Target bg level for diabetic person

Before a meal (preprandial plasma glucose): 80–130 mg/dl 1-2 hours after beginning of the meal (Postprandial plasma glucose)*: Less than 180 mg/dl

do you think, is it correct or wrong target range ?

Last edited by

Featured Content

Living with diabetes?

Connect with people like you to get support, advice and tips towards improving your health.

Get started!

Featured by HealthUnlocked

38 Replies

  • Before a meal (preprandial plasma glucose): 80–130 mg/dl 1-2 hours after beginning of the meal (Postprandial plasma glucose)*: Less than 180 mg/dl

    what is logic behind these numbers??

  • My question is "what is the target range for diabetic person ?" . I follow the above bg range for me. But in forum, people will tell, this bg level is not acceptable.

    There is no logic in this number.

  • diabetes is a malady created by the people ,for the people and of the people . So it is a waste to search for a logic .We only have to manage once we get in to that state by our own efforts . Since we can't afford to face the complications , we have to take the medicines in the initial stages . Later on after coming to normal ranges it is advisable to stop all the medicines and have tight food control with reasonable and sensible life style . The more we go to modern medicine the more suffering we would have to face . Medical field is utterly , butterly corrupt . Very few doctors are sincere in giving reasonable advice . The rest are sold to pharmaseutical companies . Search for revealing statements given by DR Hegde .----padmavibhushan B.M.HEGDE

  • I fully endorse the opinion of Mr. Hegde.

  • I truly agree the pharmaceutical are the ones who make the readings so stringent so more people start taking medicines, it read in a hand book of glucometer that is of Japan these readings are recommended Fasting 12 hrs the BS should be less than 125 mg/dl and PP less than 160 mg/dl I am maintaining this and on medicines over 15 years, tab only. I am physically active golf, walking and cycling food only 100 gms of carb in one day distributed over 3 meals no stress and very happy at this 65 years.

  • According to one view expressed by British medical fraternity long back , PPBS can be up to 160. Now all the target ranges in cholesterol , BP , BG have been reduced drastically to push the revenues through the sales of medicines and supplements .

  • Chandradev,

    Everyone is different-- same as diabetes. Some blood sugars are low, but the same number that is low may be "normal" for another person who is also diabetic. Please check with your doctor before anything is changed.

  • We are more alike than different Activity2004; we are all recognisable as homo sapiens.

    An average fasting blood glucose consistently creeping above 5.5 isn't healthy, whether it is 'normal' for an individual or not.

  • If the waist measurement is half that of the height ,one is in safe zone . A small variation of 5% ,this way or that way depending upon age is allowable . If soft drinks and meat is dropped from the food list , one would be free from diabetes and many types of cancers.Meat as it is , is not bad , but to day the quality is very much compromised. The same logic applies to milk and milk products .If the quality is assured one can go for both of them with out any fear of numbers and medicines .The golden rule is calorie restraint after certain age .

  • do you think, is it correct or wrong target range ?

    Wrong range.

    Blood sugar target should be,

    FBS <90. PPBS <120 and never spike above 140.

    Premeal nos. AFAP near baseline that is FBS or at least < 100.

  • My experience is,if you are on insulin you need to increase the threshold depending on the dosage and your age.There is no one rule that fits all.You have to work out asafe range suitable to you.

  • A 11 year old Type 1, whose mother is a MD herself, is aiming for less than 6 and hit 5.5 and prefers staying there. Since last 1 year on LCHF she has been in the 5.5 to 5.7 range.

    Needless to say, this was only achieved because of LCHF.

    There's no logic as to why anyone should keep higher blood sugars. We firmly believe based on lot of literature, that we should aim for A1C of 5.6 or lower to minimize long term diabetic complications. And, we are successfully getting there based on LCHF diet.

  • on the modern medicine ' Please go through DR.B.M. Hegde's lectures . Diabetes is created by drug mafia . All the companies , doctors , govts involved in this mafia should be ashamed of the colossal loss they have done to humanity in terms of sufferings , financial and physical strain and pain.

  • swathy

    You seem to be quite angry with doctors 😳. But still we need to go to them.

    "Diabetes is created by drug mafia . All the companies , doctors , govts involved in this mafia should be ashamed of the colossal loss..." very harsh and unwarranted statements.

    "diabetes is a malady created by the people ,for the people and of the people . So it is a waste to search for a logic". 😆😆😆. Medical science is a logic but to be proven with scientific evidences. Shashikantiyengar is absolutely right. The normal fasting range is 80-85 and pp < 120 and never spike above 140.

    Premeal nos. AFAP near baseline that is FBS or at least < 100.

    But is that a logic ? A hype or as you say conspiracy ? No. It's science. If bs goes beyond 140 at anytime the glucose concentration in the tissues increases dragging water / fluid behind it causing tissues to be flooded with fluid. And all the complications of D is due to the tissues getting bloated with water. It's good to bash doctors - a fashion nowadays - but then do you have proofs for your allegations ? 😃😃😄😄

  • '' Have you seen blood glucose ''

  • swathy

    I don't think i understand.

  • google search for DR .Hegde.B.M. GO to you tube.

