Drink to test Pregnancy diabetes?

GradSchoolPrincess · August 2014

My CNM practice uses organic grape juice instead of the orange drink. I'm not thrilled about drinking a ton of grape juice either, but as PP have said I'd rather check for GD and be safe.

Edit: agree on the colo prep drink nastiness ick

leoandethansmom · August 2014

I've had a lot of fun in my life and I've drank all the fun stuff: glucose test drink, colonoscopy drink (4 times), and the barium stuff. I'd take the glucose test any day over the others. The colo prep is by far the worst.

kayak11 · August 2014

I didn't mind the drink for the 1 hr. I had to take the 3hr with DS and that drink was much worse. The nurse told me not to chug it because the sugar would make me feel queasy and if you get sick you have to start the test again another day.

GD is not something that you want to ignore, so either deal with the drink or talk to your doctor about other options to test for it.

Shortstack06 · August 2014

I have a 23 week appointment next week, I believe I find out then about which course of testing for GD I am looking at. They do monitor your sugar and proteins from your pee every week so I am not sure if this is something they will ask me to do. If they do, I will gladly do it. I would gladly drink a Mountain Dew Code Red in place of that sugary drink, but that would probably be frowned upon.

JRod13 · August 2014

Mmm- I like the drink.

BrideLinds · August 2014

Why would you refuse? The drink isn't exactly tasty but if your doctor recommends it, why would you say no?

I did mine yesterday. The drink was only 5oz. No biggie.

argyledogs · August 2014

Oh! Here's a little tip- don't eat a sugary breakfast beforehand! This includes fruit & white bread. Eat lots of protein and it will help you from feeling sick or if you're toeing the line for the 3 hr test.

Decemberbaby2014 · August 2014

Believe it or not I actually thought it was good! I did the 1 hour test & it was just a small orange drink that was ice cold & I drank it right down, tasted like orange pop to me, and since I'm on a pregnancy loving pop kick it was a piece of cake!

soulcupcake · August 2014

I flat out refused to take it at 10 weeks, the first practice I was seen at, and then again at 16 weeks with another practice. There's no data to support its routine practice, and definitely not before the third trimester. Impaired glucose tolerance is not like longstanding diabetes. It does not present with the same risks or complications that either type 1 or 2 present with, nor the symptoms, because it doesn't have symptoms other than elevated glucose levels due in part to being pregnant. There is a biological and physiological reason why some women have impaired glucose intolerance, and they're at risk for a bigger than average baby. (GTT is not a diagnostic tool)

Women with undiagnosed or prediabetes are often the ones that tip into diabetic ranges because they're pretty much diabetic already, but they don't know it yet. It can take years to develop and show symptoms. So, when a pregnant woman ends up with a very elevated 3 hour result it could very well point to metabolic stress or preexisting diabetes. But with slight elevated glucose levels? That's known as glucose intolerance of pregnancy or impaired glucose tolerance, and does not carry the adverse effects or risks like diabetes.

The last I ever did the GTT a la glucola drink was during my second pregnancy, and I thought it was useless and unnecessary then. I did a one hour postprandial at 30 weeks with my third, and monitored my glucose levels at home upon waking and one and two hours postprandial with my fourth. I ate a normal meal as this reflects my body's response to a normal meal -- not 50mg of sugar. I'll do the same again this time.

My midwife's practice gives moms the option of the typical glucola drink (she doesn't encourage it), self testing at home or A1C (which should be done early in pregnancy to rule out preexisting diabetes in women who appear to be actual diabetics later in pregnancy).

erien · August 2014

@aeonlux‌ I didnt even read your post this time because I've read it all from you before. I guess I fail to understand the harm to the mother or baby for the mother to follow a healthy diet and exercise plan to keep blood sugar in check. I'm thankful I was diagnosed with both pregnancies because it has made me more aware of healthy eating habits. Habits I will continue for the rest of my life.

soulcupcake · August 2014

sysakbaby said:

I don't know whether you mean refuse the test entirely or to eat a regular meal instead of the sugary beverage. From what I have read eating a regular meal is a more accurate measure of your bodies ability to manage your blood sugar, but the drink is a "standard" that allows your doctor to assess your blood sugar in an unbiased way.

The absolute best method is, if you have a blood sugar monitor to test your self in the morning after fasting and after meals. You would need to do this over the course of a month, and to be safe do it throughout your third trimester. However, you need to be doing this under doctor supervision so they can advise you on diet, etc.

This is what I have turned up in my research and in my discussions with my OB.

You do have options but not testing or following through with any of these methods is very dangerous for your baby.

I agree with the first part, but what dangers are you referring to (and I know the risks associated with DM)? (I'm not talking info from Mayoclinic, Webmd or Babycenter.com, but actual current and critical research) The dangers of uncontrolled glucose in type 1 and 2 diabetic women exists. Absolutely. But impaired glucose tolerance? Not quite. When it becomes dangerous for baby, mom starts showing symptoms, because uncontrolled glucose in diabetic patients actually presents with symptoms. Symptoms, the A1C, FPG, and OGTT are how an actual diagnosis is made for true diabetic patients. But "gestational diabetes" is "diagnosed" via a failed OGTT result that is non-reproducible 60% of the time. That means, if mom were to test again, there's a good chance she'll pass it. Also, different labs go by different passing/failing cut offs, so there's no single standard of what constitutes a pass or fail (bad for diagnostic measures).

The main "risk" that doctors harp about is a bigger than average baby (but not as big as in DM cases, because they actually have a problem -- insufficient glucose or insulin resistance). That's the risk of elevated glucose levels, which for some women is a normal part of pregnancy. It is their own body's metabolic response to pregnancy. But, there are women who tip into diabetic ranges, but unless one's glucose is really impaired, and for prolonged periods of time, the real risk, based on current data, is a bigger baby. While that may scare some, that isn't actually dangerous as the scare tactics make it sound. Based on current research, type 1 and 2 diabetic moms are more at risk for complications, especially shoulder dystocia, seen in the evidence dissected here.

One of the main causes of uncontrolled glucose levels is non-adherence to medications, diet and self-testing protocol. So, eating a diet high in refined carbs and sugars is a no-no. Cut down on the refined carbs and sugars and you lessen the risks of elevated glucose levels.

I think it's smart to test glucose levels during pregnancy to know how one's body is handling glucose. Pregnancy affects a lot, including the metabolism and other hormonal responses, so it's normal if glucose levels are slightly elevated. It's also good to abstain from a diet high in refined carbs and sugars. That's just common sense. But the "GD can kill your baby, so you're foolish not to test!!!!!!!!!" can't be supported by the evidence.

DM can certainly cause a host of issues and uncontrolled diabetes can lead to stillbirth. I spent months scouring the data after having my first son (and I knew the data), because when you're basically told your "state"... possible uncontrolled diabetes killed your baby, you spend a lot of time going over all sorts of details and rereading the research. And said doctor was flat out wrong. He claimed my placenta look calcified... yeah, negative on that. He made assumptions, and they were baseless. Of course, when the cause was found he was no longer incriminating or guilt tripping me.

And to reaffirm what I already knew, I reached out to Marsden Wagner, an expert on this issue, and he confirmed what I knew. I didn't have glucose issues at all. I knew the evidence, but it helped to get that confirmation from a leading expert.

But, the dead baby card does work in scaring people into believing impaired glucose tolerance carries the same risks as DM. But it doesn't. It was thought to decades ago, but with current research and all protocols begin to change. However, one of the main reasons for why this change has been so slow, is because of the growing obesity epidemic and rises of diseases like type II diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease. So, the routine testing and treatment (not proven to be effective) is in response to this growing problem. Americans/Westerners have a screwed up diet and one way to counteract that is to intervene by establishing routines or guidelines that may (but don't) improve outcomes. This makes sense if impaired glucose tolerance actually increased serious risks or complications that requires or necessitates improved outcomes. I "get" the reasoning or prophylactic measures behind it, but the evidence for routine testing and associating it with DM, is not supported.

soulcupcake · August 2014

erien said:

@aeonlux‌ I didnt even read your post this time because I've read it all from you before. I guess I fail to understand the harm to the mother or baby for the mother to follow a healthy diet and exercise plan to keep blood sugar in check. I'm thankful I was diagnosed with both pregnancies because it has made me more aware of healthy eating habits. Habits I will continue for the rest of my life.

If you read what I said then you'd know that I see no harm in wanting to know how one's body handles glucose during pregnancy, but the routine testing is outdated and flawed, and the "GD can cause serious issues!!" (aka, the dead baby card) is not supported by the data.

*I* test my own glucose, and am very familiar with the data on impaired glucose tolerance and glucose/insulin. I follow an 80/20 primal diet, and am a huge advocate and supporter of primal eating -- which eliminates refined carbs and sugars from the diet. I'm not saying uncontrolled glucose should go unchecked. Persistent and prolonged uncontrolled glucose levels can cause serious risks and complications in longstanding diabetes (whether known or unknown), but not impaired glucose tolerance.

I absolutely challenge the dead baby card (not the benefits of clean eating and exercise), because it's used so often when moms challenge a routine practice that is not supported by current evidence.

Eora3 · August 2014

Do you want a 13lb baby?! Because this is how you get a 13lb baby!

In all seriousness, uncontrolled GD can clearly cause babies to be born large and with elevated blood sugar. That isn't good for adults so why would I risk my babies' health? Plus, if you are planning a vaginal birth, the chances of a complication rise when baby is extra big.

I know this is just anecdotal but I had a super thin friend who had sky high blood sugars while pregnant and was totally oblivious until she did the GD test. Pregnancy symptoms can mask and mimic all sorts of conditions. I just don't understand refusing a test for a condition just because it may be mildly inconvenient or not as serious as the "dead baby card" warrants. I would do anything to ensure my baby is healthy and drinking a nasty tasting drink and getting a blood draw is just not that big of a deal.

soulcupcake · August 2014

Eora3 said:

Do you want a 13lb baby?! Because this is how you get a 13lb baby! In all seriousness, uncontrolled GD can clearly cause babies to be born large and with elevated blood sugar. That isn't good for adults so why would I risk my babies' health? Plus, if you are planning a vaginal birth, the chances of a complication rise when baby is extra big. I know this is just anecdotal but I had a super thin friend who had sky high blood sugars while pregnant and was totally oblivious until she did the GD test. Pregnancy symptoms can mask and mimic all sorts of conditions. I just don't understand refusing a test for a condition just because it may be mildly inconvenient or not as serious as the "dead baby card" warrants. I would do anything to ensure my baby is healthy and drinking a nasty tasting drink and getting a blood draw is just not that big of a deal.

Well, if you're asking, I likely wouldn't have a 13 lb baby. First, I don't consume an excess amount of refined carbs and sugars that could result in such a macrosomic baby, and it's just not in my genetics. If I were diabetic and popping 200 mg> consistently, and continued to have trouble managing my glucose, possibly... but I don't. Can you cite any sources that impaired glucose tolerance leads to a 13 lb baby? I don't mean type I or II diabetes, but glucose impairment due to pregnancy. Pregnancy wouldn't "mask" the symptoms associated with severely uncontrolled glucose levels. Sure, a 13 lb baby is definitely possible in diabetic women with uncontrolled diabetes. But I'm not referring to DM.

There are many 9-10 lb babies born to moms with no history of glucose impairment, and there are 11 and 12 lb babies born to mothers with no record of glucose issues. It's a matter of genetics, and diets high in protein can also lead to bigger than average babies.

Again, context is key. Clean eating and exercise are important, as is knowing how one tolerates glucose so they can modify their eating habits. I'm an advocate for clean eating regardless if one's pregnant. I simply challenge a routine practice for which there is a lack of supporting evidence. It's simple, really. The routine practice and the scare tactics that come with them.

If we're talking anecdotal data, I had a friend that is a CNM vent about a diabetic mom who delivered a 12 lb baby via c-section. Her glucose levels were in the 300 mg range. It was clearly uncontrolled.

However, I have a friend who just delivered an 11 lb 12 oz baby boy at 39 weeks, vaginally, with no history or record of diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance. If we're talking anecdotal here.

ETA: Most providers encourage testing glucose levels, because it's the smart thing to do. There are simply better, more sound ways to do it. Some providers offer the jelly bean test or tell their patients to eat a normal meal (what one normally eats -- but if it's high in refined carbs or sugars, well, that is a problem). Eating protein and fats with carbs -- carbs eaten by themselves are turned into glucose at a faster rate), and staying away from foods with a high glycemic load. So, eat something that typically reflects how your body manages glucose, and go in for a test.

nopegoat · August 2014

My mom has 7 kids and her last pregnancy was the only one that she had GD. My baby sister was 13lbs4oz and we almost lost both of them during during her delivery which finally ended with an emergency c section and my sister being in NICU for almost 2 months. This was even after her GD was treated with meds. I don't even want to think about what would have happened if her GD went untreated.

Not worth the risk.

brunoshort · August 2014

The first time I did the one-hour, failed just lightly by a few points, and refused to take the 3-hour. I got a prescription for a glucose meter and managed my own diabetes without any issues or medication and with the support of an amazing OB.

I'm so not looking forward to this pregnancy's test. The orange one isn't so bad but the place I'm going to is notorious for the fruit punch kind, definitely not my choice or flavors.

sysakbaby · August 2014

aeonlux said:

sysakbaby said:

I don't know whether you mean refuse the test entirely or to eat a regular meal instead of the sugary beverage. From what I have read eating a regular meal is a more accurate measure of your bodies ability to manage your blood sugar, but the drink is a "standard" that allows your doctor to assess your blood sugar in an unbiased way.

The absolute best method is, if you have a blood sugar monitor to test your self in the morning after fasting and after meals. You would need to do this over the course of a month, and to be safe do it throughout your third trimester. However, you need to be doing this under doctor supervision so they can advise you on diet, etc.

This is what I have turned up in my research and in my discussions with my OB.

You do have options but not testing or following through with any of these methods is very dangerous for your baby.

I agree with the first part, but what dangers are you referring to (and I know the risks associated with DM)? (I'm not talking info from Mayoclinic, Webmd or Babycenter.com, but actual current and critical research) The dangers of uncontrolled glucose in type 1 and 2 diabetic women exists. Absolutely. But impaired glucose tolerance? Not quite. When it becomes dangerous for baby, mom starts showing symptoms, because uncontrolled glucose in diabetic patients actually presents with symptoms. Symptoms, the A1C, FPG, and OGTT are how an actual diagnosis is made for true diabetic patients. But "gestational diabetes" is "diagnosed" via a failed OGTT result that is non-reproducible 60% of the time. That means, if mom were to test again, there's a good chance she'll pass it. Also, different labs go by different passing/failing cut offs, so there's no single standard of what constitutes a pass or fail (bad for diagnostic measures).

The main "risk" that doctors harp about is a bigger than average baby (but not as big as in DM cases, because they actually have a problem -- insufficient glucose or insulin resistance). That's the risk of elevated glucose levels, which for some women is a normal part of pregnancy. It is their own body's metabolic response to pregnancy. But, there are women who tip into diabetic ranges, but unless one's glucose is really impaired, and for prolonged periods of time, the real risk, based on current data, is a bigger baby. While that may scare some, that isn't actually dangerous as the scare tactics make it sound. Based on current research, type 1 and 2 diabetic moms are more at risk for complications, especially shoulder dystocia, seen in the evidence dissected here.

One of the main causes of uncontrolled glucose levels is non-adherence to medications, diet and self-testing protocol. So, eating a diet high in refined carbs and sugars is a no-no. Cut down on the refined carbs and sugars and you lessen the risks of elevated glucose levels.

I think it's smart to test glucose levels during pregnancy to know how one's body is handling glucose. Pregnancy affects a lot, including the metabolism and other hormonal responses, so it's normal if glucose levels are slightly elevated. It's also good to abstain from a diet high in refined carbs and sugars. That's just common sense. But the "GD can kill your baby, so you're foolish not to test!!!!!!!!!" can't be supported by the evidence.

DM can certainly cause a host of issues and uncontrolled diabetes can lead to stillbirth. I spent months scouring the data after having my first son (and I knew the data), because when you're basically told your "state"... possible uncontrolled diabetes killed your baby, you spend a lot of time going over all sorts of details and rereading the research. And said doctor was flat out wrong. He claimed my placenta look calcified... yeah, negative on that. He made assumptions, and they were baseless. Of course, when the cause was found he was no longer incriminating or guilt tripping me.

And to reaffirm what I already knew, I reached out to Marsden Wagner, an expert on this issue, and he confirmed what I knew. I didn't have glucose issues at all. I knew the evidence, but it helped to get that confirmation from a leading expert.

But, the dead baby card does work in scaring people into believing impaired glucose tolerance carries the same risks as DM. But it doesn't. It was thought to decades ago, but with current research and all protocols begin to change. However, one of the main reasons for why this change has been so slow, is because of the growing obesity epidemic and rises of diseases like type II diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease. So, the routine testing and treatment (not proven to be effective) is in response to this growing problem. Americans/Westerners have a screwed up diet and one way to counteract that is to intervene by establishing routines or guidelines that may (but don't) improve outcomes. This makes sense if impaired glucose tolerance actually increased serious risks or complications that requires or necessitates improved outcomes. I "get" the reasoning or prophylactic measures behind it, but the evidence for routine testing and associating it with DM, is not supported.

I don't disagree with the research that you have done. Nor did I get my information from the sources you listed (MayoClinic, Babycenter, etc).

I was referring to the dangers of gestational diabetes, including both mild and severe insulin resistance, coupled with an inadequate insulin response on the fetus. What concerns me more than the risks to the mother, are the variety of risks to the fetus when exposed to high levels of glucose in maternal blood. I wasn't specifically refferring to the risk of death because that is a small risk depending on a myriad of factors. I was more referring to the general risks of macrosomia, breathing problems, their risk of obesity and diabetes as children, and yes shoulder dystocia. As you have pointed out, in mild cases this can all be managed with appropriate diet to manage blood sugar levels. However, a mother has no idea whether she has mild glucose intolerance or full blown gestational diabetes without some form of testing. Even people with absolutely no risk factors, who eat extremely healthy diets and exercise, can develop gestational diabetes. Every women's body does not always function or respond to pregnancy the same. Therefore, I personally do not feel it is worth the aforementioned risks to not assess whether you have gestational diabetes at all. While most of those risks do not cause death, that does not mean that those risks aren't significant impairments to the health of my child. I personally do not want to risk macrosomia in my child if it increases the risk (And yes I realize that there is WAY more research that needs to be done on this front) of childhood diabetes and/or obesity.

My maternal grandmother has 10 brothers and sisters, all of whom have type II diabetes. As do about half of their children. About 1/3 of them had gestational diabetes while pregnant. My mother also has type II diabetes. While type II can be managed/ eliminated with diet, it still causes long term health issues and lowers your lifespan. I feel that anything that I can do to prevent diabetes in myself and my child is worth it. I exercise regularly, avoid refined sugars and processed carbs, and I will be getting this test so that I know how my body is handling blood sugar during my pregnancy.

