keep checking to see if I'm peeing sugar. ;-) Well, I'm checking for that all the time already... As it turns out, I suddenly started feeling like crap (lately) and have had massive thirst, so we did a quick blood test, but as the midwife expected, all was perfectly normal. (I now suspect that the massive thirst is really just me loving the cold water going down my throat, plus my mouth is *always* dry because I'm unable to breathe properly through my nose) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
GD again (FAO Ericka)
Mamma Mia wrote:
i am curious, if you dont mind me asking, why are you against the GTT for yourself? DO you do the regular blood test yourself? IF the answer is yes, i am with you on that - the test is revolting, i am planning to screen, and i guess do regular screening 20 weeks +. I know that my blood sugars are normal when I am not pregnant, so I am not dealing with diagnosing true diabetes (or near-diabetes) during pregnancy. Since treatment for GD doesn't significantly improve outcomes, the only benefit I see is that it could give me a heads up about a risk of future type 2 diabetes; however, other risk factors predict that equally well and I am certainly capable of being screened for that again if I wish at another time when the results will not negatively affect my pregnancy or birth. On the flip side, if I *did* screen or test positive for GD, there would be a whole can of worms to deal with, which could have (unjustifiably, in my opinion) limited my birth options and been all around annoying. With nothing useful to balance them against, I chose not to do it. I do strive for a healthy diet while pregnant anyway, so I don't see the point of having a test result just to reinforce that decision. Knowing I do not have true diabetes, I would not consider insulin regardless. Best wishes, Ericka |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
GD again (FAO Ericka)
Ericka Kammerer" wrote
On the flip side, if I *did* screen or test positive for GD, there would be a whole can of worms to deal with, which could have (unjustifiably, in my opinion) limited my birth options and been all around annoying. I wish I had asked you last time. AFTER I was diagnosed I did a lot of research and realized that I was on the cusp (and wouldn't have been diagnosed with a slightly different set of numbers, which vary by practitioner). I kept to a reasonably good diet but just couldn't get my breakfast number low. OTOH, first thing in the morning was always really low (like 65) so I knew that I wasn't a true diabetic. SIL had high numbers all of the time (even if she tested in the middle of the night) so I knew my GD was different. I also knew that the diagnosis made everything more difficult from having to convince the practice that I could use the midwives (instead of the OB), that I would not allow a late term u/s to determine the size of the baby, that there were times (like business meetings) where one cannot control as much as one might like what one eats and that I was eating well. The more I think about it, the more I bet that part of the reason that E was early and reasonably small was that I was eating virtually no carbs (not so healthy) to keep my sugars low. This time, I'm going to refuse the test and track my blood sugar myself. I'll keep some carbs in my diet and expect my sugars to be a bit higher than usual. Unlike the doctors, I won't freak at an occasional 120 as long as it is occasional. I also plan to keep doing that research. Thank you so much!!!!! -- Melissa (in Los Angeles) Mum to Elizabeth 4/13/03 and ??? due early 3/05 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
GD again (FAO Ericka)
Ericka Kammerer wrote: nothing useful to balance them against, I chose not to do it. I do strive for a healthy diet while pregnant anyway, so I don't see the point of having a test result just to reinforce that decision. Needless ice cream restriction. G Mary S. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
GD again (FAO Ericka)
Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Vicky Bilaniuk wrote: You didn't ask me, but I thought I would share anyway, so I hope you don't mind. ;-) I personally didn't do the test because I pee on test sticks all the time. Seriously, if anything were to actually go wrong, it would show up right away. You know, that's not really valid at all. Many diabetics do not spill sugar in their urine, and many women who spill sugar in their urine have normal glucose metabolism. Of course, it doesn't bother me not to screen in situations where true diabetes is unlikely (and if it is likely, screening needs to start much earlier), but testing urine is not an effective screening method. Oh sorry I probably should have added that they are watching for other signs, too. They're not doing anything special, though - just the standard stuff they do at every visit. Anyway, we just didn't think that it was necessary to do the test. There is also my history, which contributed to my belief that the test wasn't necessary (I've been tested many times for diabetes, as part of the long list of tests I went through before finally being diagnosed with pernicious anemia, and my glucose levels were always perfectly normal). I told them that I was willing to take the risk of not getting the test done, and they seemed fine with just relying on everything else. We figured that if anything showed up on the test sticks, it would be an indication that the problem was already well at hand and needing investigation. Thanks for the article. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
GD again (FAO Ericka)
Vicky Bilaniuk wrote:
Oh sorry I probably should have added that they are watching for other signs, too. There really aren't any signs of GD. If you believe it is essential to diagnose GD, then the only way to do it with any reliability at all is by blood test. They're not doing anything special, though - just the standard stuff they do at every visit. Anyway, we just didn't think that it was necessary to do the test. Well, *that* I agree with, because I don't think it's important to diagnose GD ;-) There is also my history, which contributed to my belief that the test wasn't necessary (I've been tested many times for diabetes, as part of the long list of tests I went through before finally being diagnosed with pernicious anemia, and my glucose levels were always perfectly normal). Which would absolutely reinforce my decision not to screen or test for GD. But if you *do* believe that true GD (rather than actual diabetes just being diagnosed for the first time in pregnancy) is necessary to diagnose, then you could easily miss it without a blood test. In other words, I think your care is absolutely great. I just don't think it'll pick up GD if you have it, but I don't think it's important for you to pick it up if you have it, so it's a rather moot point in my book ;-) Best wishes, Ericka |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
GD again (FAO Ericka)
Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Vicky Bilaniuk wrote: Oh sorry I probably should have added that they are watching for other signs, too. There really aren't any signs of GD. If you believe Well they told me to watch out for things like increased thirst. There was something else, but I might be confusing it with preeclampsia symptoms (weight gain?). it is essential to diagnose GD, then the only way to do it with any reliability at all is by blood test. And sadly, even that can be unreliable, if it's anything like testing for normal diabetes, at least. That's why I got tested multiple times, in the past. They wouldn't trust just one no. I forget now, but I know I was tested at least 2 or 3 times. My results were always so normal that I never had to do a 3 hour test. In other words, I think your care is absolutely great. I just don't think it'll pick up GD if you have it, but I don't think it's important for you to pick it up if you have it, so it's a rather moot point in my book ;-) Um, yeah, I think that's pretty much what we all arrived at. ;-) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Is there any good reason for me to test for GD, since I know this will be a
C-section anyway? I can't see where having a large baby is a problem, and from what I've read, that's the only thing which seems conclusively linked to GD. I'm having enough blood drawn and testing done in this pregnancy, it would be really nice to be able to skip SOMETHING and avoid the stress! |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FAO Ericka krammener | Mamma Mia | Pregnancy | 5 | August 10th 04 01:41 PM |
Killfiles and blocked posters//ATTN Ericka | Jill | Pregnancy | 6 | April 17th 04 12:42 PM |
39 + week checkup & Thanks to Ericka! | Auntie Bubbles | Pregnancy | 7 | April 17th 04 06:38 AM |
FAO Ericka (or anyone else who might know) - reply | hierophant | Pregnancy | 4 | March 30th 04 06:40 PM |
Happy birthday to Ericka (Kammerer) and L.A.'s daughter | Laurie | Pregnancy | 4 | September 12th 03 02:41 AM |