SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    What do you think of the new BP recommendations?- My MD's response in OP
Page 1 2 3 

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
What do you think of the new BP recommendations?- My MD's response in OP Login/Join 
Waiting for Hachiko
Picture of Sunset_Va
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 12131:
quote:
Originally posted by Chris17404:
Saw this on the news last night. The medical lady said they think it will only cause a 2% increase of people going on meds. Yeah right. Roll Eyes

I'll tell you, it's a racket.


As some one with acute vascular issues and hyper hyper tension, solving it with adding more meds os the common practice.

I have ended up in the ER twice over the past 2 weeks with BP that stayed above the 200/100 mark, my first visit I was kept 2 days. I have been battling HPBP for years, my cardiovascular doctor changed all my previous mds, so my body is going wacko trying to adjust, but I developed bronchitis during all this. And we have had some cold , damp weather over the past two weeks.

If my BP stayed even 150/80, I would be happy.

I watch what I eat in terms of fat and salt, by God, my diet seems to be pills!


美しい犬
 
Posts: 4481 | Location: Near the Metropolis of Tightsqueeze, Va | Registered: February 18, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 12131:If I were in your shoes, and my doc pushes BP med on me, I would politely decline. And, if he continues to insist, I'd find another PCP. Just me.


Just to be clear, my physician has never recommended I go on meds in the past. In fact after looking at my home vs work data, she said she'd be reluctant to do so due to the risk of hypotension and fainting at home. I've never found her to be pushy, but not sure how much these guidelines spook physicians into overprescribing due to malpractice avoidance. I sent her an email this morning. I'll let you know what she says.
 
Posts: 6555 | Location: The Red part of Minnesota | Registered: October 06, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Too old to run,
too mean to quit!
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Poacher:
They dropped the numbers from 140 and 90 to 130 and 80. Overnight half the population now has high BP.


Gotta support big pharma!


Elk

There has never been an occasion where a people gave up their weapons in the interest of peace that didn't end in their massacre. (Louis L'Amour)

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. "
-Thomas Jefferson

"America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." Alexis de Tocqueville

FBHO!!!



The Idaho Elk Hunter
 
Posts: 22328 | Location: Virginia | Registered: December 16, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Too old to run,
too mean to quit!
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by esdunbar:
When I stopped eating refined sugar and simple carbs (still eat complex carbs...fruits, veggies, etc), my blood pressure dropped. Not sure if it was related, just something I noticed.

My blood work in general got really good!


Yeah, not to mention working out, either.


Elk

There has never been an occasion where a people gave up their weapons in the interest of peace that didn't end in their massacre. (Louis L'Amour)

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. "
-Thomas Jefferson

"America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." Alexis de Tocqueville

FBHO!!!



The Idaho Elk Hunter
 
Posts: 22328 | Location: Virginia | Registered: December 16, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Delusions of Adequacy
Picture of zoom6zoom
posted Hide Post
quote:
rarely add salt to anything,

If you eat a good amount of processed or fast foods, you're already getting well over the recommended amount without adding anything.

Or course, the entire idea that sodium is primarily responsible or even highly contributory to high BP is entirely crap.




I have my own style of humor. I call it Snarkasm.
 
Posts: 16210 | Location: Virginia | Registered: June 02, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I’m interested in this too. After a few years in the 140/90 range and exercising like a fool, I️ didn’t see anyway out of HP but through meds.

In January I was on Amlodepine(5 mg?) until September when I developed kankles, but it was working well - 120/80. Doc switched me to 25mg of Losartan. No affect after 30 days. Have eliminated caffeine (I’m a diet DP fool). I’m at 50mg now and go back Dec 1.

I’m hoping the BP meds work. I run 30-40 miles (7:30 pace) and bike (20-60 miles at 18-30 mph). In four weeks I’ll run my 24th marathon and May will be my third full Ironman. I get plenty of exercise. I’m 5’7, 180# and stocky. I’m blaming poor genes. And I miss my diet DP.


P229
 
Posts: 2296 | Location: Sacramento, CA | Registered: November 21, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Oriental Redneck
Picture of 12131
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by MNSIG:
quote:
Originally posted by 12131:If I were in your shoes, and my doc pushes BP med on me, I would politely decline. And, if he continues to insist, I'd find another PCP. Just me.


