Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why are people taking their BP so much????? Im in my 40s, w death level, premature heart disease & I hardly take it.
That would be between you and your doctor. I have had hypertension since I was in my early 30's ( strong family history) take meds, life style measures to keep it under control as much as possible. I have been advised to check my blood pressure daily, and I'm asked about those readings when I see the doctor. I don't generally check more than once a day, unless I get a high reading, then I may check it again later to see if it's ok.
Some days I don't take it at all.
If your health care provider suggests you check your blood pressure at home at least periodically, it's really not a big deal to do it.
Why are people taking their BP so much????? Im in my 40s, w death level, premature heart disease & I hardly take it.
I have white coat hypertension, so my doctor told me to take my blood pressure at home two or three days per week. When I'm home, it's normal or occasionally in the pre-hypertensive range.
Nations with socialized national healthcare are notorious in performing outcome studies. How long can one wait before having knee surgery? They study it. How long can someone wait for heart surgery? They study it and monitor it.
Is "notorious" really the word you wanted to use here? If so, you've undermined what appears to be the point of your post.,
Quote:
Rendering an opinion without studying something to see if it makes a difference is the way to go rather than jumping on things and assuming that because we have been doing things in the past that that is the only option.
What did you really mean to say here? Are you really advocating rendering opinions without a study to see if it makes a difference?
Medicine is headed towards evidence based outcomes in proving if it makes a difference or not. My comments referred to those who consider themselves healthy. There's exceptions on when to see a doctor which obviously includes symptoms.
Taking or measuring one's blood pressure does not prevent hypertension. It doesn't change the outcome. Interventions happen when one develops hypertension. Sure they can lose weight then and it can go back down or put on medication. It's sort of like prediabetes where it's called prediabetes because people don't do anything and it develops into diabetes. If you tell somebody that their BP is slightly getting higher but still not hypertensive does not change your behavior.
When repeated measurements showed my blood pressure trending upward, it certainly did change my behavior...and I corrected the problem.
In the same way, tracking the results of my blood tests has certainly changed my behavior, and I've corrected problems.
Of course, some people don't pay attention when warning lights start blinking on their automobile dashboards...but some do. Just because some people run out of gas isn't a reason to remove the fuel gauges.
In my experience with "teledocs" over the last year, it certainly hasn't saved me any time...I spend just as much time hanging on the computer waiting for my doctor to show up as I did driving to his office and sitting in his waiting room. It can't be saving him any time because he doesn't spend any more or less time with me either way.
Is "notorious" really the word you wanted to use here? If so, you've undermined what appears to be the point of your post.,
What did you really mean to say here? Are you really advocating rendering opinions without a study to see if it makes a difference?
I have computer problems that sometimes overwrites my long posts and I end up trying to piece the sentences back together again. I didn't catch that but yeah I screwed that up. I meant the opposite. My orientation is 100% studies and eliminate the hype being put out there. Some researchers pump up the hype in order to generate interest for funding of studies. Doctors and everybody else listen when one has studies on hand that specifically address the issue.
I will listen more to people discussing a study and its impact rather than listening to somebody proposing something without studies on hand. I especially hate it when people use the basic sciences that we know about but are tangential to the real topic at hand. They are proponents rather than true scientists.
For example people saying that vitamin D is involved in immunity and can have an impact in deficiency states which is true in a general science sense but when you try and apply that knowledge to intervene then it doesn't come out as one has planned. The problem is the logic. It's like saying in a bacterial infection the white cells go in and combat the infection. That is the role of the white cells. When somebody extends that logic to then make a hypothesis that if one has an infection then administering white cells that should treat or combat that infection. Suffice it to say that isn't the way it happens. Bacteria have virulent factors that evade host immune systems and evade white cells. Just because vitamin D plays a role in immunity it is far removed from saying it would be able to treat infections or even prevent infections by using vitamin D because it is not the sole determinant factor in preventing and fighting infections.
