Talk:Blood sugar level

Measurement

This article needs information on how blood glucose levels are measured or a link to the same information. Regards.

Afternoon sleepies

Here [1] I see :

The Afternoon Sleepies

I used to suffer from this big time. Around two or three in the afternoon,
I'd start to get drowsy and nothing I did could fix it. A lot of people
suffer from this, but don't know the reason.

The most likely cause is low blood sugar. A large lunch, especially with
lots of starchy foods, will cause your blood sugar to spike and then crash.

... I don't know how true this is ... I added a short piece about it, that information would be useful in this page. But I don't know how valid it is. Flammifer 08:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not at all :) People commonly attribute this to their lunch, but that's a fallacy of corrolation implying causation. Actually, people naturally have a dip in their circadian rhythm at that point, and it really has very little (if anything) to do with food. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BennyD (talk • contribs) 15:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

It's not terribly consistent with the way insulin and glucagon work in nondiabetics who aren't insulin-resistant. There is indeed a spike of insulin immediately after a meal (actually during the meal, as blood sugar spikes), but a few factors ensure that this doesn't result in rebound hypoglycemia. The major one is that the quantity of insulin released is almost never enough to fully correct the postprandial spike in blood sugar-- that's why there is a second, slower release of insulin that comes longer after a meal, and which tapers off very gradually. Reactive hypoglycemia does seem to be a real phenomenon, but it is quite rare-- certainly nowhere near as common as mainstream diet literature would lead you to believe.-- Kajerm

I get the post lunch sleepies too, but only after eating a hot meal. I've been eating half a cold sandwich and fruit for lunch for over a decade and I never seem to develope lethargy after eating. Size of a meal will affect me too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.21.163 (talk) 18:04:31, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Determination

Perhaps we should mention here the chemical determination of sugar levels. I found the classical reference for an early method (Somogyi, M. Determination of blood sugar. J. biol. Chem. 1945, 160, 69.) JFW | T@lk 22:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Other Sugars in Blood

I think it would be a good idea to add some more on other sugars found in blood, and how thay are used. I'm not exactly sure what other sugars are in blood or the relative concentrations. Anyone know? User:tcopley 00:10, 4 April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.4.228.192 (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Diabetes and relation to eczema

Is there a relationship of diabetes to eczema? 209.221.206.240 15:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Unit

"Countries that use the metric system use mmol/L. The U.S. uses mg/dL." - Not correct (while not completely false, though). In Germany mmol/l is the common unit used in puplications, science and theoretical medicine, while mg/dl is common in practical medicine (clinical and EMS). As an EMT I'm used to the mg/dl scale (since most glucometers work with it), as a biologist I work with the mmol/l scale. If somebody is going to correct/review the articel, he may consider this. Just sayin. --89.245.7.33 12:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You could have fixed that yourself. I went ahead and corrected it a little. I particularly liked how, as in many Wikipedia articles, someone had clearly tried to spin the sentence in the most anti-US way they could come up with. I sure hope this bias will taper off a little now that Bush is out. 24.174.30.146 (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Does anyone know why the US, which uses all imperial units for most things, use the metric system for measuring blood glucose levels? While I'm not one to disagree, most of the metric-using world uses mmol/l. This is practically the one case where the US uses the metric system and everyone else uses a different "variation", if you will, of the metric system. Just wondering if anyone knows why...

I wouldn't say the US uses imperial units for most things. It uses imperial units for certain publicly visible things, like speed limits and cookbooks. Science, medicine, and, to a large extent, engineering in the US are in metric just like everywhere else in the world. And the metric system doesn't say anything about whether you should measure blood glucose in terms of molarity or mass concentration. It's up to the doctors to decide which quantity they care about more, that's all. 24.174.30.146 (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the US has been officially metric since not long after the Civil War (ended 1865). That the population has ignored the official declaration by the Federal Government hasn't much to do with it, really. ww (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Table

Can someone please fix the "Chemical Methods" table, so that it is the same width as the rest of the page? I'd do it, but maybe someone else can do it much faster. Thank you to all who contribute to Wikipedia!!!

WriterHound 23:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

this article makes several references to various coloured tubes. Since this isn't standardized internationally, either the relevant country should be mentioned (US?) or just remove the information (as I don't really think it's all that relevant). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.187.34.100 (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

MMOL and other jargon

I'm reading this page because I don't know much about diabetes, glucose, etc. The use of jargon like "mmol" without a link to what "mmol" means might be fine for someone familiar with these units of measure, but for the rest of us, an explanation or a link might be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.220.154 (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

diff btw serum and whole blood values

HELLO.....IM CURIOUS AS TO WHY IT MATTERS WHETHER YOUR BLOOD IS ISOLATED AS SERUM OR PLASMA. WHATS YOUR REFERENCE FOR THIS?? FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT JUSTS SEEMS A BIT ODD. GOOD ARTICLE FOR THIS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.116.185 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Blood without the cells (ie, as serum) has slightly different glucose concentration than whole blood (with the cells). The reason is two fold. First the cells take up volume and so affect the ratios, and second red blood cells don't require insulin to take in glucose. Thus, they will continue to use it, reducing the amount present (sometimes said to 5-7% per hour). Since labs use serum for much of their chemistry testing, it's the serum level which is regarded as definitive when reporting glucose levels. Since few actual people carry around centrifuges for separating out the cells, home meters (and many of those used in hospitals and clinics) just measure using whole blood. There is a conversion factor between typical serum and whole blood readings for the same sample. Some meters have included an option for reporting either (they apply the conversino factor internally). In home use, the common advice is to always use one or the other, but also to remember which in case there is a discrepancy between a lab and your readings. The important issue in the field is the trend if any related to events (food exercise, insulin administration, ...), not the exact value just now or last week. Hb1Ac readings will not be affected, as the issue is one of measurement technique and has nothing to do with anything that's actually going on in one's blood. It knows nothing about whether you're measuring via serum or whole blood or capillary blood or venous blood or in mml or mg/dl. ww (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Red-top tubes

Can I point out that only serum blood-collection tubes sold by Becton-Dickinson are red-topped? Other manufacturers have different colour-coding schemes. --05:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You certainly can. And you can certainly be bold and correct the information, since it seems you're well informed on the topic? Please, don't hesitate! ww (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuacy

The article talks about the target range being 4-6 mmol/L. This is accurate. 4-6 mmol/L translates to 72-108 mg/dl (multiply by 18). To convert from mg/dl to g/ 5 L, we'd divide by 1000 (mg->g), multiply by 10 (dl->L), and then multiply by 5? This gives 3.6-5.4 grams of sugar in the blood stream, not 3.3 to 7g, as reported. Even using the 70-100 mg/dl figure the article mentions, the range is 3.5-5g. 192.75.95.127 (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions catabolic hormones including growth hormone. Growth hormone is anabolic (NOT catabolic)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.31.201 (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Be bold. correct it... ww (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

removed text

The following text was removed from the very bottom of the article for two reason: it was in the wrong place, and second it's oddly formed. If the poster will try angin, please??

Category of a person Fasting Value Post Prandial

Minimum Value Maximum Value Value 2 hours after consuming glucose

Normal

70 100 Less than 140

Early Diabetes

101 126 140 to 200

Established

Diabetes More than 126 - More than 200

ww (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

article intro

Technical observance from a linguist and book-lover. The introductory paragraphs, while informative, provides more than the essential definition of blood sugar. I suggest the debate over the use of the term, its etymology, etc. be transferred to its own subsection. I will do just that. If anyone has objections, please advise.

The original first graph for your consideration, in which 'Blood sugar' is immediately qualified as a 'term':

Blood sugar is a term which in colloquial usage refers to the amount of glucose present in a mammal's blood. However, the term, if used in a physiological context, is a misnomer and misleading because other sugars besides glucose are always present. However, since these other sugars are largely inert, and only glucose serves as a controlling signal for metabolic regulation, the term has gained some currency and is used by medical persons and lay persons alike. Glucose, transported via the bloodstream from the intestines or liver to body cells, is the primary source of energy for the body's cells.

User:EvanWis 8:52, 26 December 2008 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.181.18 (talk)

inconsistency between chart given and text in Normal Values section

"In most humans this varies from about 80 mg/dl to perhaps 110 mg/dl (3.9 to 6.0 mmol/litre) except shortly after eating when the blood glucose level rises temporarily (up to maybe 140 mg/dl or a bit more in non-diabetics)."

This exposition of "normal values" doesn't really match the chart shown from Suckale, et al. for waking hours.

What gives? Plaasjaapie (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right. It doesn't match most normal humans either. The figure is beautiful, so perhaps asking for truth and beauty is a tall order. The original paper says it is redrawn from Daly in Am J Nutrition. I haven't taken the trouble to look up that reference, but would be surprised if it is data based rather than idealized, since Am J Nutrition is not where we would expect actual continuous glucose monitoring results of normal humans to be published. The peaks at 200 for an hour after meals seem too high. Perhaps Suckale could answer us? alteripse (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Animals

As many biological articles, this one is anthropocentric. It should include sections about animals (including invertebrates). --Urod (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)...

Merge with Glycemia

Should this page be merged with Glycemia? 71.90.4.141 (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There is little content in that article at present, and so I oppose a merge. Furthermore the term is most commonly used as hypo+ or hyper+ and is unusual alone. Rather than a merge, I'd favor someone extracting the addable content from glycemia, adding it to blood sugar, and setting glycemia to be a redirect to blood sugar. ww (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ww for all the same reasones, but actually we are both endorsing a merge of glycemia into this article. alteripse (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)