Just to be clear, my physician has never recommended I go on meds in the past. In fact after looking at my home vs work data, she said she'd be reluctant to do so due to the risk of hypotension and fainting at home. I've never found her to be pushy, but not sure how much these guidelines spook physicians into overprescribing due to malpractice avoidance. I sent her an email this morning. I'll let you know what she says.

My statement was made in reference to the new guidelines. Wink


Q


 
Posts: 13627 | Location: TEXAS | Registered: September 04, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I have not yet begun
to procrastinate
Picture of KMitch200
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by V-Tail:
quote:
Originally posted by shovelhead:
We were taught as a baseline that adult males systolic numbers should be age plus 100 over 80
Am I reading this correctly? Age plus 100? I am 80, almost 81 years old.

You have to understand the context. EMS talking to you in your house about whatever brought them there.
100 + age for men was a general guideline for EMTs, Paramedics to be within "normal" range -> meaning, it's not something we would start reaching into the drug box for something to immediately treat it.

All these guidelines are just that, guidlines. Nobody should freak out and go on meds for a B/P of 134/84.
Take a walk every day with your dog instead, cut down your weight a bit and check it in 2 months.
Nothing is carved in stone in medicine except for no oxygen to the brain is bad.


--------
After the game, the King and the pawn go into the same box.
 
Posts: 2243 | Location: AZ - West side of the valley | Registered: October 26, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Knows too little
about too much
Picture of rduckwor
posted Hide Post
I wouldn't go freakie-deekie yet. There's a lot of water yet to go under the bridge on these recommendations.

Good practitioners don't jump on something because someone else told them "This is good!".

Relax and let this play out a bit.

RMD




TL Davis: “The Second Amendment is special, not because it protects guns, but because its violation signals a government with the intention to oppress its people…”
 
Posts: 18661 | Location: L.A. - Lower Alabama | Registered: April 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 12131:
quote:
Originally posted by MNSIG:
quote:
Originally posted by 12131:
Every few years or so, they come out with new recommendations this and new guidelines that. And, folks will argue. I personally do NOT put too much stock into it. Do not freak out. You are fine.


As I recall, you are a physician, so I'm interested in your opinion. I've monitored at home for years and shared the data with my physician. Typical home reading will be 115-125/75-85. At work, I will frequently be in the 130s/80s.

I'm a bit more obsessive about it because my dad had a severe stroke at 60. Of course, his BP was WAY higher(untreated and ignored) for years before that.

If I were in your shoes, and my doc pushes BP med on me, I would politely decline. And, if he continues to insist, I'd find another PCP. Just me.

You're doing the right thing with keeping a diary of your BP measured away from the doc's office. You ought to be commended for this. Keep exercising and eating "right", and stay away from OTC meds that can raise your BP, and I bet you'll never have to swallow a BP med.

Your dad's case is a completely different scenario. Known uncontrolled HTN and a noncompliant patient. Yeah, that will eventually stroke you out. Same thing happened to my dad. Roll Eyes


What OTC meds should one avoid.
 
Posts: 3340 | Location: Virginia | Registered: December 23, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fighting the good fight
Picture of RogueJSK
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by DSgrouse:
What OTC meds should one avoid.


Decongestants like Phenylephrine, Pseudoephedrine, or Oxymetazoline, which are in most cough/cold medications, raise your blood pressure.

I have borderline high blood pressure, and hate taking those kind of OTC cold meds because they make me feel jittery and foggy, due to the BP spike.
 
Posts: 19122 | Location: Northwest Arkansas | Registered: January 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Oriental Redneck
Picture of 12131
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by RogueJSK:
quote:
Originally posted by DSgrouse:
What OTC meds should one avoid.


Decongestants like Phenylephrine, Pseudoephedrine, or Oxymetazoline, which are in most cough/cold medications, raise your blood pressure.

I have borderline high blood pressure, and hate taking those kind of OTC cold meds because they make me feel jittery and foggy, due to the BP spike.

Yes, these are biggest culprit. Must look at the ingredients in the back of the boxes.
Be careful, when you see those names, especially your BP is already elevated.

