diabetestalk.net

Can You Eat Walnuts With Diabetes?

Share on facebook

Can Nuts Affect Blood Sugar?

If you worry about your blood sugar, carbohydrate-rich foods usually are the main culprit. Carbohydrates, once digested, become sugar, or glucose, and increase your blood sugar levels. Breads, pasta, breakfast cereals, rice, potatoes, cookies, muffins, sugar and soft drinks. Nuts generally have a low carbohydrate content, but could affect your blood sugar depending on how they are prepared or how many you have in a serving. Video of the Day A serving of 1 ounce of almonds contain 6.1 grams of carbohydrates, of which 3.5 grams are fiber, which means that only 2.6 grams of carbohydrates are available to raise your blood sugar levels. Fiber does not raise your blood sugar levels, but they are part of the total carbohydrate content. Subtracting fiber from the total carbohydrates gives you a better idea of the amount of carbohydrates that can truly affect your blood sugar. In this case, 1 ounce of almonds contains the equivalent of available carbohydrates found in 1/2 teaspoons of sugar, which is not likely to significantly affect your blood sugar levels. If you have a large serving, or about 1 cup of almonds, you will be getting 31 grams of total carbohydrates and 17.4 grams of fiber, Continue reading >>

Share on facebook

Popular Questions

  1. Terry4

    Continuing the discussion from Tips to quickly lower blood sugar readings:
    As often happens in our discussion threads the discussion focus veered off topic. So when @Eric30 suggested that we start a separate thread, I decided to do just that.
    I’ve always checked my fingerstick blood sugar more than the average person. For many years I averaged between 10-15 checks per day. Eight years ago I started using a CGM and my quantity of blood glucose data skyrocketed.
    With the volume of data I collected I had confidence that it revealed representative blood glucose averages for 14, 30, 60 and 90 day periods. I was also aware that a math formula
    2 could be used to convert an average blood glucose number to its corresponding A1c number.
    What I found when I did this over the years is that my lab derived A1c corresponded to a significantly higher average blood glucose than reported by my fingerstick meter and CGM. Stated another way, my meter and CGM averages predicted an A1c 0.5-1% lower than the lab measured.
    I’ve read that the A1c test is based on an assumption that red blood cells live for a certain duration, something within 90-120 days. I’ve also read comments from the medical literature that for people whose red blood cells live longer or shorter than the assumed longevity in the formula, then their A1c would read falsely higher or lower. In my situation, with a lab A1c 0.5-1% higher than the averages my meter and CGM predicted, it made sense to me that my red blood cells may live longer than the number built into the A1c protocol.
    I’ve raised this issue in a few other threads and was surprised that most responses say their meter and CGM averages do a very good job predicting their A1c’s.
    I know there are other explanations for my experience. The obvious one is the fact that I’m basing my conclusion on averages from my blood glucose meter. Our meters are not the most accurate tools but it’s what we have.
    At my last A1c blood draw, I did three fingersticks and recorded these numbers: 80, 85, 86 mg/dL (4.4, 4.7, 4.8 mmol/L). This calculates to an average of 83.7 (4.6). The lab came back with a glucose value of 82 (4.6), a difference of only 2%. So I conclude that my meter (Accu-Chek Aviva Connect) is reasonably accurate and using it to calibrate my CGM keeps my CGM numbers relatively accurate. I like to do this exercise at every A1c lab draw.
    When my blood was drawn for the glucose and A1c, here are the averages from my CGM along with the predicted A1c:
    90-day average = 99 = 5.1%
    60-day average = 94 = 4.9%
    30-day average = 90 = 4.8%
    14-day average = 87 = 4.7%
    My doctors have told me over the years and I have read that the most recent period is weighted more than the earlier periods. So, the last two weeks are weighted more heavily than the first two weeks of the three-month period. I think my CGM averages predicted an A1c of 4.9%. My A1c came in at 5.5%.
    Now, I’m not complaining. I’m thrilled that my A1c is in the “non-diabetic” range. So I just used a lot of words to express a simple thought: I believe the explanation for my higher than expected A1c is due to my red blood cells living longer than the average.

    @Eric30 was interested in the explanation of why I think my red blood cells live longer than the A1c formula presumes. I’d be happy to hear your thoughts, if any. Sorry, @Eric30 if the explanation provides too much detail.

  2. Timbeak48

    My CGM-predicted A1C (when the Dexcom program did that) was always .5 to1.0% lower than the lab value.
    The red blood cell longevity could be a factor, but, seriously, who’s going to spend the on a study?
    My A1C (the last) dropped about 0.4% and I didn’t do anything differently–except I started taking an iron supplement.

    But it could just be a coincidence.

  3. Terry4

    Timbeak48:
    The red blood cell longevity could be a factor, but, seriously, who’s going to spend the on a study?

    You’re right. It may be an issue of interest to few people but the A1c is a flawed measure anyway. I wish the clinicians and researchers would use things like time in range. TIR is a better measure of glycemia, safety, and quality of life.

  4. -> Continue reading
read more close

Related Articles

Popular Articles

More in diabetes