Connect with us


The Central Bank Bombing



by J. Godwin Perera

The date was the same as today -January 31. But the year was different. It was 1966. 25 years ago. My office was at Aitken Spence, Lloyd’s Building on Sir Baron Jayatilaka Mawatha (former Prince Street ),in close proximity to the Central Bank. That’s why this tragic incident is indelibly etched in my memory. As a matter of interest, Aitken Spence shifted to Vauxhall Street many years later. However on this morning I did not go to office as I had another appointment in another office at Maya Avenue.

I had been nominated to a special committee appointed by the then Minister of Industrial Development the late Hon. C.V.Gooneratne (He was killed by an LTTE suicide bomber in June 2000) to develop a plan to accelerate the promotion of apparel exports. This meeting commenced on schedule at 9.30 am. Around 11 am we heard the unmistakable ‘Boom’ of a bomb exploding. As we looked out of the windows in the direction of Fort, we saw dark, black plumes of smoke rising to the sky. Someone exclaimed ‘That’s where the Central Bank is’ The meeting was abruptly terminated.

In haste we hopped into our cars to get either to our offices or homes. But by now the city was in panic. Vehicle drivers were impatiently tooting horns. Traffic jams had already formed. To proceed 30 feet it took no less than 30 minutes. Motor cyclists and three-wheelers with raucously blaring horns rode on the pavements. Yes it was indeed true. It was the Central Bank and adjoining buildings that were burning.

Those were days of deep anxiety. The LTTE was on the rampage throughout the country. No one knew what dangers lurked ahead. The risk was that of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. For almost three decades Sri Lanka was embroiled in a war against the LTTE, described as one of the most ruthless terrorist organizations in the world. But this was 1996. It would take another anxiety ridden, fear shrouded, 13 years for the LTTE to be completely annihilated. During this dark period the pages in our nation’s history was splattered with the blood of thousands of innocent persons and thousands of combatants on both sides of the divide.

The LTTE even extended its ruthless arm across to India where former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated in 1991 while he was campaigning for the forthcoming elections. Here in Sri Lanka while the war raged in the North and East, in Colombo high profile targets were selectively killed by suicide bombers. Amongst those assassinated were the Commander of the Navy, Admiral Clancy Fernando in 1992. President R. Premadasa in 1993. UNP Presidential candidate Gamini Dissanayake in 1994. There were many more. Such a list would take an entire page of this journal.

The Central Bank was one of the many soft targets selected by the LTTE in their diabolical desire to create chaos and confusion, panic and pandemonium. Eleven years before this, on May 14, 1985, LTTE terrorists killed 146 civilians who were worshiping at the Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi in Anuradhapura. On that fateful day of January 31, 1966, Colombo was like a city under siege. The seeming normalcy was unreal. No one spoke about it but it was there. Employees in both the public and private sectors diligently reported to work. No matter how one went to and returned from work, whether public transport or private vehicle everyone, yes, everyone, was exposed to the risk of being killed by the LTTE.

Meanwhile, known only to the highest level of the LTTE hierarchy a ruthless plan to create death, destruction and devastation was being unfolded. On January 29, an Elf truck (42- 6452) loaded with over 200 kg of RDX explosives, gelignite, dynamite and ball-bearings all of which had been cleverly hidden under coconut husks left Vavuniya. It had reached Colombo on the 30th and parked in a safe house. Then next morning after the usual rush hour traffic had lessened and commercial activity had settled down to its busy routine the Elf truck with its lethal cargo had driven along the city’s main roads, passing undetected through several check points.

Then on to Janadhipathi Mawatha and to the main entrance of the Central Bank. The time was 10.45 am. As gunmen in the truck traded fire with the security guards of the Bank, it crashed through the main gate and the deadly cargo was detonated. Half of the Central Bank building crashed and fires broke out on several floors. But that was not the end of the attack. Within a few minutes a three-wheeler arrived. It carried two LTTE cadres armed with automatic rifles and a RPG launcher which they fired indiscriminately all around them.

Since the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) is at the apex of the country’s financial system with the primary focus of maintaining economic and price stability and financial system stability to promote sustainable growth through policy stimulus and advice, the LTTE would have wanted to paralyze the country’s financial system and cripple the economy. Certainly much more damage and destruction would have been caused if the explosives laden lethal lorry had been able to enter further inside the Bank building.