A second class of OTC meds you should be aware of regarding elevating BP: The nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory pain killers (NSAIDs). Ibuprofen (trade names like Advil, Motrin) and naproxen (trade name Aleve, Naprosyn). Again, be careful, if your BP is already high. And, most definitely stay away, if you have any kidney diseases al all. The kidneys are the major organs responsible for regulating your BP.


Q


 
Posts: 13627 | Location: TEXAS | Registered: September 04, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Staring back
from the abyss
Picture of Gustofer
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by zoom6zoom:
Or course, the entire idea that sodium is primarily responsible or even highly contributory to high BP is entirely crap.

This.

As long as your kidneys are working the way they should, don't bother putting down the salt shaker.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Gustofer,


________________________________________________________

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy." Winston Churchill
 
Posts: 13385 | Location: Montana | Registered: November 01, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Only the strong survive
Picture of 41
posted Hide Post
The Life Extension Foundation has always supported lower blood pressure numbers. This is a long article but worth the read:

Lower Blood Pressure Empowers Longer Life
November 2016

By William Faloon

A lot of people ask how Life Extension® is able to be consistently ahead of the curve when it comes to identifying modifiable disease risk factors.

I initially found it hard to answer this since our recommendations are based on the identical peer-reviewed literature that is often published by the medical establishment itself.

The reply to this question I now give relates to motivation and interpretation.

We at Life Extension don’t want ill health to befall our supporters…ever! We therefore interpret statistical data with the motivation to thwart degenerative disease for an indefinite time period.

So it was not hard for us to notice long ago that people with lower blood pressure lived considerably longer. Our recommendation relating to blood pressure therefore has always been to keep readings below 120/80 mmHg, with an ideal number for most individuals being 115/75 mmHg.

The medical establishment disagreed and said that blood pressure up to 139/89 mmHg was not a problem. A huge study released in 2015 exposed the lethality of this position. In the group whose target goal systolic blood pressure was below 120 there was a:1

38% lower relative risk of heart failure;
43% lower relative risk of cardiovascular death;
27% lower relative risk of mortality overall.

This article will review the establishment’s multi-decade failure to recognize the dangers of higher blood pressure. More important, we will reveal how you can safely lower blood pressure to what most all parties now concur are optimal ranges.

Hypertension is the term used to define high blood pressure.

A simple dictionary definition of hypertension is “abnormally high blood pressure.”

A medical definition of hypertension is “blood pressure high enough that it may eventually cause health problems, such as heart disease.”2

The problem over the past 49 years is that the medical establishment has mostly relied on the dictionary definition to diagnose hypertension. Since most aging people have blood pressure over 120/80 mmHg, physicians viewed this as “normal” and did nothing until levels exceeded 139/89 mmHg.

To understand the magnitude of this, one of every three adults in the United States has blood pressure readings over 139/89 mmHg.3 When you include those with readings over 120/80 mmHg, it’s easy to see why so many people suffer disorders related to hypertension.

Stated simply, the vast majority of adults have blood pressure high enough to cause heart disease and other health issues.
How Life Extension Realized This So Early
Life Extension

The gold standard for identifying beneficial longevity factors has long been to look at biomarkers in people that practice calorie restriction.

Calorie restrictors don’t behave like most of us, especially when viewing the toxic high-calorie foods that are endlessly advertised on television. As a result of their reduced food intake, calorie restrictors’ glucose, insulin, and lipid blood levels are remarkably low. So is their blood pressure.

Without taking medications, calorie restrictors over age 50 often have blood pressure readings around 90/60 mmHg and they are in remarkably good health.

We at Life Extension recognized this phenomenon in the 1980s and recommended most people strive to maintain blood pressure readings below 120/80 mmHg to emulate this longevity benefit observed in people practicing calorie restriction.
New Study Wakes Up Medical Establishment!
New Study

A large human study was initiated in year 2010 whose purpose was to assess whether targeting a reduction of systolic blood pressure below 120 mmHg was superior to the current standard of reducing it to below 140 mmHg.

The doctors focused on the systolic (top) number because it is a better predictor of heart attack and stroke. The “systolic” reading reflects the amount of pressure placed on the arterial system with each heartbeat.

The name of this study is Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial, also known as SPRINT.1 It was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2015 and garnered huge media coverage.

The SPRINT study was supposed to last 5 years, but was stopped after 3.26 years because it was abundantly clear that the group whose blood pressure was reduced to a target systolic range under 120 mmHg were dying 26% less frequently.

What impressed the study’s researchers the most was a striking 43% lower relative risk of cardiovascular death in those whose blood pressure was aggressively reduced.

The SPRINT study also found that heart failure rates plummeted by 38% in patients whose target blood pressure aimed below 120 mmHg. Heart failure occurs when the heart cannot pump enough blood and oxygen to support other organs in one’s body. It is a leading cause of hospitalizations and costs this nation an estimated $32 billion each year.4

Heart disease happens to be the number one cause of death in the United States, killing about 610,000 Americans each year.5 The dramatic (43%) drop in cardiovascular deaths shown in the SPRINT study motivated mainstream cardiologists to question their long-standing practice of largely ignoring their patient’s blood pressure until readings exceeded 139/89 mmHg.

Based on widespread media coverage and physician concurrence, it appears the medical establishment has finally woken up to what readers of this publication were told to do in the 1980s.
Historic Failures to Recognize Disease Causation

It is regrettable that practicing clinicians did not bother to observe that patients with blood pressure readings over 120/80 mmHg had elevated rates of cardiac death. But then again, it took decades of research to raise suspicion of a causative role of cigarette smoking in the development of lung cancer.

Physicians in the 1930s were certainly aware that respiratory illnesses happened with greater frequency in smokers. Yet it took decades of published research for the tobacco-disease causation issue to be raised, and it wasn’t until 1964 that the Surgeon General stated that smoking increases risk for a host of deadly illnesses.6

A similar scenario has occurred with the debate as to what the safe upper limit for blood pressure should be. Persuasive evidence and common sense long ago indicated that Life Extension’s recommendation of 115/75 mmHg would spare many lives compared to the establishment’s position that blood pressure readings up to 139/89 mmHg were alright.
Similar to Controversy about Glucose

You may recall that in the 1980s, fasting blood glucose levels up to 139 mg/dL were considered “normal” by the establishment. Conventional doctors today consider a glucose level over 125 mg/dL indicative of type II diabetes. A glucose level over 99 mg/dL can diagnose prediabetes.

Based on blood results obtained from calorie restrictors in the 1980s, we at Life Extension knew that conventional medicine’s upper limit for glucose was dangerously high. We advised back then that people strive to keep their glucose levels below 100 mg/dL. Since then, we advised that optimal fasting glucose levels are below 86 mg/dL, which is not always possibly to attain.

Reducing blood pressure is simpler (than glucose) for most individuals to achieve using a combination of lifestyle changes, nutrients, and the appropriate antihypertensive medications when necessary.
How Many Preventable Deaths?

Each year about 2.5 million Americans die.7 This number is expected to steadily rise as the aging population increases. Life Extension’s fundamental mission is to reverse this upward mortality trend in aging humans.

We wanted to glean some idea as to how many needless deaths occurred because it took the medical establishment so long to recognize the lifesaving benefits of lower blood pressure ranges. So we took the most conservative percentage of death reduction found in the SPRINT study, which was a 27% reduction in overall mortality in people age 50 and older. We then did a calculation using the approximate 2 million total deaths that have occurred each year in the United States in people age 50 and older dating back to year 1985.

Based on this 27% reduction in all-cause mortality, about 540,000 American lives could have been spared each year had the medical establishment adopted Life Extension’s recommendation to keep blood pressure levels below 120/80 mmHg.

This number of 540,000 annual deaths that could have been prevented is of course an exaggeration. It assumes that everyone ages 50 and older would have had their blood pressure checked and followed an aggressive program to reduce it to safe ranges. The reality is that hypertension is a “silent killer” and many people don’t know they have it. Patients prescribed antihypertensive drugs and lifestyle changes often don’t comply.

There were nonetheless tens of millions of Americans treated for hypertension since 1985, with the physician’s goal being to reduce it only to under 140/90 mmHg. This is where the needless carnage arose and where mainstream medicine needs to look at this failure as an example of the cost in human lives that occurs when published studies and common sense are discarded.
Our Delicate Vasculature
IMAGE TAG

The extremely fragile nature of our vascular system remains an unappreciated phenomenon.

In youth, our arteries are flexible and readily expand and contract with each heartbeat as do our delicate capillary beds. As you can see by the illustration on this page, arteries narrow into smaller arterioles that eventually thin further down to microscopic capillaries. These capillaries are so tiny that red blood cells often have to bend their shape just to squeeze through and be returned to the venous system.

With each heart beat there is blood pressure exerted on arteries, arterioles, and delicate capillary beds. When blood pressure is in a perfect range, oxygen/nutrient enriched blood is delivered to all the body’s cells and returned to the heart with minimal damage to the vascular system.

Any increase in the pressure beyond what is needed to push blood through the vascular network causes additional stress and endothelial damage. This can manifest acutely in the form of a cerebral hemorrhage, where an arteriole in the brain ruptures and may quickly lead to death.

In most cases of higher-than-needed blood pressure, however, silent damage is constantly inflicted on the inner arterial lining (the endothelium) including the delicate capillaries.8 The result is a progressive loss of blood flow and cellular functionality that can manifest as ischemic heart disease,9-11 ischemic stroke,12-14 renal failure,15,16 and/or dementia.17-21

It was this fundamental understanding of the delicate structure of the vascular system that prompted Life Extension to recommend lower blood pressure ranges in the 1980s.
Fallacy of “Prehypertension”
Image with Caption
This graphic depicts a normal arteriole with red blood cells
flowing through and then the focal narrowing that occurs in
response to elevating blood pressures.

Not all physicians have been oblivious to the increased vascular risks in people with higher systolic blood pressure.

The term “prehypertension” was introduced to alert people that systolic pressure between 120 and 139 mmHg was reason to initiate lifestyle changes or modest drug therapy.

The problem with using the term prehypertension is that it caused patients and physicians to not take seriously the dangers it represents.

A systematic review on the clinical relevance of prehypertension was published in 2013 and revealed more increases in vascular risk than the carefully controlled SPRINT study.

The authors of this 2013 review performed an analysis of 18 previous studies that included a whopping 468,561 patients. They found that patients with prehypertension had a:22

55% increased risk of cardiovascular disease,
50% increased risk of coronary heart disease,
71% increased stroke risk.

The authors went a step further and looked at people in the low prehypertension range, defined by systolic blood pressure of just 120 to 129 mmHg. Risk of cardiovascular disease in this prehypertension group was 46% higher than for individuals with systolic blood pressure levels below 120 mmHg.

According to this very large analysis, even lower-range prehypertension has a significant impact on morbidity and mortality, which is why Life Extension has urged for so long that optimal blood pressure readings are 115/75 mmHg.

Based on the totality of the evidence, the term “prehypertension” should be discarded and most adults with systolic blood pressure over 119 mmHg should face the reality that they are hypertensive from a medical definition standpoint, i.e., they are at an increased risk of health problems.

This is analogous to the term prediabetes, which is used today to describe people with fasting glucose between 100-125 mg/dL. These individuals should instead be diagnosed as “diabetic” and treated accordingly. This includes lifestyle modifications that safely reduce blood glucose levels to optimal ranges.

Please know that upper-level acceptable systolic blood pressure readings at one time were considered a startling high of 160 mmHg. They were later reduced to 150 mmHg, then to 140 mmHg, and mercifully now down to 120 mmHg.
Do Not Rush to Lower Blood Pressure
IMAGE TAG

The SPRINT study was released in 2015 and is likely to be a game-changer as it relates to better guidelines for blood pressure control. There were, however, limitations that cause us to urge caution before initiating steps to drastically lower your blood pressure.

The SPRINT study was of relatively short duration and longer term side effects from the aggressive drug therapies may not be fully understood.

Type II diabetics were excluded from SPRINT because a previous trial on diabetics called ACCORD failed to show a benefit in aggressively reducing their blood pressure.23 This failure may reflect the devastating impact on the vascular system inflicted by the elevated glucose levels seen in diabetics. Said differently, the severity of the endothelial damage that diabetics sustain might overwhelm the beneficial effects of aggressively lowering their systolic blood pressure.

Those who have had chronic higher blood pressure levels often suffer considerable damage to their delicate endothelial linings.8,24 An unfortunate consequence for some individuals is that they need to maintain somewhat higher blood pressure levels to provide adequate blood flow to the capillaries in their brain, kidneys and other tissues.

We have discussed this problem in previous issues of this publication, whereby those with severely damaged capillary beds require higher blood pressure to sustain organ/tissue function, even though over the longer term this higher pressure on the arterial system inflicts additional damage to the endothelium.25

The sad case for some individuals is that taking overly aggressive steps to push down blood pressure levels could create side effects such as hypotension, which causes one to faint.

A more serious effect observed in the SPRINT study was that there was almost a 3.5-fold increased risk of kidney damage in those aggressively treated for hypertension using multiple drugs. It is not known if it was the multiple drugs or overly aggressive lowering of the blood pressure that caused this kidney damage.

The authors of the SPRINT study were quick to point out that the huge reductions in morbidity and mortality in the aggressively-treated hypertensive group far outweighed the side effect risks observed. As one outside doctor who critiqued the study stated, “If there is a problem with an individual patient, you can always back off.”26
Our Precious Endothelium
SIDEBAR IMAGE ALT TEXT

Our inner arterial lining is called the endothelium.

The endothelium is an ultra-thin, one-cell-thick layer of cells. It loses youthful function in response to normal aging.

An underappreciated factor in the development of cardiovascular disease is endothelial dysfunction. The consequences of endothelial dysfunction are diminished circulation, high blood pressure, thrombosis, and atherosclerosis, all of which are major causes of stroke and heart attack.27-31

Fortunately, astute scientists have discovered potent natural methods to tackle the underlying causes of endothelial dysfunction.

In addition to nutritional/lifestyle interventions, maintaining optimal blood pressure readings is essential to protect against loss of endothelial function.
Providing You with Real World Guidance

The encouraging news about all this is that if one intelligently embarks on a program to reduce their blood pressure to more optimal ranges, there are simple blood tests available that can identify if adverse effects are occurring in response to overly aggressive drug treatment.

These and other commonsense approaches to achieving optimal blood pressure levels are described in articles contained in this month’s issue. Readers should understand that the more one is willing to make healthier lifestyle changes, the less in the way of antihypertensive drugs they are likely to need, which should translate into a lower side effect risk profile.

We published an article 1.7 years ago that describes the ideal antihypertensive drug to begin with. This drug (telmisartan) not only lowers blood pressure in what we consider the most efficient manner, but has side benefits that include improvements in endothelial function and survival not seen with other antihypertensive medications.
Majority of Adults Are Hypertensive and Prevalence Increases as We Age!
SIDEBAR IMAGE ALT TEXT

Most of you reading this article have higher-than-optimal blood pressure, or are effectively treating it.

Whether you treat it successfully or not, you are still classified as a hypertensive patient, just as one with high blood sugar is still a diabetic even though they may take enough medication to bring glucose down to a normal level.

The following chart reveals the huge percentage of noninstitutionalized persons with hypertension (defined as having measured high blood pressure and/or taking antihypertensive medication) between the years 2011-2014.32

Men


65-74 years


63.4%

75 years and over


72.3%

Women


65-74 years


64.3%

75 years and over


79.9%

These data clearly show hypertension increasing with age, which makes taking control of one’s blood pressure so critical if one is to avoid the most common causes of death and disability.
Challenges in Persuading Our Supporters

I’ve been involved in helping people avoid degenerative illness since the 1970s.

One of my greatest challenges has been to persuade health-conscious individuals that they may need a prescription medication to optimize their blood pressure.

An argument I’ve encountered from people who eat properly, exercise, and take dietary supplements is that they don’t think they have to worry about slightly elevated blood pressure. While all these healthy practices can help protect against endothelial dysfunction, one cannot overlook the structural damage inflicted to our vasculature by higher-than-optimal blood pressure.

I also have run into resistance by people who think a blood pressure check several times a year at their doctor’s office is sufficient.

Based on my personal experience with my at-home blood pressure monitor, I know that my systolic pressure can range from a low of 95 mmHg to a high of 140 mmHg under stressful circumstances. When I see my blood pressure any level above 115/75 mmHg, I take an extra 40 mg dose of the drug telmisartan to reduce it. If I did not have an at-home blood pressure monitor, I would never have known my blood pressure spiked this high.

To make matters worse, your endothelium does not give you credit for the period of the day when your blood pressure is lower. It is during periods when blood pressure spikes up that massive vascular damage occurs. So I hope every one of you has an at-home blood pressure monitor based on our previous recommendations. As you can see on page 14, the price has come down considerably from what they cost just a few years ago.

To learn more about the blood pressure lowering drugs we favor, you can log on at no cost to: LifeExtension.com/hypertension These drug recommendations are not based on commercial interests, just our sincere desire to keep you alive and healthy for decades to come.

For longer life,

William Faloon

http://www.lifeextension.com/M...-Longer-Life/Page-01



"Donald Trump is the grizzly bear in The Revenant. If you get his attention, he’ll be awake, bite your face off, and sit on you.".. Newt Gingrich.

41
 
Posts: 9644 | Location: Herndon, VA | Registered: June 11, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Waiting for Hachiko
Picture of Sunset_Va
posted Hide Post
Gustofer, thank you for posting that. I didn't want to quote your posting as its very long.

Something else enters the fold for hypertension, the long term effects of chemo treatments to the vascular system. I had such treatments in 2003, and now think chemo plays a big role in my hypertension, plus aging and genes.


美しい犬
 
Posts: 4481 | Location: Near the Metropolis of Tightsqueeze, Va | Registered: February 18, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Only the strong survive
Picture of 41
posted Hide Post
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v...9001/?#sp=show-clips

New guidelines: Nearly half of US adults now have high blood pressure

Nov. 14, 2017 - 4:51 - Dr. Nicole Saphier of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and NYU Langone Medical Center professor Dr. Marc Siegel on the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association changing the blood pressure guidelines.



"Donald Trump is the grizzly bear in The Revenant. If you get his attention, he’ll be awake, bite your face off, and sit on you.".. Newt Gingrich.

41
 
Posts: 9644 | Location: Herndon, VA | Registered: June 11, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Sig Sauer Kraut
posted Hide Post
I was in Scotland years ago and came down with a nasty bug. Visited the pharmacist for something to make me feel better. He asked if I had any health issues. I mention that my BP was moderately elevated and I was considered pre-hypertension. He asked what the numbers were and I told him usually 130-135 over 80 or so. He let out a hardy laugh and said that they didn’t consider anything under 160 to be a concern. Look like NHS’ current guidance is more in line with the US.
 
Posts: 396 | Registered: January 04, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Sig Sauer Kraut
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by RogueJSK:
quote:
Originally posted by DSgrouse:
What OTC meds should one avoid.


Decongestants like Phenylephrine, Pseudoephedrine, or Oxymetazoline, which are in most cough/cold medications, raise your blood pressure.

I have borderline high blood pressure, and hate taking those kind of OTC cold meds because they make me feel jittery and foggy, due to the BP spike.
they have the same effect on me which is why I generally don’t take them and just suffer through the cold. My BP stays elevated for a couple days after taking one as well. I think I’ve taken them once in the last four years, and that was only half a dose.
 
Posts: 396 | Registered: January 04, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Staring back
from the abyss
Picture of Gustofer
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 41:
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v...9001/?#sp=show-clips

New guidelines: Nearly half of US adults now have high blood pressure

Nov. 14, 2017 - 4:51 - Dr. Nicole Saphier of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and NYU Langone Medical Center professor Dr. Marc Siegel on the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association changing the blood pressure guidelines.

Nicole Saphier is a radiologist...giving advice on hypertension.

Roll Eyes


________________________________________________________

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy." Winston Churchill
 
Posts: 13385 | Location: Montana | Registered: November 01, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Knows too little
about too much
Picture of rduckwor
posted Hide Post
quote:
Nicole Saphier is a radiologist...giving advice on hypertension.

Roll Eyes



Did she squint a lot while on the television??

RMD




TL Davis: “The Second Amendment is special, not because it protects guns, but because its violation signals a government with the intention to oppress its people…”
 
Posts: 18661 | Location: L.A. - Lower Alabama | Registered: April 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    What do you think of the new BP recommendations?- My MD's response in OP

© SIGforum 2017