The intent of my statement in my original post was that the OP should take the test in whatever form she is comfortable with. Depending on her results she can talk about all the options and implications with her doctor or midwife. But to avoid the test altogether when it takes so little effort and has no risks involved (depending on your method of testing) is foolish to me. I also agree with PP that I dont believe the OP did as much research on the topic as you or I did, otherwise she wouldn't have posted the question at all.

soulcupcake · August 2014

@sysakbaby

I wish there was a way to isolate different paragraphs with a quote box. I get what you're saying. I think the following position and the current research is worth investigating even further:

"Instead of using this term, would it not be more cost effective to routinely spend longer than usual discussing with all pregnant women several aspects of their lifestyle, in particular the importance of daily physical activity and, in the age of soft drinks and white bread, issues such as high versus low glycaemic index foods? In other words, would it not be better to make antenatal care “an opportunity of a lifetime” for reconsidering several aspects of our modern lifestyle?1

Instead of focusing on the prevention of a limited number of maternal disorders, would it not be more advantageous to positively promote health and to develop long-term thinking? These questions need to be raised at a time when we have begun to realise that our health is to a great extent shaped in the womb.

I declare that I have no conflicts of interest."

Lancet

The basis of the current research is that not all women with elevated glucose should be labeled as "GD," especially when they don't present in the same way as actual diabetics. "Impaired glucose tolerance" is more fitting, because it doesn't fit the disease profile of actual diabetes. And, if it were established as protocol to preform the A1C at the beginning of pregnancy, there's a higher chance they'd catch women who "seem" (who you say are "GD) to be diabetic because they actually have prediabetes or insulin resistance. Since it can take years to develop symptoms it logically follows that the women who tip into actual diabetic ranges may actually be diabetic or on the verge of developing it. The A1C is a good screening tool in early pregnancy. (higher risk in minorities)

But with the current routine practice women with elevated glucose levels are being lumped in with women who may be undiagnosed prediabetic or insulin resistant. Again, monitoring glucose levels and modifying diet should be common sense practice. Eating a clean diet and sticking to low glycemic index foods is beneficial to everyone, not just pregnant women and diabetics. But the methodology of this routine practice (the OGTT, cut offs, treatment protocols, etc.) is lacking.

Michele Odent's research.

"[...]

The concept of fetal complications is also widespread. Fetal death has long been thought to be associated with gestational diabetes. However all well-designed studies looking at comparable groups of women dismissed this belief, in populations as divers as Western European (20) or Chinese (21), and also in Singapore (22) and Mauritius.(23) High birth weight has also been presented as a complication. In fact it should be considered an association whose expression is influenced by maternal age, parity and the degree of nutritional unbalance. If there is a cause and effect relation, it might be the other way round: a big baby requires more glucose than a small one. It is significant that in the case of twins “when the demand is double” the glucose tolerance test is more often positive than for singleton pregnancies. Only hypoglycemia of the newborn baby might be considered a complication, although there are multiple risk factors.

Another way to transform a diagnosis into a disease is to establish therapeutic guidelines. Until now, no study has ever demonstrated any positive effect of a pharmacological treatment on the maternal and neonatal morbidity rates, in a population with impaired glucose tolerance. On the contrary no pharmacological particular treatment is able to reduce the risks of neonatal hypoglycaemia.(24,25) However gestational diabetes is often treated with drugs. The frequency of pharmacological treatment has even been evaluated among the fellows of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).(26) It appears that 96% of these practitioners routinely screen for gestational diabetes. When glycaemic control is not considered acceptable, 82% prescribe insulin right away, while 13% try first glyburide, an hypoglycaemic oral drug of the sulfonylureas family.

