GH.p-Modulus Study of Linear Elastic Glucose Theory Based on Data From 159 Liquid Egg Meals, 126 Solid Egg Meals, and 2,843 Total Meals Using GH-Method: Math-Physical Medicine, Part 12 (No. 364)

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

This article is Part 12 of the author’s linear elastic glucose behavior study. It focuses on a deeper investigation of GH.p-modulus through the comparison of the results from his neuroscience study of egg meals against his 2,843 total meals during the period of 5/5/2018 to 11/17/2020. In the comparison study, he can explore the potential range (variance) of GH.p-modulus values with special cases of 285 egg meals and general case of 2,843 total meals. As a result, it extends to connect the study of his eight hypothetical standard cases presented in paper No. 361 (Reference 17). Here is the step-by-step explanation of the predicted postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) equation using linear elastic glucose theory as described in References 9 through 19: (1) Baseline PPG equals to 97% of FPG value, or 97% * (weight * GH.f-Modulus). (2) Baseline PPG plus increased amount of PPG due to food, i.e. plus (carbs/sugar intake amount * GH.p-Modulus). (3) Baseline PPG plus increased PPG due to food, and then subtracts reduction amount of PPG due to exercise, i.e. minus (post-meal walking k-steps * 5). (4) The Predicted PPG equals to Baseline PPG plus the food influences, and then subtracts the exercise influences. The linear elastic glucose equation is: Predicted PPG = (0.97 * GH.f-modulus * Weight) +(GH.p-modulus * Carbs&sugar) - (post-meal walking k-steps * 5) Where (1) Incremental PPG = Predicted PPG - Baseline PPG + Exercise impact (2) GH.f-modulus = FPG / Weight (3) GH.p-modulus = Incremental PPG / Carbs intake It is quite interesting to put the author’s 285 special egg meals experimental data side by side with his 2,843 total meals data together. The differences of the carb amount and GH.p-modulus values between the egg meals and total meals are vast and obvious. The neuroscience egg meals are offered as extreme cases for the GH.p-modulus boundary situations by having an extremely low carb intake amount per meal with an associated much higher GH.p-modulus value. However, the conclusions from the case of 2,843 total meals could offer general guidelines for type 2 diabetes patients who want to control their diabetic conditions via lifestyle management program. The author thinks that a general GH.p-modulus range of 1.0 to 5.0 is probably suitable for the majority of clinical cases (the author’s own range is 2.1 to 3.4). From a practical angle, a patient can use this GH.p-modulus value as a multiplier of his carbs/sugar amount and use a number of 5 as his multiplier to the post-meal walking k-steps and then plug them into the following “quick but not so dirty” formula in order to obtain the predicted PPG. Predicted PPG =FPG + (GH.p * Carbs) - (k-steps *5) Where the patient can attempt to use different numbers between 1 through 5 as the GH.p input value to determine the suitable GH.p-modulus. By using the above estimated PPG formula, diabetes patients can find their PPG level very quickly and accurately without delving into the details of the linear elastic glucose theory.