#486: Blood Glucose Spikes: How High is Too High? – Mario Kratz, PhD & Nicola Guess, PhD
Sigma Nutrition Radio
Danny Lennon
4.8 • 633 Ratings
🗓️ 27 June 2023
⏱️ 81 minutes
🧾️ Download transcript
Summary
Links:
- Go to episode page (with resources)
- Receive Danny's weekly emails
- Subscribe to PREMIUM
- Twitter: @NutritionDanny
- Instagram: @dannylennon_sigma
About This Episode:
Peaks in blood glucose (or "blood sugar spikes") are commonly highlighted as something harmful to health. And, of course, an excessively high blood glucose response to a meal can be problematic, or at least indicate there is a problem.
However, elevations in blood glucose after eating are a normal physiological response. And "bad" blood glucose responses are those that stay high for a prolonged period; i.e. after elevating, they don't return to normal within an appropriate period of time.
But now many normoglycemic people are worrying about normal blood glucose responses, due to information that portrays even moderate elevations in blood glucose as harfmul. To add to the confusion, people are looking at standardized cut-off thresholds for diabetes and pre-diabetes, and mistakenly using them to label their own response to eating as measured by a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device.
When it comes to normoglycemic people, there is still a grey area in relation to how much of a glucose spike is a cause for concern. And given that there are still open questions that evidence has not fully answered yet, there is room for different interpretations of how to answer this question.
So what actually is a blood glucose peak that is "too high"? Is it 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL)? 10.0 mmol/L (180 mg/dL)? 11.1 mmol/L (200 mg/dL)? Or do we even need to think about this once standard measures (e.g. HbA1C) are normal?
To discuss this interesting area, Dr. Mario Kratz and Dr. Nicola Guess are on the podcast to offer some perspectives and their conclusions from the current evidence base.
Blood Glucose Unit Conversions:
- 1.7 mmol/L = 30 mg/dL
- 7.0 mmol/L = 126 mg/dL
- 7.8 mmol/L = 140 mg/dL
- 9.0 mmol/L = 162 mg/dL
- 10.0 mmol/L = 180 mg/dL
- 11.0 mmol/L = 198 mg/dL
- 11.1 mmol/L = 200 mg/dL
Transcript
Click on a timestamp to play from that location
| 0:00.0 | Hello and welcome to Sigma Nutrition Radio. This is episode 486 of the podcast. You are very welcome. My name is Danny Lennon, |
| 0:24.0 | and yet again, we are bringing you another conversation all about nutrition and health |
| 0:28.9 | science. And today we're going to get into an issue that I think is at top of mind for a lot |
| 0:34.4 | of people. And as we've touched on in some previous episodes of the podcast |
| 0:38.9 | relating to blood glucose and related topics, |
| 0:43.4 | there has been a lot of debate about what exactly constitutes a healthy or unhealthy |
| 0:50.2 | blood glucose response, |
| 0:51.4 | at least in settings outside of type 2 diabetes and looking |
| 0:56.6 | at cutoffs for diagnoses, which are pretty clear guidelines around diagnosis as an example. |
| 1:02.9 | But outside of that, there's been a debate about what we should consider to be an unhealthy |
| 1:08.0 | blood glucose response because it's been suggested that unhealthy |
| 1:13.1 | blood glucose responses are typically characterized by erratic or unpredictable spikes, as they're |
| 1:18.9 | often called, in blood glucose. And this can, of course, have lots of merit, but oftentimes it's |
| 1:25.7 | plagued by vague terminology that people are using. |
| 1:29.3 | And sometimes that has the net effect of, for many people in the general population, |
| 1:34.3 | coming across this information, worrying about normal blood glucose responses, |
| 1:39.3 | or seeing any elevation as potentially problematic. |
| 1:43.3 | And this is clearly related in particular to the |
| 1:47.0 | increasing prevalence of continuous glucose monitoring devices that are being used by people that |
| 1:53.2 | do not have diabetes, that are using them to track their glucose levels in real time as a way |
| 1:59.3 | to maintain ongoing good health or to keep long-term risk to negative health consequences low. |
| 2:06.6 | But of course, again, without proper interpretation of what this means, that can be quite problematic. |
... |
Please login to see the full transcript.
Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Danny Lennon, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.
Generated transcripts are the property of Danny Lennon and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.
Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.