No computer problems this time. I really need a new computer. I haven't figured why it skips around the field and sometimes deletes partial sentences and paragraphs. Hot key issues with my MacBook Pro 2012 I guess when I type my cursor flies back to some random previous point and I end up overwriting or deleting when I continue typing. It drives me crazy.
I
For example people saying that vitamin D is involved in immunity and can have an impact in deficiency states which is true in a general science sense but when you try and apply that knowledge to intervene then it doesn't come out as one has planned. The problem is the logic. It's like saying in a bacterial infection the white cells go in and combat the infection. That is the role of the white cells. When somebody extends that logic to then make a hypothesis that if one has an infection then administering white cells that should treat or combat that infection. Suffice it to say that isn't the way it happens. Bacteria have virulent factors that evade host immune systems and evade white cells. Just because vitamin D plays a role in immunity it is far removed from saying it would be able to treat infections or even prevent infections by using vitamin D because it is not the sole determinant factor in preventing and fighting infections.
My favorite YouTube doc says precisely that vitamin D appears to have a substantial role in bolstering immunity, and advises people to increase their vitamin D levels substantially...but he also says that trials at using vitamin D as intervention have been unremarkable.
My favorite YouTube doc says precisely that vitamin D appears to have a substantial role in bolstering immunity, and advises people to increase their vitamin D levels substantially...but he also says that trials at using vitamin D as intervention have been unremarkable.
Vitamin D does play a role in host immunity but host immunity by itself can't fend off all infectious agents. Look at the black plaque. Look at HIV. Look at any deadly infectious agent like Ebola. Pathogens evade host immunity ie they evade vitamin D based immunity. To make an assumption that vitamin D is a world changer is bizarre.
We know what comprises host immunity and in the case of some deadly viruses it is the host immunity response that kills a person more so than the agent itself. Cytokine storm can be deadly and steroids are used to suppress immunity. That's a far distant cry from giving them vitamin D and expecting them to respond to it. It was also postulated that those with low vitamin D levels tend to have a greater cytokine response. Just too many theories out there and one prefers just to do studies.
When repeated measurements showed my blood pressure trending upward, it certainly did change my behavior...and I corrected the problem.
In the same way, tracking the results of my blood tests has certainly changed my behavior, and I've corrected problems.
Of course, some people don't pay attention when warning lights start blinking on their automobile dashboards...but some do. Just because some people run out of gas isn't a reason to remove the fuel gauges.
In my experience with "teledocs" over the last year, it certainly hasn't saved me any time...I spend just as much time hanging on the computer waiting for my doctor to show up as I did driving to his office and sitting in his waiting room. It can't be saving him any time because he doesn't spend any more or less time with me either way.
You did not have hypertension. Trending up can trend down. Peoples blood pressure is generally all over the place and by who does it and where it is done. The context that I was talking about is blood pressure testing at the doctors office and thus use that as an explanation for a face to face meeting rather than a Telemedicine computer session. You were having your own daily at home readings thus that point is moot in having to go to a doctor to check it.
As far as practices that have changed because of a lack of patient behavioral changes one latest example is in regards to STD testing and the role that herpes blood testing has left the stage. It is now recommended that when STD testing is done that blood herpes tests not be done. Studies show that when given results of such testing patients do not change sexual behaviors or risk patterns. If you want to know if you have herpes or not then one tests a lesion. It's PCR or nothing and PCR is done on lesions. We were doing a lot of herpes serology but that has died way down based on current medical recommendations.
What burns me up about my doctor, who I otherwise like very much, is that her "physical" only involves listening to my heart and lungs, after the assistant takes my blood pressure and 02 saturation. I am trained as a PA, although I no longer practice, so I know what a physical should be, as well as a review of systems, which is not done either. Years ago, when going to a different doctor, I had a huge tumor which was not found because he never touched me. In my case. telemedicine would be just as good, with me taking my blood pressure at home.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
