Skip to main content

You Bet your Life

The more I read, the more I realize that people have to be their own advocates concerning their health. There's a lot of information out there, but a lot of it is contradictory--even information that comes from doctors. Without medical training, how do you sort it out?

Lately I've been reading The Power of Logical Thinking by Marilyn vos Savant. Readers of a certain age may remember the Monty Hall dilemma from her column in Parade magazine in 1990. She correctly answered a reader's question about probability. The problem was so simple that grade-school age children could--and did--test it for themselves. Yet vos Savant got mountains of mail from professors and Ph.D.s telling her she was wrong.

There's a section in her book about averages. "You can drown in a river with an average depth of two feet," she observes. This reminded me of a woman I met last weekend. As she and I talked, the conversation turned to health. She was quite a bit overweight and said she had fibromyalgia, suffered from depression sometimes, was often tired, and was beginning to get peripheral neuropathy. Sounded like diabetes to me. I asked her if she was diabetic, and she said no, her A1c was too low for that. (A1c is blood glucose average over the past three months or so.) I asked her about blood glucose levels an hour after a meal, and she said that it sometimes got up to 190, but that was fine because of her good A1c.

With all due respect to this nice lady, let's examine the fallacies. I've named them as best I can.

  1. Using the wrong tool for the task. Is an average is a good measure of blood glucose? It depends on your purpose. According to Jenny Ruhl, "The A1c might be a helpful screening tool for finding people with full fledged diabetes who are unaware that they have it." But if your purpose is to avoid diabetes-induced damage, Ruhl says you need to avoid high blood glucose levels, which cause the damage--not just have a good average.
  2. Not accounting for testing limitations. If your highest post-meal blood glucose reading is below 200, could you still have diabetes? The official definition of diabetes is, in fact, having a reading of 200 or more. My acquaintance's highest reading was 190. However, all instruments have a margin of error. If her meter was accurate within 5%, her real level was between 181 and 200. If her meter was accurate within 10%, her real level was between 171 and 209.
  3. Appeal to authority and improperly hedging your bets. Without an official diagnosis, do you have a condition? Diabetes isn't like pregnancy, where you either are or you aren't. Blood sugars beyond a certain level--around 140 an hour after blood sugar challenge--indicate possible pre-diabetes. Damage can occur at this level. I suppose that either waiting for your family doctor to say "you have diabetes" or using the researchers' criteria and a BG meter is appealing to authority, but to my mind, the bigger downside comes with waiting around when one can take safe, simple measures to avoid high blood glucose levels.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Lori - Your blog post title caught my eye (and my google news alerts) because my book title is (yes, you guessed it) You Bet Your Life!

The rest of the title is: The 10 Mistakes Every Patient Makes (How to Fix Them to Get the Health Care You Deserve).

You'll also be interested to know that it addresses just the topic you describe: becoming our own advocates so we can get the best care, including sorting out the contradictory information that exists.

I invite you to take a look either at Amazon or the book's website: http://YouBetYourLifeBooks.com

I like your blog... you ask very interesting questions :-)

Trisha Torrey
Lori Miller said…
Welcome, Trisha! There's some great stuff on your web site and in your book (I read the online excerpts). Dr. William Davis, a cardiologist (see one post back), has said the same things about stents that you discuss in your book.

The reason I blog about my health issues, despite being a private person, is to give examples of thinking through medical problems instead of dumping them in a doctor's lap and taking the results as the unassailable truth.

"You Bet your Life!" is an apt title for solving medical puzzles, whether by connecting the dots, filling in the right answers, or navigating a maze. Life and limb may, indeed, hang in the balance.

Popular posts from this blog

An Objective Book about Other Childhood Vaccines

Today's decision by the CDC to add COVID shots to the schedule of childhood vaccines has some people concerned about the rest of the vaccines on the schedule. Contrary to fact-checker claims, adding COVID shots to the schedule means children will be required in about a dozen states to get a COVID shot to attend public school. Indiana isn't one of them--our childhood vaccination law doesn't mention the CDC and such a requirement could run afoul of our ban on COVID vaccine passports. But even freewheeling Indiana has some vaccine requirements and this kerfuffle has people wondering how safe those vaccines are.  There's a book called Vaccines: Truth, Lies and Controversy  by Peter C. Gotzsche, DrMedSci and co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration, about the safety and efficacy of all those vaccines, including COVID and others. Cochrane was founded to "to organise medical research findings to facilitate evidence-based choices about health interventions involving healt

Blog Lineup Change

Bye-bye, Fathead. I've enjoyed the blog, but can't endorse the high-fat, high-carb Perfect Health Diet that somehow makes so much sense to some otherwise bright people. An astrophysicist makes some rookie mistakes on a LC diet, misdiagnoses them, makes up "glucose deficiency," and creates a diet that's been shown in intervention studies to increase small LDL, which can lead to heart disease. A computer programmer believes in the diet and doesn't seem eager to refute it because, perhaps, scientists are freakin' liars and while he's good at spotting logical inconsistencies, lacks some intermediate knowledge of human biology. To Tom's credit, he says it's not the right diet for everyone, but given the truckload of food that has to be prepared and eaten, impracticality of following it while traveling (or even not traveling), and unsuitability for FODMAPs sufferers, diabetics and anyone prone to heart disease (i.e., much of the population), I'm

This Just In: Yogurt Doesn't Improve Health

A recent study from Spain finds "In comparison with people that did not eat yogurt, those who ate this dairy product regularly did not display any significant improvement in their score on the physical component of quality of life, and although there was a slight improvement mentally, this was not statistically significant," states López-García. Most yogurt is pretty much pudding with a little bacteria . Pudding is a sugar bomb. Hard to believe the stuff doesn't improve health outcomes, isn't it? But as usual, researchers are calling for...more research. "For future research more specific instruments must be used which may increase the probability of finding a potential benefit of this food."

Not Only Cheaper, But Easier

A while back, I wrote about saving money on break time coffee and snacks. I haven't done very well putting it into practice. But a post by James Clear today got me thinking about it again: Warren Buffett uses a two-list system to prioritize things. Check it out --and follow the instructions. Using Buffett's two-list system, two of the goals I ended up with were taking care of myself and saving $400 more per month than I already am. As I said, I've been wanting to save money, and the system made me really focus on this. I came up with 11 money-saving ideas, six of which had to do with food. Buying hamburger in bulk. Ranch Foods Direct sells one-pound packages of 80% lean pastured ground beef in bundles of 20 for a lot less than Whole Foods. Sprouts only carries super-lean beef that's grass-fed, and it's more expensive, too.  Not driving to Whole Foods. Whole Foods is out of my way, and saving a weekly trip saves gas. Coffee at home, tea at work. Tea is fr

1972: Carole King, M*A*S*H and...Food for 2014?

I feel well enough to try Atkins induction again. The palpitations are gone, even without taking potassium. My energy level is back to normal--no more trucking on the treadmill early in the morning  to burn off nervous energy or emergency meat, cheese and mineral water stops after yoga. It's back to lounging around to Chopin and Debussy in the morning and stopping at the wine bar for pleasure. I'm using the original Atkins book: Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution from 1972. While looking in the book for a way to make gelatin (which is allowed on induction, but Jello(TM) and products like it have questionable ingredients), I felt the earth move under my feet : those recipes from 42 years ago look delicious and they're mostly real food. It makes sense, though: the cooks who wrote the recipes probably didn't have had a palette used to low-fat food full of added sugar or a bag of tricks to make low-fat food edible. Anyone who writes a recipe called "Cottage Cheese and