Gatorade, Exercise, and My Type 2 II Diabetes

I usually don't blog about personal events because (1) I lack any perspective on them, (2) nobody would find them that interesting, and (3) I don't have much of value to say. But I had an experience recently that I wanted to blog about, if only to have this post appear when somebody else googles "Type 2 Diabetes Gatorade exercise".


I am not a Doctor (IANAD), I am not a Lawyer (IANAL) and probably neither are you. You should see your doctor with your questions. This is just my anecdote. And you know what they say: the plural of anecdote is not information.

I'm a Type II diabetic and a Cyldesdale bicyclist. I've ridden several long, multi-day rides with my Type II diabetes, which is (mostly) in control. These long rides are 80 to 100 miles a day for up to four days, mostly TOSRV and DC-Pittsburgh.

In 2010 I was preparing for another long ride, and my prep rides were turning out to be mostly 20 miles long with the occasional 40-miler. That's not as long as they should be, but my time was tight. I was drinking water and eating power bars and packets of honey on the bike.

As the ride approached I started getting all my gear on the bike and started doing what I'd be doing on the ride, which included drinking Gatorade. In previous years I drank a 50% gatorade/water mix, but this year I started drinking more straight Gatorade. I don't know why.

A curious thing started happening to me when I rode. After an hour, maybe at 1h+15m, I'd feel a blood sugar crash - loss of energy, nervousness, feelings of impending collapse. I'd get off the bike, eat something and drink some Gatorade, and it would pass. I'd get back on the bike, ride for a half-hour, and then the same thing. For the rest of the ride it would be a thirty-minute ride with a twenty-minute break. I figured I wasn't being disciplined enough with my eating.

I went on the DC to Pittsburgh ride. We started in DC and after an hour I started to feel the crash coming on. I'd been focusing on hydrating (gatorade) the whole ride, but I drank some more Gatorade and pressed on. By 1+30 I was feeling terrible and abandoned the day's ride, because I was in a group and I didn't want to hold them up.

Each of the next few days, I'd ride for an hour and crash. Drink more Gatorade, get back on the bike, a half-hour then another crash. So I rode with the group for the first and last 90 minutes each day. It was not the ride I'd hoped to have, and although I really enjoyed the riding I got, I was disappointed to be a DNF and verklempt to think my long rides were over.

Back home I kept riding, and I noticed my daily mileages were slipping from 20 miles, to 15 miles, to 12 miles. Each ride I'd have an energy crash about an hour into it. Finally I tested my blood sugar during a ride and the numbers were very high, 255 mg/dl.

I had thought my problem was that my diabetes was interfering with the bike riding, but then the thought occurred: could it be something I was doing on the bike was interfering with my diabetes? Which led me to: Could it be drinking the Gatorade?

So I Googled "Is drinking Gatorade safe for diabetics" and found this opinion, which said No, it's not. There's a few other similar opinions on the web.

Gatorade and Exercise ~ Diabetic Poisoning For Me

Your mileage may vary, but I found that when I removed the Gatorade and replaced it with water the situation improved dramatically, to the point where I now think I was practically poisoning myself with the Gatorade.


Gatorade contains a lot of carbs, simple sugars, and electrolytes designed to get into your bloodstream quite rapidly. Apparently for me this really spiked my blood sugar which screwed up my energy levels. When I cut out the Gatorade I felt like my old self on the bike again.

To be clear: Gatorade is not poisonous, it's just really, really bad for me. I've read that's it's actually useful for Type 1 diabetes and for people with low blood sugar. The manufacturers aren't evil people.

To repeat, this is just my experience, you should talk with your doctor. Just providing food for thought.

BP Backlash: Boycott? Bailout? Receivership?

I have waited to see a backlash against BP for ruining the Gulf Of Mexico, and I expected that by now we'd be seeing a quixotic consumer boycott. I'm surprised to find BP gas stations filled with happy eager customers over the long weekend.

Maybe they haven't made the connection between BP oil platforms and the green-and-flowery BP gas pumps. Maybe that's one of our problems.



There seemed to be a similar cognitive dissonance about supply and demand, lifestyle and disaster when 29 coal miners were recently killed at the Upper Big Branch Mine. We don't seem to make the connection.

For the record, I'd like to clarify that IANAD (I am not a Democrat) NTTAWWT (not that there's anything wrong with that). But if I were a Democrat, it would be because of Democrats like Harry Truman, Daniel Moynihan, and Robert Reich.

In his blog today, Robert Reich provides five cogent reasons for President Obama putting BP under temporary federal receivership.

1. We are not getting the truth from BP. Government must be clearly in charge of getting all the facts, not waiting for what BP decides to disclose and when.

2. We have no way to be sure BP is devoting enough resources to stopping the gusher. BP is now saying it has no immediate way to stop up the well until August. August? If government were in direct control of BP’s North American assets, it would be able to devote whatever of those assets are necessary to stopping up the well right away.

3. BP’s new strategy for stopping the gusher is highly risky. Scientists say that could result in 20 percent more oil gushing from the well. At least under government receivership, objective officials would be directly accountable for weighing the advantages and disadvantages of such a strategy.

4. Right now, the U.S. government has no authority to force BP to adopt a different strategy or over the disaster scene. Carol Browner said, “We told (BP) of our very, very grave concerns” about risks. Expressing grave concerns is not enough. The President needs legal authority to order BP to protect the United States.

5. The President is not legally in charge. As long as BP is not under the direct control of the government he has no direct line of authority, and responsibility is totally confused. There is no good reason why “they” are in charge of an operation of which “we” are hoping for the best and preparing for the worst.

If we can take over AIG and General Motors because of the risk that current management and their actions have posed to the national economy, can't the Federal Government take over BP for ruining the Gulf of Mexico, thwarting development of domestic oilfields, and causing actual damage to the economy?

Reich concludes by saying, "No president would allow a nuclear reactor owned by a private for-profit company to melt down in the United States while remaining under the direct control of that company. The meltdown in the Gulf is the environmental equivalent."

Robert Reich rocks.