High Sugar – the 48-hour rule

My wife was just away for the weekend, so I cooked for myself. I cooked meetballs and pasta and, because of the number of meatballs in the packet, the concoction lasted both the days my wife was away. Funny, on both days, my sugar was up at 16, which is far higher than I’d like. Needless to say, I was quite careful with what I ate, and I never normally notice a particular peak with a portion of pasta, so possibly the jar of ragu also had sugar in it?

Anyway, last night I just had chicken kievs (I love garlic!), with nothing else, and this morning my sugar was back down at 12. Provided I don’t go crazy today, it’ll be single figures tomorrow. It’s funny how it seems to take 48 hours for everything to settle back down after a spike.

Slippers

Yay, my latest experiment arrived today.

For the last few years I have really felt the cold, so have bought lovely warm sheepskin slippers. The only problem is, the absence of movement in my bad foot means that my left slipper can just slide off my foot, often in the most inconvenient of places. The middle of the garden is a good one, surrounded by chicken poo!

Anyway, at the weekend, I noticed that my current sheepskin slippers were very falling apart, so this time I bought some of those (lined) Crocs. I’m hoping that

  1. the lining will keep my foot warm enough, and
  2. the strap at the back of the croc will keep it on my foot.

My wife has also pointed out that a rubber shoe might also be better, as regards treading stuff in from the garden, than a slipper.

Question Time

This one would have been an easy one for me. Left or right, it doesn’t matter. I have two key questions when this crops up:
  1. Is someone criticising an argument, or a person? I don’t have a problem when somebody finds things wrong with a particular argument that’s being presented, but when they tell me what I should think of their opponent, then I turn off. In much the same vein,
  2. Is someone arguing the merits of their own argument, or the consequences of their opponent’s? Are they telling you how good their argument is, or how bad their opponent’s is?

So just these two rules set me well on the way towards how much of what I hear is allowed to sink in. In poor old Corbyn’s defence, I heard a lot of this from the Conservatives during the last election (and since), which was one reason I turned away from them.

The debate last night, by the way, just turned into a party-political squabble, with the Labour guy saying the Tories were awful, and vice versa. You get that, you turn off. I gave up watching after 5 minutes. Very disappointing again. It has been quite poor of late.