Q. Hi I am currently 33 weeks pregnant and I had glucose tolerance test (75 ml) at 18 weeks and then at 28 weeks. Both of the times were negative but I had gestational diabetes with my first one though. Two weeks ago I have generally monitored my sugar level 2 hours after dinner and I was shocked to see that it was 8.8. Now I have been monitoring everyday since then and average is 7.5 ( without any diet plan and exercise). So does this mean that I got diabetes?
A. No, my friend, it does NOT mean that you have gestational diabetes.
Believe me, if your gynae team were concerned the would have told you as it makes their job even more difficult if there are added complications thrown into the cooking pot. (I'm fairly sure that you already appreciate that developing gestational diabetes increases risks to both mother and unborn child.)
Because you developed gestational diabetes during an earlier pregnancy DOES put you at increased risk of developing it during successive pregnancies, but this does NOT mean that you automatically will.
As you suspect, the 8.8 mmol/l (millimoles per litre) result that you got IS higher than it should be, but this MAY have been just a 'one off'. Yoiu also need to take into consideration whether you performed the blood test correctly. Did you, for instance, wash and dry your hands immediately prior to testing? There are a number of contaminants that can affect the results, such as food and/or drink remaining on the hands, cleaning products, scents/perfumes, alcohol swabs ... if not allowed to completely evaporate.
Your average blood sugar (glucose) level of 7.5 mmol/l is within the range that a non-diabetic would expect. (Normally, a non-diabetic's blood sugar level would not rise above 7.8 mmol/l two hours after eating. I am well aware that you MAY have been requested to test after one hour, but this is to do with the dangers that could be involved when someone has gestational diabetes.)
If you are, at all, concerned, my friend, you need to express your concerns to your gynae team. You could also try following the advice that was offered during your first pregnancy with regards to diet and exercise. It won't do either yourself, or your baby, any harm whatsoever.
Congratulations, by the way. I hope that everything goes well for you, that your pregnancy goes according to plan, and that your baby is the most beautiful baby in the world.
Believe me, if your gynae team were concerned the would have told you as it makes their job even more difficult if there are added complications thrown into the cooking pot. (I'm fairly sure that you already appreciate that developing gestational diabetes increases risks to both mother and unborn child.)
Because you developed gestational diabetes during an earlier pregnancy DOES put you at increased risk of developing it during successive pregnancies, but this does NOT mean that you automatically will.
As you suspect, the 8.8 mmol/l (millimoles per litre) result that you got IS higher than it should be, but this MAY have been just a 'one off'. Yoiu also need to take into consideration whether you performed the blood test correctly. Did you, for instance, wash and dry your hands immediately prior to testing? There are a number of contaminants that can affect the results, such as food and/or drink remaining on the hands, cleaning products, scents/perfumes, alcohol swabs ... if not allowed to completely evaporate.
Your average blood sugar (glucose) level of 7.5 mmol/l is within the range that a non-diabetic would expect. (Normally, a non-diabetic's blood sugar level would not rise above 7.8 mmol/l two hours after eating. I am well aware that you MAY have been requested to test after one hour, but this is to do with the dangers that could be involved when someone has gestational diabetes.)
If you are, at all, concerned, my friend, you need to express your concerns to your gynae team. You could also try following the advice that was offered during your first pregnancy with regards to diet and exercise. It won't do either yourself, or your baby, any harm whatsoever.
Congratulations, by the way. I hope that everything goes well for you, that your pregnancy goes according to plan, and that your baby is the most beautiful baby in the world.
Is labor delivery the only option if I slips and falls during 29 weeks pregnancy?
Q. I am 29 weeks pregnant and fell yesterday on the stairs, only my bottom and legs suffered sour and pain, no stomach pain and breeding. I called the Dr office, and the nurse suggested to have labor delivery right away, but I don't want to, because the baby is only 7 month, and I feel just fine. I want to know if early labor delivery the only option, please help me out! Thanks.
