Ups and Downs

[kevin_standlee]

I'm working from home today, which is good, except that one drawback of it is that I get even less exercise walking to the computer after breakfast than I do driving to the office, and my blood sugar suffers because of it. My overnight reading was 108 (which is good), but one hour after breakfast it soared to 172 (bad). I took a short walk around the complex, rain or now, and two hours after breakfast, it had fallen to 72 -- too low, nearly hypoglycemic! Rats! Roller-coaster readings are Bad. This is why I'm supposed to eat six (relatively small) meals a day.

I'd say that reading SMOFS list messages affects my blood sugar, but if there is anything the SMOFS list is not, it's sweet.

Comments

[jbriggs.livejournal.com]

"f there is anything the SMOFS list is not, it's sweet."

But its high in Carbs, which amounts to the same thing.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

And mostly empty carbs at that. Well, that's one explanation.

[jbriggs.livejournal.com]

Yep. I've been on a SMOFs diet myself lately, I've got plenty of real world troubles. No need to worry myself over the paper ones there.

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

But its high in Carbs...

We have to work on your dyslexia.

[jbriggs.livejournal.com]

lysdexics Untie!

[thirdworld.livejournal.com]

Clever!

[thirdworld.livejournal.com]

My advice, unwanted I'm sure, is to take a step back and read all the posts calmly and dispassionately. Take some time before replying. It's my belief that one generally cannot argue effectively unless one is calm. My 2c and maybe it only works for me.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't call it "unwanted." You're just being sensible.

[thirdworld.livejournal.com]

I could add more. Email and other text-only forums make it just way too easy to offend each other. There is no moderating smile or body language. Plus too often on smofs words are too harsh anyway, calling each other fools and such. I think it worth the effort to tone one's replies down, because the daggers should never be out. Then meaningful conversation is possible. But then maybe I'm too wimpy.

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

BTW...reading your initial message, I saw nearly hypoglycemic! Rats! and read that as "nearly hypoglycemic rats."

I wondered what the rat hypoglycemia thresh-hold was.