But fortunately barriers had been constructed in front during the Governorship of the late Dr H.N.S. Karunatilaka. The fortitude and commitment of Bank officials from the highest levels to the lower levels was truly admirable. In fact on the very next day – February 1, all those who were not injured came to the Bank’s Centre for Banking Studies at Rajagiriya to work. It was ‘Business as Usual’ But let’s revert to that fateful day of January 31st

In an article ‘ Rising from the Ashes – The Central Bank’s Remarkable Recovery from the Terrorist Attack’ C.P.A. Karunatilake who was the Superintendent of the Currency Dept. provides a graphic description of the rescue operations within the Bank. ‘Despite an imminent danger to their lives there were many brave sons and daughters of the Bank who dared to go into the building in search, if any of their colleagues or visitors were trapped in, to help them out safely. Some officers were seen driving bank vehicles loaded with affected colleagues rushing them to hospital.

‘Since all the entry and exit gates at road level were blocked with rubble, the wounded had to be brought down through narrow stairways at the back of the building. A difficult task. Some were injured so badly that the rescuers could not even touch them and they were brought down on window curtains, as stretchers were not available. ‘

He provides the grim statistics that 41 Central Bank officers and visitors perished. Eight officials became totally blind, 11 were partially paralyzed, and a few hundred were wounded, some badly. Outside the Bank a shocked city watched helplessly. Clouds of black smoke wafted skywards. Fort became a scene of panic and pandemonium. The shriek of sirens, the screams of blood-soaked survivors, the roar of fires gone out of control, and the rumble and crash of collapsing walls, rent the air.

The scenes were reminiscent of the 1974 Award Winning disaster movie titled ‘Towering Inferno’ starring Paul Newman and William Holden. In this movie it was the world’s tallest building which was set ablaze due to explosions caused by short circuits and inadequate safety measure. It was a gripping movie which had the audience enthralled in a mixture of emotions chief of which was shock and sadness. But that was all acting. Here in Fort, it was real life. Shock. Sadness. Unbelievable but true. A day time nightmare.

While the Central Bank was the target of the LTTE, other buildings in the vicinity also suffered. Cargo Boat Despatch, Amro Bank, Air Lanka Reservations, George Steuarts, Mercantile Credit, Hotels Corporation and Ceylinco. Many roads in the vicinity like Chatham Street, Hospital Street and Canal Row were littered with glass. Cars parked here had become twisted metal. Mangled bodies littered the street. Personal belongings lay scattered. Blood soaked clothes were strewn around. It was like a battlefield.

But here were no soldiers. Here were civilians. Meanwhile raging fires engulfed Ceylinco which at one time was the tallest building in Fort. Its walls were crumbling. Employees were frantically trying to escape. Overhead helicopters were defying billowing black fumes of smoke and intense heat to drop aqua foam to douse the fires.

According to news reports 72 bodies had been recovered by Thursday afternoon. By Thursday evening bulldozers were removing the rubble and rescue workers were searching for more bodies. The final tally of this sad tragedy was – 91 killed, 1,400 injured and 100 had lost their eyesight due to the scattering shards of glass.

There is a saying in Tibetan ‘Tragedy should be utilized as a source of strength. No matter what sort of difficulties, how painful experience is, if we lose our hope, that’s our real disaster.’

True. Very true. And hope was renewed and revived when a new Central Bank building, modern in architectural design, with state-of-the -art conference facilities, IT- incorporating the most modern equipment and appliances and a research library of international standards was officially declared open on August 27, 2000 by the then President, Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga. It coincided with the 50th Golden Jubilee of the Central Bank. With it there was ushered a new dynamic vision of development and sustainable growth in which the Central Bank would play a very pivotal role.


Science vs religion-I



Like oil and water, science and religion are immiscible and belong to mutually exclusive domains without any interface. Whenever they have been attempted to be brought together, the result invariably has been confusion, conflict, and bloodshed, of which there are too many gory examples in history. Allow religion to explain the origin of the Universe, according to its own ideas, and you end up with corpses of men and women burnt at stakes.


In Tao of Physics, Fritzof Capra wrote that science does not need religion and religion does not need science, while a man needs both. I am not so sure. Again, in The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Carl Sagan wrote, “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.

“When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual.” If spirituality implies appreciating our own insignificance in the Universe and the resulting feeling of humbleness, then this has nothing to do with religion.