A. Did the nurse say go to labor and delivery or did she actually say deliver? Because if she said you should deliver she should be written up to the medical board. She has no reason to assume that the baby should need delivered. I am a medical student in ob/gyn. The only way they would deliver you is if there is placental abruption or if for some reason they feel the baby is distressed. They do that by placing you on a fetal heart monitor. And even that is not likely in your case. The baby is protected in an amniotic sac and is safer than you think. He or she would just bounce around your body and the sac protects the baby greatly. Now you should definately not be sitting here online you should be at your labor and delivery center at your hospital because you need to be checked out. If your placenta did partially erupt from the lining of your uterus it is limiting the babys oxygen and nutrient supply. Even if you have no blood externally you and your fetus could still be in great danger. But don't get yourself upset 97 percent of the time the fetus is fine just get to the hospital in case.
Are ferrets dangerous to have around a baby?
Q. I am expecting a baby in Feb. and I was wondering if I should get rid of my 2 ferrets when the baby comes or not. I love my ferrets but I love my child more and don't want her to be in any danger. Does anyone have ferrets and young children?
A. Any animal can be dangerous to a baby. However, having a baby doesn't necessarily mean you have to get rid of your ferrets (unless having the baby means you'll no longer have the time and/or money to care for your ferrets). There's a lot of people out there that have young children and ferrets - it can be done as long as you're a responsible and careful parent and pet owner (some common sense is also good). Never leave the ferrets out to run when your baby is down on the floor. Try letting the ferrets out when the baby is sleeping - close the door to the room your baby is sleeping in (obviously you should check on him/her and/or use a baby monitor to have ears in the room at all times) or at least make sure your ferrets can't climb into whatever your baby is sleeping in. If you think it won't work to keep the ferrets after you have the baby, then at least take the time to find your ferrets a good home, don't hand them off to just anyone. Take the time to ask potential owners some questions so that you can determine if they will or won't be able to properly care for your ferret. What about friends or family - would any of them want to adopt your ferrets? That way you would be able to still see them from time to time. Whatever you decide, good luck (with the ferrets and the baby).
How were human babies delivered in the past?
Q. What procedures, devices, and/or medications were used in the past? Like, were there lots of stillbirths and miscarriages in the stone age?
A. Yes, the rate of death during childbirth was a lot higher in the past. On the other hand, though, modern medicine has made childbirth more difficult, rather than easier. It's been moved away from a natural process that can occur on its own, to something that must be medically monitored - and thereby customized to what the doctors (traditionally male) believe is the best way to do things.
Examples: laying on the back is a very bad way to deliver a child. It suits a hospital gurney, but that position actually puts a bend in the birth canal that makes childbirth a lot harder for the mother. Another example is the episiotomy - where the birth canal is cut to allow "easier" passage of the child. It's cut at a point where the tissue has evolved to tear - natural tearing causes less trauma and heals quicker than having a doctor cut the tissue.
So, yes, childbirth was much more dangerous in some ways, but not as much as you'd think. Qualified midwives were able to guide the process - a process that nature has made fairly "automatic." In that light, most of the tools used in the past were the midwives' own hands. Some herbs may have helped dull the pain (much of which actually comes from the mother trying to deliver a child on her back). All in all, it's a self-guided process, and requires a minimum of outside interference.
I don't buy into medical (or "big pharma") conspiracies, but in this case, the dangers of childbirth have been greatly exaggerated by doctors (again, I stress *male* doctors), and turned into an industry. If unaided childbirth was so difficult, we never would have survived the stone age.
Examples: laying on the back is a very bad way to deliver a child. It suits a hospital gurney, but that position actually puts a bend in the birth canal that makes childbirth a lot harder for the mother. Another example is the episiotomy - where the birth canal is cut to allow "easier" passage of the child. It's cut at a point where the tissue has evolved to tear - natural tearing causes less trauma and heals quicker than having a doctor cut the tissue.
So, yes, childbirth was much more dangerous in some ways, but not as much as you'd think. Qualified midwives were able to guide the process - a process that nature has made fairly "automatic." In that light, most of the tools used in the past were the midwives' own hands. Some herbs may have helped dull the pain (much of which actually comes from the mother trying to deliver a child on her back). All in all, it's a self-guided process, and requires a minimum of outside interference.
I don't buy into medical (or "big pharma") conspiracies, but in this case, the dangers of childbirth have been greatly exaggerated by doctors (again, I stress *male* doctors), and turned into an industry. If unaided childbirth was so difficult, we never would have survived the stone age.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: How do I know if I have gestational diabetes or not?
Rating: 96% based on 987 ratings. 4,3 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
Rating: 96% based on 987 ratings. 4,3 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment