2/11 Eddie AMPS 369, +5.5= 224, PMPS 300, +7 = 71

[Jen&Eddie]

Yesterday: http://www.felinediabetes.com/FDMB/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=113526

A little close for comfort last night. I think I overestimated how high Eddie was going to climb, and maybe he cleared whatever resist-y hormones he might have had still floating around. I think if I get a lower pre-shot like that again, I'm going to have to shave my scale to 2.2u, and see how he does. The crazy part is, the cycle in the PM on 2/6 was almost identical to start out, with very different results.

Well, you had an active night. Time to shave the dose for that range. :mrgreen:

Despite the multitude of pokies, Eddie snuggled up into the crook of my arm at bedtime. If there was ever proof that cats don't hold grudges about the shots and the pokes, I think that's proof right there. :mrgreen:

AMPS = 369 (bounce) (2.8u)
+5.5 = 224
PMPS = 300 (2.6u)
+4 = 185
+5 = 140
+6 = 91 :mrgreen:
+7 = 71 :mrgreen:
+8 = 84 :mrgreen:

 

[Sue and Oliver (GA)]

Re: 2/11 Eddie AMPS 369

Yes, the ss data is valuable and a good guide, but not infallible. You can't factor in his body and how it is continually adapting to insulin, food and how it changes numbers over time, and just the general improvement you are supposed to be seeing. At some point, he should need less insulin and over time, less and less. That's how it should work till he goes OTJ.

 

[Jen&Eddie]

Re: 2/11 Eddie AMPS 369, +5.5= 224

+5.5 = 224

At some point, he should need less insulin and over time, less and less. That's how it should work till he goes OTJ.

Gosh, I *hope* that's what we might be seeing! I've been assuming we'd continue to go up for a while before going down, but Eddie may have a different plan in mind. :mrgreen: Maybe I need to back off a bit?

With as much food as he had to keep him in the 50's, I'm thinking a flat 2u might have been enough. In looking back at the last low green cycle Eddie had in the PM of 2/8, where we also had to intervene quite a bit with food, I had experimented with a slightly higher dose of 2.6 for his pre-shot of 276. My general "scale" would have been to shoot 2.4 on that pre-shot. I think 2.4 or maybe even 2.2 would have been good for that cycle, too. After the low cycle on 2/8, Eddie had three kind of unimpressive relatively flat cycles after that. Last night, I should have recognized that he was clearing whatever remaining counter-regulatory hormones were still affecting him, and I shot a bit more aggressively. I'm going to guess that he'll bounce for a few cycles now.

Now I'm wondering, if, after Eddie clears the bounce that I'm anticipating, if I should overall lower my scale a bit. Currently, my "official" scale is 200-250: 2.2u, 250-300: 2.4u, 300-350: 2.6u, 350+: 2.8u. I do, however, shoot a bit higher if I'm confident that he's going to continue to rise, which he will typically do after a good cycle, and if I can monitor. It's what he's going to do after the flatter cycles that is harder to predict. Last night, for example, at +1, he was at 238, which according to my scale, would have been a 2.2u shot. I'm thinking the 2.2u might have even been more than necessary. I'm also thinking that maybe Eddie has a built in "safety" trigger at about 50, so he starts kicking out glucose, and even moreso, counter-regulatory hormones, if he hits that 50 area. So, basically, you'd never see below 50, even if the dose is quite a bit more than necessary, because he's already kicking out hormones to push him back up.

Theoretical question: I know there's quite a bit of debate on this board about the existence of Somogyi, but I do think that there are bounces and flat cycles due to counter-regulatory hormones, and I think Eddie definitely demonstrates this. I also generally agree that while ECID, if there is some insulin resistance that has developed due to flat cycles in response to some lower numbers, that generally the best approach is to increase to push down whatever resistance there is in order to get a "breakthrough." I think that's what we saw with Eddie after a bunch of flat yellow cycles, and I think the rather large increase suggested by Carl helped us accomplish the "breakthrough" that we were hoping to see. That said, are we defeating our purpose a bit if we have one great cycle followed by two or three flat cycles until we can push Eddie down again? I'm guessing this might be kind of a chicken versus egg question. :smile: