Posted on 02/07/2008 8:03:26 PM PST by neverdem
For decades, researchers believed that if people with diabetes lowered their blood sugar to normal levels, they would no longer be at high risk of dying from heart disease. But a major federal study of more than 10,000 middle-aged and older people with Type 2 diabetes has found that lowering blood sugar actually increased their risk of death, researchers reported Wednesday.
The researchers announced that they were abruptly halting that part of the study, whose surprising results call into question how the disease, which affects 21 million Americans, should be managed.
The study’s investigators emphasized that patients should still consult with their doctors before considering changing their medications.
Among the study participants who were randomly assigned to get their blood sugar levels to nearly normal, there were 54 more deaths than in the group whose levels were less rigidly controlled. The patients were in the study for an average of four years when investigators called a halt to the intensive blood sugar lowering and put all of them on the less intense regimen.
The results do not mean blood sugar is meaningless. Lowered blood sugar can protect against kidney disease, blindness and amputations, but the findings inject an element of uncertainty into what has been dogma — that the lower the blood sugar the better and that lowering blood sugar levels to normal saves lives.
Medical experts were stunned.
“It’s confusing and disturbing that this happened,” said Dr. James Dove, president of the American College of Cardiology. “For 50 years, we’ve talked about getting blood sugar very low. Everything in the literature would suggest this is the right thing to do,” he added.
Dr. Irl Hirsch, a diabetes researcher at the University of Washington, said the study’s results would be hard to explain to some patients who have spent years...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Check USAToday. The aggressively treated folks had about 10% fewer non-fatal MIs, IIRC.
There are SO MANY VARIABLES in human health.....and people with diabetes usually have OTHER problems.....
More confusing medical information.
It boggles the mind.
Cool, more ice cream!
Which is the problem with the vast majority of these "studies".
Confounding with the ACCORD results, go figure. Maybe there was a selection bias. Who knows?
Freepmail me if you want on or off of the diabetes ping list.
6.4% vs. 7.9%?? That can’t be right.
Could anyone convert that to mg/dL? (that’s milligrams per deciliter). My blood sugar meter is in those units.
As I recall, one pint of blood is about a pound.
One deciliter of blood would be about 466000 mg.
So by weight, 100 mg/dL looks to be about 0.02%.
Now the fasting level should be 80-100 mg/dL. However I don’t think my max is more than 0.1% by weight.
I can’t believe the proportions by volume would be vastly different.
ping
Do you take any cod liver oil?
Well, it means that this drug had other effects they had not counted on. They are discovering that diabetes is influenced by so many factors in the body including the brain, the kidneys, the liver, the intestines, and even active enzymes, etc. in body fat. You can’t just slash one thing and not expect other things to be affected, too.
I think the same applies to statins. I won’t take them, because of what I believe they do to other systems in the body. My doctor isn’t too happy with me. If I am wrong, she can come stand on my air hose after my heart attack and tell me “I told you so.” Obviously, a lot of people swear by statins. We each have to make those choices for ourselves. And, yes, it is confusing and much of the information is contradictory.
BTW, I am borderline diabetic and the only thing that keeps my blood sugar under control is an extremely low carb diet. It isn’t fat in the diet that is bad for you. It is what carbohydrates do in combination with fat. It’s not an easy diet to follow, but it’s the best one for me.
Have you looked at using Red Yeast Rice (be careful...they are like statins, but natural)....you might want to look into them.
LOL!! I just grabbed a candy bar.
Thanks, but I am not even convinced that cholesterol is the problem that the current wisdom says it is. In fact, people with very low cholesterol levels are more susceptible to cancer, at least that has been shown to be true in some studies.
I’m not trying to tell anyone else what to do. We all have to try to make some sense out of all the confusing medical information out there. If I’m wrong, then I’ll have to live with the consequences.
I do appreciate your suggestion, though. It’s very kind of you.
It looks like the intent of the study was to validate the notion that taking more insulin and medications in order to more tightly control blood glucose levels would be a good thing. The maroons did not bother to suspect that the negative effects of the extra insulin could outweigh the benefits of lower glucose. How about that! Insulin is known to be a killer and is responsible for the destruction of the fine capillaries everywhere.
This is astonishing.
Your welcome. I have a hereditary small dense LDL....found through the VAP test (same cost as a reg cholesterol test, except they do expanded testing).....anyhoooo....I’m thinking of doing the red yeast rice thingy....I agree with you about whether “cholesterol” esp. total cholesterol, and whether it’s a problem....OH....I had a paternal g-father die in his sleep at age 50 of massive heart attack....so, I do try to watch it.....
This study is extremely flawed !if the BS was lowered by insulin, no wonder the increase in heart conditions.
Too much Insulin will cause heart and feet and eye problems.
Some types of Type II is insulin resistance, if you add injected insulin it will cause all the problems.
However if you lower BS by diet and exercise it will not cause increased Heart, fee and eye problems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.