Recently raised the question re blood glucose levels.

Our levels are measured in mmol/litre compared with Dr Jack (USA)'s
mg/100ml

The acceptable minimal level here for fasting blood glucose varies but some
major teaching hospitals have recently raised the minimum to 2.6 mmol/litre
(2.2 mmol = 40 mg/l00 ml) for newborn infants and less 1.8 mmol/litre for
preterm babies.

For many years is was 2.2 mmol at most centres. By raising the acceptable
minimal level we have more babies showing hypoglycaemia and needing
treatment.

The treatment being either stat feedings (which tend to be cows milk
instead of human breastmilk) or doses of glucose 5-10%  IVI.

When routine testing is carried out on any newborn babies they all appear
to be below this artificially high arbitrary limit.   I wonder if nature
intends our babies to be hypoglycaemic to stimulate hunger.  Similarly
babies are born with high CO2 and acidic pH in order to stimulate
breathing.

MY QUESTION IS what are the common levels around the world and are all
babies subjected to this painful heelprick unnecessarily?  Who profits?

The biochemists, makers of glucometers, formulae?   Do babies benefit.

Certainly the glucose levels for babies of diabetic mothers from breastmilk
is adequate, but remembering that other energy sources are also required
such as protein and fats, a glucose injection alone is not the answer for
newborn babies of diabetic mothers.  Surely colostrum is the only treatment
if it urgent treatment is necessary.

What are your thoughts?

[log in to unmask]