werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (01/04/86)
> In a reactive hypoglucemic, the blood sugar starts out normal, > then shoots way up, then comes crashing down, and several hours later > finally levels out. When the blood sugar is high, you have a lot of > energy and feel great, when it is dropping, you feel tired, have headaches, > and are very iritible(sp?). A good good test should have samples > at least every half hour, every 15 minutes would be better, and should > last for six hours, not just three. The morons who did my test > refused to do it properly, so the numbers didn't show a problem, > but the symtoms were definitely there. (Imagine the nerve of a > mere patient thinking that they might possibly know something!) [Spelling = irritable] I sense an attitude problem here. What is the situation: we have non-specific subjective symptoms, which some people might even consider a variant of normal and an "alleged" disease which is billed as extremely rare by some and as affecting 10% of the USA population by others. Please note that most who advocate its commonness cannot prove it one way or the other, because they are not licensed to draw blood. However in order to detect this "disease" one has to undergo a labor intensive mildly invasive test that probably runs a few hundred dollars. When this is done, however, the results are inevitably normal. However, look at the above, Snoopy refuses to believe the normal results. Look, whatever makes you happy, no amount of convincing will talk you or any true believer out of the diagnosis. And as long as your treatment (eliminating Sugar), although distasteful (Pun intended) does no harm, go for it. But don't advocate your paranoia (and a little paranoia is a healthy thing) as the basis of Public health policy. -- Craig Werner !philabs!aecom!werner "Why is it that half the calories is twice the price?"
seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) (01/15/86)
In article <2161@aecom.UUCP> werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) writes: > What is the situation: we have non-specific subjective symptoms, which >some people might even consider a variant of normal Hardly a variant of normal. > However in order to detect this "disease" one has to undergo a labor >intensive mildly invasive test that probably runs a few hundred dollars. When >this is done, however, the results are inevitably normal. However, look at >the above, Snoopy refuses to believe the normal results. Well excuse me for not believing the results of a test which was done improperly. Do you also expect me to believe what a scope says when the probe is left ungrounded? Do you check the level of engine oil when your car is parked on a 45 degree hill? A test which is not done properly is not meaningful. > Look, whatever makes you happy, no amount of convincing will talk you >or any true believer out of the diagnosis. Might as well try and convince me that I can see 20/20 without corrective lenses. It's *not* psychosomatic, Craig. It would have been nice if they would have consented to do the extra samples as I had requested. (One wonders why they wouldn't, they weren't busy, and they could have made more money off of more blood tests) But they refused to do the extra samples, so what do you want me to do? Find someone else who agrees to do it properly and go through it again just to convince skeptics like yourself? No thanks, spending one day with my head in a vise is quite enough. Of course, subjective symptoms mean nothing. The only thing that matters is hard numbers derived from double-blind tests. (So how come they believe me when I say "the first one was better" when I have my eyes checked?) > I sense an attitude problem here. What do you expect? Craig, how about reading up on hypogylcemia, and on the effects of refined sugar rather than trying to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? You've been a lot more reasonable lately, don't stop now! Snoopy tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy
slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (01/18/86)
>Might as well try and convince me that I can see 20/20 without corrective >lenses. It's *not* psychosomatic, Craig. >Snoopy If you want to be convincing, you need to use another analogy. That exact thing has been done by lots of quacks with "eye exercise" schemes. A good reference is Martin Gardner's "Fads and Fallacies". Note I'm not saying whether there is anything to the reactive hypoglycemia argument. Just that it is perfectly possible to convince someone that they can see well when they can't, and to remind you that the mind is a strange and wonderous thing. -- Sue Brezden ihnp4!drutx!slb ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To search for perfection is all very well, But to look for heaven is to live here in hell. --Sting ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (01/18/86)
Within the past month, there have been two accounts on Hypoglycemia: Burt Campbell's heart-rending account, and Snoopy's diatribe. Anyone reading Burt's history cannot help but understand that not only is Hypoglycemia a real disease, but that it is extremely debilitating. Burt's description is classic and could have come out of a textbook (*) because literally every manifestation is there (* or should be written into one). Notice the dramatic difference between Bert's Glucose Tolerance Test sending his blood sugar down to levels that could cause loss of consciousness, and Snoopy's "within normal limits" after 3 hours. Obviously, I shouldn't say that Snoopy DOESN'T have reactive hypoglycemia - I haven't examined him or seen his chart. My original point was that a lot of people, including Carlton Fredericks, have scared a lot of healthy people into thinking they have terrible diseases. Hypoglycemia is one such disease. -- Craig Werner !philabs!aecom!werner "Sometimes you have to run as fast as you can just to stay in the same place."
doon@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Harry W. Reed) (01/18/86)
Hi, just to comment on the test for "reactive hypoglycemia". A few years ago my wife was diagnosed as having "reactive hypoglycemia". The diagnosis was done my a reputable MD (the test was not done by anything less than a "real" doctor). The test given was called a "glucose tolerance test" and did not cost very much (something like $40). Not being a doctor, I am unaware of the complete use of this test but, my wife did show a "lower than normal" sugar level in her blood. The symptoms for her were far from psychosomatic; after digesting a quantity of suger (sucrose) she would become very enrgetic then after a few hours would be slightly depressed and moody. Harry Reed sdcrdcf!doon