While practitioners are keen on drugs, there are more and more studies comparing the advantages of human insulin and synthetic insulins lispro and aspart,(27, 28) or comparing the effects of twice-daily regimen with four-times-daily regimen of short-acting and intermediate-actinginsulins.(29) Meanwhile the comparative advantages of several oral hypoglycaemic drugs are also evaluated. The criteria are always short- term and “glycaemic control” is the main objective.(30) The fact, for example, that sulfonylureas cross the placenta should lead to caution and to raise questions about the long-term future of children exposed to such drugs during crucial phases of their development.

[...]"

brittandjp · August 2014

If it's part of your OB's general prenatal care, why would you refuse it? Since being apart of this board I've heard that some OB's don't require it, but I don't know a single person IRL that didn't have to take part.

REFUSING to drink it and take the test is irresponsibly IMO. My bff, healthy as can be, just failed her 1hr and had to do the 3hr yesterday. She's the last person I'd ever expect to not pass, so you can't make assumptions based on how healthy you are now, size/weight, etc.

That being said, I really don't think it's as bad as everyone makes it out to be. It doesn't taste good per say, but it's not awful either. I think it tastes like flat orange soda and there are much worse things.

rshamos · August 2014

Diabetes.org has some great info about the difference between gestational diabetes and regular diabetes. I also think you have all been pronouncing "diabetes" incorrectly.

soulcupcake · August 2014

Anna930 said:

Whoa... I'm not even going to pretend I read all of that.

On another note, as a pharmacist I always loved pulling out the 4Liter jug of colonoscopy prep and watching the patient's eyes bulge out of their head at the pharmacy counter. We hardly had a bag large enough to put it into. And the inevitable question "I have to drink ALL of that?!" "oh yes.. and don't plan to leave home during/after. No seriously, stay home, and close to the bathroom, I really am not joking" Oh the joys!

How long are these patients given to drink all of that? Yikes!

soulcupcake · August 2014

Ainslie325 said:

Refused to take it? Why?

rshamos said:

I also think you have all been pronouncing "diabetes" incorrectly.

Huh?

Here's my take: if you vetted you OB or other medical practitioner carefully, trust his or her as a professional, researched the topic, and agree with your practitioner's opinions on routine practices in prenatal care, then you should have no problem with the GD test. If the objection is that it's "gross," that's just stupid.

There are clearly moms like @aeonlux who have done their homework and, given what they've read, don't feel that this test provides enough useful medical information to be included as a part of their routine prenatal care. As such, they have carefully chose practitioners who subscribe to the same ideas.

@Ainslie325 - to be clear, I test my glucose levels, I just use an alternative method. Some providers offer different methods for testing (A1C, jelly beans, candy bar, eating a meal). I test at home with a fasting draw and one and two hour postprandial, usually over a three day period at the start of the third trimester and then every so often after that. While I wouldn't mind a 10+ lb baby, I *do* advocate clean eating and limiting refined carbs and sugars from the diet -- pregnant or not.

CandEChicago · August 2014

aeonlux said:

Anna930 said:

Whoa... I'm not even going to pretend I read all of that.

On another note, as a pharmacist I always loved pulling out the 4Liter jug of colonoscopy prep and watching the patient's eyes bulge out of their head at the pharmacy counter. We hardly had a bag large enough to put it into. And the inevitable question "I have to drink ALL of that?!" "oh yes.. and don't plan to leave home during/after. No seriously, stay home, and close to the bathroom, I really am not joking" Oh the joys!

How long are these patients given to drink all of that? Yikes!

@aeonlux - To drink the liquid... just over 2 hours and you are taking in 8 ounce "doses" every 10 minutes. About 1/2 way through it you feel miserable, bloated, and like you can't drink anymore.

The effects of the prep solution lasts for hours and very similar to food poisoning. I was sleeping on the bathroom floor. It literally cleans out everything. This is why I don't understand the "colon cleanse" diets.

If you missed it earlier here is a picture of the jug.

Want a personalized experience?

Drink to test Pregnancy diabetes?

Re: Drink to test Pregnancy diabetes?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards