For those familiar with Gest. Diabetes/Diabetes...

[I.Dup.]

My midwives instructed me to eat a BIG meal with a lot of carbs, and then have dessert on top of that, before my post-meal glucose test. They tested at the 2 hour mark, and my sugars were 132, my midwife said they are supposed to be under 100. I have since heard sugars 2 hours post prandial should be under 120, not 100. Either way, they were high.

 

I was sick earlier in the week (so sick I had to go into the ER for fluids) and did not eat normally through Wednesday of that week. I had the test done on Friday. She is thinking that could affect the results?

 

I am also wondering, since the glucola drink these tests normally give have about 50g? of carbs, and the meal I ate was a LOT more than that, are my sugars still supposed to be in the same range as if I had a lot less carbs?

 

I am very worried, I have never dealt with GD before and have no risk factors. My biggest baby has been 7 pounds and I am a pretty small lady. I am asking them to test me again somehow, even though my midwives think Gestational Diabetes is a bogus thing, since sugars are all out of whack during pregnancy, anyway. They're not very concerned but I am concerned now.

 

Is having sugars of 132 2 hours past a big meal loaded with carbs a bad thing?

 

Just wondering from those who have experience with this, I'm hoping the test was just inaccurate, and what I should do next..?

[ChristusG]

Under 100? I thought that was a fasting number? I thought that I read that under 130 or 140 is fine post meal? Under 100 after a meal sounds really low.

 

I went to the OB yesterday and the said there was sugar in my urine and now they are sending me for the glucose test early...I'm 22 weeks and I have to take it on Friday. I REALLY hope I do not have GD. I'm already so limited on what I can eat and if I have GD then I think I'll be starving.

[happypamama]

I think those numbers are a little high, but they also don't sound too ridiculous for a meal that was unusually high in carbs, compared to what you normally eat.

 

I declined the glucose testing with baby #3 (after having passed the three-hour test with the first two babies), but this time I wanted a bit more information about what was normal *for me,* since my parents are both diabetics, and therefore my risk factors are higher. So I have used a glucometer to test my blood sugars after normal meals sometimes. My midwife's guideline was that after 1 hour, they should be under 140, and after 2 hours, 120. So yes, 132 after 2 hours sounds a bit high, but I think that would only be a problem if you ate that way all the time. If your MWs aren't concerned, I would not be either. (Also, it might depend on when in the day you ate the big meal -- my body handles a heavy carb load much better in the afternoon/evening than it does in the morning, for instance. A sandwich or pasta for lunch/dinner are much less of an issue for me than cereal for breakfast.)

 

Oh, and yes, 100 is what my MW said for fasting.

[Unicorn.]

Under 100 at the 2 hour mark? That doesn't sound right to me. It also doesn't sound right that they told you to eat a high carb meal and dessert on top of that. Are they doing a blood stick test? If so, I would repeat the the test, after you have eaten a normal meal, and see what your results are. 132 doesn't sound all that high, considering the meal you ate. I wouldn't worry, just try to eat a balanced meal w/ protein, veggies, and complex carbs, and you should be ok. If you eat sweets, make sure to eat them w/ a protein or some fat. The sugars will absorb slower this way. hth

[leeannpal]

I had gestational diabetes and managed to control it with diet only. It honestly wasn't a big deal at all. My daughter was born 5 weeks early due to an issue that had nothing to do with GD. She was 4.7 lbs., so not a big baby by any means.

[Heather in OK]

If you are concerned, do the finger pricks after you have eaten what you normally eat for breakfast. Check after you wake up (fasting) and then two hours after you eat. That will be a more accurate read of what your body does in response to your normal diet. Not after loading up on foods that you don't usually consume, in those quantities.

 

 

If you don't test again then adjust your diet a bit and make sure you are getting at least 15-20 minutes of exercise each day (walking, swimming, etc). In the morning focus on proteins and veggies. Don't focus on simple carbs and sugars. Some complex carbs are fine. Before you go to bed eat something with protein, even if it's as simple as a protein shake. Add a handful of spinach, a little fresh/frozen fruit to it, some yogurt or keifer, and some ice. It will mix up like a smoothie. :)

 

 

I wouldn't be concerned if you were my client. But then again, I wouldn't have tested you like they did and even the 50g GTT isn't accurate about 50% of the time. ;) So we may have gotten a different result. However, I do agree that it's nothing concerning.

[lionfamily1999]

I had to keep my sugars below 100.

 

It was not as bad as I thought and Luke turned out to be between his brother and sister in size (only 9lbs, whereas Andrew - a non-g preg - was 9'10). I also lost some weight :p My last trimester I dropped weight like crazy, because I had to take all the sugar out of my diet.