  • FBS ~90

    PPBS 1 hr: 140 max

    PPBS 2 hr: 120 max

    A1C: 5.6 max

    Ignore what mainstream tells you. They will give u ADA range which is surely not good.

  • Targets can be 110 in fasting , up to 160 in ppbs. This is allowable limit . No point in running miles and miles . Instead have control over food intake . After 20 years liver does not grow in size . So taking food half or on 2 / 3 is sufficient . Once the sugar levels are controlled , one would not be hungry all the time . 3 medium sized meals , with a plantain ,with an orange , with one dark chacolate for in between nibbling keep one in good and happy state .

  • Taking half or one-third for life long and lose muscles?

    Hypo Caloric approach life long is impossible. It is a failed theory. Not even world champion in calorie counting can achieve long term results based on calorie-in calorie-out theory as there are no numbers on how many calories go down the loo

  • once the extra food is not needed , if two third or one half is taken , the body retains the muscles at the level at which extra food is curtailed . Almost all people take extra food and that gets reflected in extra weight and extra bulges by the time they reach 40.So the contention of loosing muscles by limiting the intake does not arise .

  • I have quoted many real world studies on hypo caloric being a relatively failed concept. U can find them in list of posts:

    Calorie counting itself is a failed science.

    Not sure how body retains muscles when you starve, unless one is a BMI 35 person with loads of fat stored in body due to high carb diet for decades.

    Show some studies please.

  • it is not starvation but is limiting the intake extra food intake. Precisely the same point is being stressed that ''extra loads of fat stored in the body ''takes care of the muscles even after the food reduction.To prove this point we need not make any studies . Every where around us we see people with extra loads of fat stored in their bodies due to intake of excess for decades . At least if they put a stop to that practice at the age of 35 they wouldn't become diabetics . This view holds good primarily in case of type2 . Type 1 is altogether different problem .Now the epidemic level of diabetes is due to pollution in life in general----- in food ,water , air ,atmosphere , and a host of other reasons some controllable and some uncontrollable . A step in the direction of control can give a solution to some extent .

  • Limited intake (reduced calorie by half to one-third) is not starvation then what is it? Where's the deficit coming from? Air?

    Unfortunately, I look for studies than opinions. Sorry about that.

  • There is a small communication mistake , the food intake to be reduced is 1/3 and taken is 2/3 in case of people up to 60 and half after 60 .This stipulation is under the assumption that no physical exercise and the person has sedentary life style . I think that's what many of our elders followed in the days of yore . In case of hard work the intake can be proportionate to the energy spent .An averagely built person needs minimum of 2000 calories with moderate work . In the absence of any work if he goes on taking food of 3000 calories just as he was taking at the age of 30 ,the extra calories get stored in the body as fat reserves .In such a case he can take 2/3 up to 60 and then can take up to 1200 or 1400 after 60. There are no strict rules . It is a case of demand and supply .

  • So, eating 500 kcal from fat that doesn't raise insulin levels is the same as eating 500 kcal from carbohydrate that spikes insulin?

    This difference alone should flag a warning that we may not be as efficient at obtaining all the calories from different foods equally, especially when compared to a calorimeter.

  • We've tried this hypothesis, and over the last fifty years average body weight has soared.

    Reducing fat intake because it is more calorie dense is the least convincing argument; we could just add water to make the calorie density the same as carbohydrate and protein. A consequence of eating low calorie dense food in this manner is that it stretches our stomach enabling us to eat more.

    Let's try an alternative hypothesis; since carbohydrate has the biggest influence on blood glucose levels, eat less of it.

  • Brilliant on stomach stretch on low cal density food. I have never agreed t this theory of eating less. We eat to satiety and still keep out weight n control and also blood sugar levels are something that majority on these fad diets (hypo calorie etc) can never attain.

    One has to look at insulin response and that's science. :)

    No one has ever answered on how metabolism changes with macro nutrients, how it behaves with hypo calorie (it goes down) how much of calorie goes down the loo.

  • The very concept of blood glucose levels and their calculation and effect on the health is wrong .

  • Diabetes is not a problem then?

  • artificially created disorder which is described by the spike of sugar . But the cause is different which has to be unearthed and present method of treatment or diet is not correct and it is making the disorder more dangerous more widespread.

  • Probably you are looking at wrong science and data.

  • definitely not.

  • So where's your science/data for us to see? I guess you have never posted any reference during all these years that you have been here under seven or eight different usernames. Merely saying something and not providing any reference is just OPINION.

  • All the information thrown around via media and net is not science. What I am giving is the knowledge passed on from our elders . Any way if any reference is demanded that can be seen in DR.Hegde's books and articles . Please go to youtube .

  • I am asking for your science.

    How many does Dr Hegde have with A1C of 5.6 or lower? Or he also believes that 6.5 to 7.0 is great number to have.

    That said, by your own logic, Dr Hegde's youtube videos don't become science if everything that we talk we give studies to refer to and yet you ignore them. For one Dr Hegde there are 10 doctors who preach LCHF on youtube.

  • good range...I agree

  • I agree with FBS 80-130 and PPBS <180. Its OK

You may also like...