But, leaving aside spirituality, religion and science have never been compatible. While science teaches us a systematic, rational way of exploring this universe to understand the laws of nature that guide life and non-life, religion has brought untold misery and suffering upon humanity. throughout the course of history. by claiming certainty in “information” and “facts” amenable neither to reason nor to observation.

Like oil and water, science and religion are immiscible and belong to mutually exclusive domains without any interface. Whenever they have been attempted to be brought together, the result invariably has been confusion, conflict, and bloodshed, of which there are too many gory examples in history.

Allow religion to explain the origin of the Universe, according to its own ideas, and you end up with corpses of men and women burnt at stakes. Same with politics. Allow religion to rule a nation, according to its own theories, and you end up with Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iran where the laws of Sharia are more important than human life or human happiness.

Given the chance, religion would turn this world into a demon-haunted place in no time – in fact it has attained a remarkable degree of success in doing so. But, what exactly is science, and what is religion? According to The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, “One way to distinguish between science and religion is the claim that science concerns the natural world, whereas religion concerns the supernatural world and its relationship to the natural. Scientific explanations do not appeal to supernatural entities such as gods or angels (fallen or not), or to non-natural forces (such as miracles, karma, or qi).

“For example, neuroscientists typically explain our thoughts in terms of brain states, not by reference to an immaterial soul or spirit, and legal scholars do not invoke karmic load when discussing why people commit crimes.” Science concerns itself with what is or can be observed and seeks an immediate answer. Religion claims the answer is either unknowable or explained only with the help of faith, that is acceptance of something whose existence is indeterminate.

Science claims to explain phenomena or mysteries only through the tested method of empirical inquiry which is a series of steps involving observation-hypothesis-experiment-inference-theory-prediction-testing. This process is indispensable, even where it may not succeed in explaining all observed phenomena, whereas religion takes recourse to God and finds it absurd that by studying STEM subjects (Science-Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) alone, the concept of God can be reduced to irrelevance. Given the chance, it will subsume science, too.

In fact, a great deal of effort has already been invested towards this end, to start a dialogue between science and religion that is actually an exercise in futility.In 1998, the Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson in his book, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, argued that knowledge is a unified system that embraces science, morality, and ethics as well. The aim was perhaps not to make science spiritual but to make religion scientific.

In the 1990s, with its multi-million-dollar grants, the John Templeton Foundation launched a magazine called Science & Spirit, “to explain what science cannot, and asking science to validate religious teachings”. The magazine died a natural death in 2009.The Foundation also financed several documentaries like “Faith and Reason”, “Cybergrace: The Search for God in the Digital World” or “God & the Big Bang: Discovering Harmony Between Science & Spirituality”.

Scores of bestselling books, written by eminent scientists, followed, like Belief in God in an Age of Science (1998) by John Polkinghorne, a Cambridge physicist turned Anglican priest, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (2006) by Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project, or Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe (2021) by Stephen Meyer, Director of the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute which is the main organization behind the so-called Intelligent Design Movement, according to which the universe was created by an intelligent designer, the God almighty.

But physics explains the origin of the universe convincingly from quantum electrodynamics as arising from a vacuum fluctuation and biology explains the evolution of all life, starting with a chance molecule that learned to replicate itself. But both intelligent design and evolution cannot be true at the same time, hence the attempt to find a middle path – an absurd one at that – that God created the universe and left it to the laws of nature, also designed by him, to run it, without any further interference in its future course.

As the New York Times science journalist George Johnson wrote, thus “God becomes a metaphor for the laws that science tries to uncover.” On the question of faith, there are deep divisions among the scientists themselves. While Einstein’s God was one “who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists”, and not one “who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind”, many scientists hold radically different views. Some, like the cosmologist Allan Sandage, wonder: “‘How is it that inanimate matter can organize itself to contemplate itself? That’s outside of any science I know”, while others, like the Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, believe that pursuing God is a “waste” of time that never has “added anything to the storehouse of human wisdom”.

Believers in God hold that a grand unified theory to explain the universe in terms of a single theory that is the holy grain of science would be incomplete without the integration of faith and ancient wisdom in it, while others, like Christians, were outraged when the radiocarbon dating of the shroud of Turin suggested it as a medieval forgery and not the burial cloth of Jesus, feel that as science develops more sophisticated techniques, their religious beliefs will be vindicated.

Fortunately, the endeavour of all these new-age scientists to blur and finally erase the boundary between science and pseudoscience has not yet succeeded. Similar efforts are on even in our own country. Religion is essentially about worship, and worship means surrender.

Faith is necessarily blind and has to disregard evidence in order to reinforce and validate its belief system. Human life is full of misery and suffering ~ indeed it is a “flash of occasional enjoyments lighting up a mass of pain and misery” from which faith alone can provide a temporary deliverance. “Happiness is but only an occasional episode in the general drama of pain” that surrounds us, as Thomas Hardy said, and if surrender could mitigate even a little of that pain, it should be welcome.

Surrender can also be made more convincing when imbued with love and fear that a God is capable of inspiring in human minds. Finally, if the surrender can hold out the promise of something eternal, like an eternal deliverance from pain or from the endless cycles of birth and death, such an eternal vision becomes too tantalising to resist by most.

All that remains is to remind and reinforce these ideas continually through repetitive rituals, meaningless though they are, and the whole package becomes so overwhelming that few could emerge out of its enchanting aura to be able to see the world and reality with objectivity.

After all, we still do not know how the objective reality conveyed to our brain through the senses acquires a subjective meaning in our mind, how the scent of a rose gets transformed into the memory of our first love, or a fading photograph brings back long-forgotten emotions.

Subjectivity rules the roost, everything else, even hard evidence, becomes mere speculation. Blind faith has no rival, and when blind faith masquerades as science, the conquest of the mind by religion becomes total, and all logic has been clinically erased. The evolution of life and that too on a tiny planet called earth that has just about the right conditions with the right values of fundamental constants among billions of such planets is an awesome mystery that the believers cite to establish intelligent design as the only explanation.

They ignore the fact that there are planets with all possibilities and ours happen to be the one with only just one of these permutations that made life – and God – possible. Logic and faith, like science and religion – are incompatible; if bring them together, there will be combustion and conflict.

But bring complexity to replace conflict, and the science-religion debate immediately acquires a political dimension ~ struggle between secular liberalism and traditional conservatism, authority versus individual liberty, herd mentality versus reason, and state versus individual. In each one of these struggles, rationality is the obvious victim that is left bleeding to die.

(The Statesman/ANN)

Continue Reading


Vijayabahu, Gajabahu, and meanings of names



By Uditha Devapriya

The Sri Lanka Navy recently commissioned Vijayabahu, a former US Coastguard Cutter. The ship joins two other US origin vessels in the Navy. For some reason, the name seems to have caused consternation among certain circles. Alan Keenan of the International Crisis Group, for instance, has noted on Twitter that it is “loaded with social and political meaning” and that “it’s hardly an advertisement for the multi-ethnic, multicultural #SriLanka western govts say they want to promote.” He cites two other names, Gajabahu and Samudura.

The Pali and Sinhalese Chronicles depict both Gajabahu and Vijayabahu as national heroes: Gajabahu (113-136 AD) for having led a campaign to rescue 12,000 Sinhala captives in the Chola (or Soli) kingdom, and Vijayabahu (1055-1110 AD) for having driven Chola invaders from Polonnaruwa and laid the foundation for the unification of the polity by one of his successors, Parakramabahu (1123–1186 AD). Alan Keenan’s reference to the “social” and “political” meanings of these names is doubtless based on how Sinhalese Buddhists imagine these kings today, and how military regiments have appropriated them.

There is no denying that nationalist historiography has reduced these personages into mythical heroes today. It’s not just the military. Even popular writers prefer to see history through a particular prism. Their interpretation of the past places these kings as saviours of the race (jatiya) and unifiers of the polity (rata). This presents an interesting problem. In praising these monarchs for having brought the country together, nationalist writers tend to impute contemporary terms, like sovereignty, on what was essentially a non-unitary State. This is historical anachronism at its best (or worst?), and it is from there that these writers extract the contemporary meanings of these kings and their names.

I have implied in many of my essays that by viewing history through these prisms, Sinhala nationalists have done a disservice to their own history. In other words, they have not been fair to their past. We must be careful not to commit the same mistake when criticising these writers. While pointing out the errors of their methodology, it would be prudent not to use the same categories and binaries they deploy. To that end, it would be more constructive, instead of pointing out the “contemporary” meanings of Sinhala kings and their names, to highlight their historical and non-mythical meanings. Once we do that, we will be able to reconstruct a past more in keeping with the multi-ethnic, multi-caste character of Sri Lankan history, particularly in the Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa periods.

Vijayabahu, for instance, was the product of a period that saw deep and close interaction between Sri Lankan (Sinhala) monarchs and their South Indian contemporaries. In his book Rewriting Buddhism: Pali Literature and Monastic Reform in Sri Lanka, 1157-1270, Alastair Gornall notes three “interrelated” changes in the 10th and 11th centuries that profoundly shaped Sri Lankan history: the invasions of two Cola kings (Raja Raja and Rajendra I), the “fragmentation” of the ruling family, and “changing attitudes” to Sanskrit literature, which influenced Sinhala and Pali literary works. The early Chola invasions laid the foundation for Kalinga Magha’s conquests in the 13th century AD and the later shift from Anuradhapura to Polonnaruwa. In other words, there were linkages between an ostensibly “Sinhala Buddhist” polity and a “Hindu” South Indian dynasty that makes the use of binaries like Sinhala/Tamil, Buddhist/Hindu, and Sri Lanka/Soli redundant, if not anachronistic.

Indeed, the kings of these times actively involved themselves in the politics of South India. During the first millennium AD, Gornall writes, conflicts within the State were “contained.” What this means is that they never threatened the social and political patterns of the country. Once we pass this period, though, the Anuradhapura State becomes embroiled in the politics of its neighbouring states. As Professor Raj Somadeva has argued, between the reigns of Sena I (833-853 AD), Dappula IV (924-935 AD), and Mahinda V (982-1029 AD), Sinhala kings sided with one or the other contending dynasties in South India, thus exposing themselves to “the threat of outside invasion.” These interventions eventually lead to the humiliating deposal of Mahinda V, the last ruler of Anuradhapura.

Vijayabahu is celebrated in nationalist reconstructions of history as a just and able ruler who put an end to these humiliations, recaptured the State from the Chola invaders, and fortified the State. However, his hold was considerably tenuous. In seeking to unify the State, he had to account for and accommodate certain realities: he therefore entrusted the tooth relic of the Buddha to Velaikkara mercenaries. Gornall suggests that the Chola invaders harboured very little cultural ambitions in Sri Lanka: it was the South Indian social and mercantile elites who patronised and built Hindu temples in Polonnaruwa. Yet they did exert an influence on the political, social, and literary landscape of the post-Anuradhapura State.

In his book Foreign relations of Sri Lanka, from earliest times to 1965, Vernon Mendis argues that history has not been fair to this ruler: he is castigated for having capitulated to South Indian overlords and mercenaries. Nevertheless, to borrow an oft-quoted phrase, there was little that he could do. Vijayabahu’s response to these geopolitical realities was pragmatic, if not inevitable: in the interests of the State, he put up with a South Indian presence, to the extent that an inscription eulogising him was carved in literary Tamil, and married a Kalinga princess, Tiloka Sundari, to ensure “the longevity of his own lineage.” Not surprisingly, it is in this ruler’s reign that ties with South India become complex.

What nationalist interpretations of Vijayabahu’s achievements and failures thus omit is that the times he lived in were simply too complex to accommodate the binaries that popular writers impute to their reading of history. Long before Vijayabahu, before even the collapse of Anuradhapura, Sinhala kings had begun a tradition of claiming descent from the Kalinga line. This was, at one level, to add respectability to their office. It was also a creative way of accommodating the rise of South Indian power and the decline of Sinhalese power, both of which can be dated between the fourth and 14th centuries AD.

Following these cycles of decline and revival, we come across literary works, predominantly Sinhalese, that legitimise certain colonisation and nationalist myths. While the authors of the early Chronicles, especially the Mahavamsa, sought to validate specific religious sects, the authors of the later Chronicles, especially the Rajavaliya, sought to romanticise if not mythologise these cycles of decline and revival and to valorise the supposedly “enduring” character of Sinhala society. Hence the Rajavaliya eulogises Gajabahu for having rescued 12,000 captives from the clutches of a Chola king, though as Obeyesekere has pointed out there is little historical evidence for this. It also depicts him as settling Tamil communities in and around Kandy, though the rather anachronistic inclusion of Kandy indicates that this episode would have been the basis for a colonisation myth.

The polity and State presented in these stories are, to be sure, Sinhalese and Buddhist, and they admittedly legitimise the hero/villain distinctions that popular writers deploy in their re-imaginings of the past. Yet embedded with these same stories are important clues and signs of a vibrant, diverse, even multi-ethnic society. Gajabahu is presented as a Sinhalese hero, but there are narratives that depict him as the patron of the Pattini cult in Sri Lanka. Obeyesekere questions these myths and posits that they are “worthless.” Yet the inclusion of this king in a major Tamil literary work, the Silppadikaram, and the invocation of him in a ritual associated with the Pattini cult, the gammaduwa, tells us that the society of his time was more multifaceted that what the Chronicles would have us believe.

The Pattini cult itself shows clear linkages between Sinhalese and Tamil communities that have survived the many fratricidal conflicts we have seen since independence. Gananath Obeyesekere’s advice, in that sense, is probably the most important: when reading these myths, it is essential that we do not literalise them, since a literalist reading can pave the way for conflict and tension. That is why Alan Keenan’s point about the social and political meanings of names is highly relevant. However, it is important to not only highlight those meanings, but also look at possible alternative meanings. This admittedly requires historical and anthropological research of a sort we simply do not have here. It is only through such research and scholarship that we can prevent the country from sliding down into the murky waters of ethno-supremacism. For that, we need to return to our past.

The writer is an international relations analyst, researcher, and columnist who can be reached at

Continue Reading


Relationship between sleep and blood glucose levels



Therapeutic sleep might furthermore reduce lethal blood sugar levels by facilitating healthy systems. Curtailed sleep is a risk aspect for improved blood sugar levels.

SNS: Sleep and blood glucose levels: Contended Sleep and good health is inseparable with immense health benefits. Sleep deprivation leads to many health complications including blood sugar levels which has a major link with sleep cycle. There are proven facts that decrease in sleep impacts the blood sugar level leading to diabetes which, if stretched longer may result in heart diseases.

However, the connection between sleep and blood sugar is complicated. There is not a reasonable formula that demonstrates a relationship between the amount of sleep and an interconnected increase or decrease in blood sugar.

How does sleep impact Glucose Levels in Blood?

It sounds antithetical that sleep can both raise and lower glucose levels. According to a Rutgers University study report our bodies encounter a cycle of changes every day which is called a “circadian rhythm” which naturally boosts blood sugar levels at night and when an individual sleeps. However these natural blood sugar mounds are not a reason for worry.

Therapeutic sleep might furthermore reduce lethal blood sugar levels by facilitating healthy systems. Curtailed sleep is a risk aspect for improved blood sugar levels. Even discriminatory sleep deprivation over one night improves insulin resistance, which can in turn upswing blood sugar levels. As a result, a lack of sleep has been linked with diabetes, a blood sugar disorder.

Additional analysis is needed to better understand the relationship between sleep and blood sugar.

Factors managing the relationship between sleep and blood sugar levels:

-The abundance of time a person sleeps.

-The phases of sleep a person experiences.

-The time of day a person sleeps.

-A person’s age.

-A person’s eating habits (which coincide with nourishment and sleep).

How does inadequate sleep and Blood Sugar levels?

According to Dr Stuti Sharma, PG Resident MAMC Delhi, inadequacy of sleep and blood sugar levels are connected.  Inadequate  sleeping significantly increases blood sugar levels. Researchers have conveyed the following relationships between sugar and lack of sleep or sleep problems:

Sleep-disordered breathing is related to higher glucose levels

Obstructive sleep apnea is attributed to defective glucose tolerance

More intense sleep breathing issues are linked with higher blood sugar

Obstructive sleep apnea stringency is associated with increased fasting glucose

Poor sleep is associated with a decreased capacity to control glucose levels in diabetic patients

Sleep loss is correlated with risen glucose levels in hospitalized patients with and without diabetes

Relationship between blood sugar levels and heart disease

People with diabetes have a higher chances of developing various health problems including heart disease. High blood sugar levels over time can damage the blood vessels of our heart and other organs leading to different health problems.  It means the longer you have diabetes the greater your risk for heart disease. Because of higher blood glucose level the heart may suffer from stroke and even death. But if blood sugar levels are maintained then there will be less chances of heart diseases. And it can be done by sound sleep as discussed earlier.

Continue Reading