[knittingmomof3]

My midwives instructed me to eat a BIG meal with a lot of carbs, and then have dessert on top of that, before my post-meal glucose test. They tested at the 2 hour mark, and my sugars were 132, my midwife said they are supposed to be under 100. I have since heard sugars 2 hours post prandial should be under 120, not 100. Either way, they were high.

 

I was sick earlier in the week (so sick I had to go into the ER for fluids) and did not eat normally through Wednesday of that week. I had the test done on Friday. She is thinking that could affect the results?

 

I am also wondering, since the glucola drink these tests normally give have about 50g? of carbs, and the meal I ate was a LOT more than that, are my sugars still supposed to be in the same range as if I had a lot less carbs?

 

I am very worried, I have never dealt with GD before and have no risk factors. My biggest baby has been 7 pounds and I am a pretty small lady. I am asking them to test me again somehow, even though my midwives think Gestational Diabetes is a bogus thing, since sugars are all out of whack during pregnancy, anyway. They're not very concerned but I am concerned now.

 

Is having sugars of 132 2 hours past a big meal loaded with carbs a bad thing?

 

Just wondering from those who have experience with this, I'm hoping the test was just inaccurate, and what I should do next..?

 

I had GD with all three of my pregnancies. I'm going to try my hardest not to be long-winded here. I was always given very conservative goals for postprandial numbers. My OB wanted me under 120 at 1hr PP. I didn't have to check at 2hrs.

 

In my personal opinion, there is still much to be learned about the workings of the endocrine system during pregnancy. I saw a definite link between blood sugar control and birth weight with my pregnancies. With my first pregnancy I was diagnosed with GD at 28 weeks. My DS was 8lb 3oz at birth. With my 2nd and 3rd pregnancies, I ate a strict GD diet from the very beginning and had excellent blood sugar control. My DD was 6lb 5oz and DS2 was 6lb 11oz. However, I have friends who passed the glucose test with flying colors who went on to have 10-11.5lb babies. I don't think the glucose test is an accurate measurement of who is at risk. I think a hemoglobin A1c would be a better measurement.

 

I understand your concern and my advice would be to follow a sensible GD diet so that you are erring on the side of caution. This would mean lots of protein and veggies. Fruit is fine but would be best paired with a protein. Cut way back on breads and other non-vegetable carbohydrates for the rest of your pregnancy. When you do decide to have some bread, make sure you take a 15-20 minute walk afterwards to compensate for any sugar spike that might be a result.

 

You could ask for the A1c test to be done. It will give a picture of your blood sugar average for the last 3 months.

 

Don't worry! If it is determined that you have GD, you and your baby will be fine.

[I.Dup.]

Thank you all!

 

Does this mean just based on this one test that I am more at risk? Or could this test have been because of the carb load that anyone would have shown that number?

 

I am puzzled because my babies have never been large! I have never measured ahead or anything.

 

Also, if I take another test and it does show high numbers again, does that mean I am more at risk for Diabetes or blood sugar issues after pregnancy, just because of high sugars during pregnancy? Like I said I don't have any of the other risk factors (not overweight, no family history, no history of big babies, etc)

[Susan in TN]

Under 100? I thought that was a fasting number? I thought that I read that under 130 or 140 is fine post meal? Under 100 after a meal sounds really low.

 

 

 

:iagree: although the medical community may have a different opinion.

 

I had my last 2 babies with a GD diagnosis - one with a regular OB who was insisting on inducing labor at 38 weeks despite the fact that my daily blood testing and weekly ultrasounds and stress tests found my glucose levels and developing baby to be perfectly normal.

 

I had my last baby with a midwife. I ate sensibly and went to a bi-monthly appt. with a specialist, which was a fairly good waste of time and money. They never could/would explain to me why a pregnant woman was "required" to have lower testing numbers than a non-pregnant woman. Baby was perfectly healthy and on the large side, and that's just the nature of her body - even at 2.5 she's very tall for her age and a perfect weight.

 

Your health can definitely effect the test. I actually had a UTI the night before my test and spent the night drinking cranberry juice. Felt fine by morning, but for some reason the midwife didn't think that was reason to reschedule the test.:confused:

 

Anyway, remember that you get to be in charge of your pregnancy. I've found that most midwives are pretty good about giving you the info and letting you decide what to do.

[knittingmomof3]

Thank you all!

 

Does this mean just based on this one test that I am more at risk? Or could this test have been because of the carb load that anyone would have shown that number?

 

I am puzzled because my babies have never been large! I have never measured ahead or anything.

 

Also, if I take another test and it does show high numbers again, does that mean I am more at risk for Diabetes or blood sugar issues after pregnancy, just because of high sugars during pregnancy? Like I said I don't have any of the other risk factors (not overweight, no family history, no history of big babies, etc)

 

GD can appear in any pregnancy. Your previous pregnancies don't have a bearing on whether or not you have GD this time. It's possible your test result was a fluke. You could ask for another test and change your variables this time. Just eat a normal diet on the preceding day and see what happens. And the literature suggests that a woman with a GD diagnosis be monitored in the future as she is at higher risk for developing Type II DM within five years following the pregnancy.

 

HTH!

[chanda7]

*Anyone* would not have shown that number even after a carb loaded meal. If your insulin, etc., is working the way it should, your numbers aren't going to go high regardless of what you eat. My guess is if you ate a meal that large and your blood sugar was 132, you have a mild case of gestational diabetes, glucose intolerance, whatever you want to call it.

 

I was diagnosed with gestational diabetes this pregnancy. I've never had large babies, nor have I tested positive for having it in previous pregnancies. I have no family history of diabetes, either. I failed both the screening and the actual test horribly. However, I have been able to control my blood sugar through diet alone (with walking thrown in for good measure).

 

If you have gestational diabetes, you are more likely to develop type 2 diabetes at some point in the future, compared to the average person. It doesn't mean that you will, but it is something you will need to watch for. It isn't that the gestational diabetes causes the type 2, but that it is a warning that your body may not be working at 100 percent.

 

My dietitian wants my fasting blood sugar to be below 95 and my 2-hour post-meal blood sugar to be below 120. I can eat about 15 carbs per snack, around 30 carbs per meal, always paired with protein.

 

Lots of things can affect your blood sugar besides what you just ate: illness, stress, lack of sleep, etc.

 

I wouldn't accept a diagnosis of gestational diabetes based on that one "test." It is as important for them to test your fasting blood sugar as it is your post-meal blood sugar. Even on the 3-hour test, you are allowed to fail one of the blood tests and still escape the diagnosis. Personally, I think screening yourself at home with a glucose monitor over a period of time is a lot more accurate.

[chanda7]

They never could/would explain to me why a pregnant woman was "required" to have lower testing numbers than a non-pregnant woman.

 

From what I have read, pregnant women without glucose issues have lower levels of blood glucose than non-pregnant women. They want you to have numbers to mimic "normal" pregnant women.

[AK_Mom4]

I am asking them to test me again somehow, even though my midwives think Gestational Diabetes is a bogus thing, since sugars are all out of whack during pregnancy, anyway. They're not very concerned but I am concerned now.

 

 

Please tell me you were kidding here - Gestational Diabetes is a "bogus thing"? Frankly that sounds like quackery - as does their eating advice before the test. I don't mean to sound mean - but that is bad advice.

 

In your case, I would have myself retested by a medical doctor or - even better - an endocrinologist. They will most likely use the 2 hour postprandial test which is a pretty simple process. That way you can get answers to put your mind at ease.

 

BTW - I was never at risk for gestational diabetes. But I DID develop it with my 4th child. For most of the pregnancy, I was able to control my levels just using a controlled (and very healthy) diet.

[happyhomemaker25]

I have Type 2 Diabetes. During pregnancy my levels were supposed to be below 100 for fasting and between 120 and 130ish 2 hours post meal. If'd eaten a meal like you described my sugars would have been in the 200s maybe 300s. I would not be concerned.

BTW, my OB was strict, strict, strict! If my A1C was above 6.5 I got a lecture and a half. By the time Lily was born I was sitting at 5.8.

I walked into my OBs office almost 17 weeks pregnant. I'd just taken a test a couple of weeks before. My blood sugar was in the 300s no matter how I tried to get it down and I had no idea why. Well, I was pregnant. I did not know that was a symptom.

My Lily Grace was barely 7 pounds when she was born at 38w5d. Granted when I started insulin my blood sugar went right down.

[I.Dup.]

Please tell me you were kidding here - Gestational Diabetes is a "bogus thing"? Frankly that sounds like quackery - as does their eating advice before the test. I don't mean to sound mean - but that is bad advice.

 

Yeah, that is just what they think, I guess based on the fact that during pregnancy your blood sugars are always going to be higher, regardless. Or something...? I don't always agree with them, that's for sure.

 

In your case, I would have myself retested by a medical doctor or - even better - an endocrinologist. They will most likely use the 2 hour postprandial test which is a pretty simple process. That way you can get answers to put your mind at ease.

 

I thought the 2 hour postprandial IS what I did? What would be different if I did it at an endocrinologist's office? Would they just tell me to eat mostly protein/veggies for that meal?

 

I just talked with my MW who said at the other lab they use, the cut off for 2 hour is 140 so she thinks I'm fine and really don't need to be tested again. She also recommended referring to my last (hospital) provider for my anti-depressant med issue, and I'm actually relieved so I can see someone else about these issues. I'm still wanting a home birth, but they're driving me a little crazy.

[I.Dup.]

I have Type 2 Diabetes. During pregnancy my levels were supposed to be below 100 for fasting and between 120 and 130ish 2 hours post meal. If'd eaten a meal like you described my sugars would have been in the 200s maybe 300s. I would not be concerned.

BTW, my OB was strict, strict, strict! If my A1C was above 6.5 I got a lecture and a half. By the time Lily was born I was sitting at 5.8.

I walked into my OBs office almost 17 weeks pregnant. I'd just taken a test a couple of weeks before. My blood sugar was in the 300s no matter how I tried to get it down and I had no idea why. Well, I was pregnant. I did not know that was a symptom.

My Lily Grace was barely 7 pounds when she was born at 38w5d. Granted when I started insulin my blood sugar went right down.

 

Thank you, that really helps!!

[Heather in OK]

A1c isn't an option for her at this point. It needs to be done early in pregnancy and then continued to see what the levels are doing. And you still have to do blood glucose levels. It's just not an accurate test to decide to do and give a dx of GD based on the findings.

 

There is some good, easy to understand, information here:

http://seattlebirthnet.com/files/Diabetes_and_Pregnancy2.pdf

 

 

Does this mean just based on this one test that I am more at risk? Or could this test have been because of the carb load that anyone would have shown that number?

No. The way you tested may or may not be accurate for you. This is why I suggested doing it again with your normal food intake.

 

Also, if I take another test and it does show high numbers again, does that mean I am more at risk for Diabetes or blood sugar issues after pregnancy, just because of high sugars during pregnancy?

No.

 

I'm still wanting a home birth, but they're driving me a little crazy.

Speaking as someone who has had home births and who is a midwife, you need to address this. If you aren't comfortable with them and can't develop a trust, you need to find a different midwife.

[I.Dup.]

Speaking as someone who has had home births and who is a midwife, you need to address this. If you aren't comfortable with them and can't develop a trust, you need to find a different midwife.

 

Thank you for your help. :001_smile: There are no other options for homebirth midwives, they are the only midwives within a 2 hour radius. They are very NICE, they just badger and harp on me about things and treat me kindof like a child. Now they are getting on me because they said I wasn't as "talkative" at my last visit :confused: and they're wanting to wean me off of my 50mg dose of zoloft even though I REALLY don't think that's a good idea at this point. That's why they are referring me to my last hospital midwife.

[sarah1615]

How did they check your number? Was it in a lab (blood draw) or with a glucose monitor (finger prick)? I know that glucose monitors have a +/-20% variance so your number could have been fine. If it was done in the lab then it was more accurate.

[I.Dup.]

It was a lab draw.

[ktgrok]

That is not at all what my midwife had me do. I had to eat a very specific breakfast, with 50 grams of carbs exactly. If I remember right it was 2 eggs, 8 oz of milk, two peices of toast, and something else. And I should NOT have any carbs after 10pm the night before. And fasting glucose is supposed to be under 100, not pos-prandial, from what I remember.

[ktgrok]

I did want to add that there the idea that gestational diabetes is bogus is not an uncommon idea. I have often heard it referred to as a diagnoses in search of a disease. Yes, you should eat healthy, but not freak.

[AuntieM]

My OB wanted 120 max after meal time, not more than 100 upon waking up in the morning (so, not to exceed fasting count of 100).

[MelanieM]

I am very worried, I have never dealt with GD before and have no risk factors. My biggest baby has been 7 pounds and I am a pretty small lady. I am asking them to test me again somehow, even though my midwives think Gestational Diabetes is a bogus thing, since sugars are all out of whack during pregnancy, anyway. They're not very concerned but I am concerned now.

I have no experience with this, but I just wanted to share that my midwife and I had a conversation about GD three weeks ago, and she basically agreed with what your midwives have said. I can't remember all the details (pregnancy brain!) but she was talking about how screening was largely in place as an opportunity to reach women who are more likely to be dealing with early onset diabetes in any case, and a chance to discuss better nutrition, and that fluctuation in pregnancy is very, very normal. In other words, what I've learned would support the 'don't worry' message you're receiving from your care providers. Just sharing in case that helps ease your mind.

Edited June 21, 2011 by MelanieM

[I.Dup.]

Thank you Melanie, that does help. I'm still a bit concerned, but 132 doesn't seem all that high considering the meal, and everything else I've been reading.

[Rjmakmom]

I had GD with my last 3 pregnancies, and was on insulin for all 3. I didn't get the diagnosis/start insulin until 30 weeks with dd1, 20 weeks with dd2 and 6 weeks with dd3. I was instructed to have a max fasting bs of 100, and 2h post prandial of max 140. I am now a diagnosed diabetic, even though my GD went away for 4 years after my youngest was born. If you can eat the meal you described and have bs readings at 132, I wouldn't worry at all. Just keep an eye on it as your pregnancy progresses.