Comment from friend's cardio MD on BP guidelines (vs, wrist, medication)
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.
absolutely unrealistic. Ideally BP as I understand it should be about 120/70ish. Anything below 140/80 is usually accectable. At least that is what my doctor says.
Agree totally.
The motivation behind these new guidelines are so totally transparent. When I was young, for eons the rule of thumb for "normal" blood pressure had been 100 plus your age. It is normal for it to increase as we get older and I've read studies suggesting that we're seeing more dementia in recent years as a result of unnatural drug-induced lower pressures.
Yes, extremely high BP is dangerous long-term. But the pharmaceutical cartel peddling the notion that 150/90 is deadly for an older person is shameless fear-mongering for profit.
The motivation behind these new guidelines are so totally transparent. When I was young, for eons the rule of thumb for "normal" blood pressure had been 100 plus your age. It is normal for it to increase as we get older and I've read studies suggesting that we're seeing more dementia in recent years as a result of unnatural drug-induced lower pressures.
Yes, extremely high BP is dangerous long-term. But the pharmaceutical cartel peddling the notion that 150/90 is deadly for an older person is shameless fear-mongering for profit.
Oh I heard this too and Weston Price Foundation writes about these guidelines. If that were the case and we just don't know, do we, since pharma is so involved...my good BP would be 100/79 but monitor says something else. Blood pressure is another BIG business.
This is what I got out of the WAP guidelines:
Just 25-30 years ago, doctors were taught that normal blood pressure was the patient’s age plus 100 over 90. Thus if you were 50 years old, a blood pressure reading of 150/90 was considered completely normal; if you were 70, then 170/90 was normal. This guideline reflects the physiological fact that the systolic blood pressure (like cholesterol levels) gradually rises with age. As the blood vessels narrow and become more rigid, more pressure is required to move the blood through the arteries and veins. In general, the diastolic pressure rises until around age 55 and then starts to decline.
So if that were the case today, a BP of 179/90 is fine for me.
So what is the truth of it all.
So if a person is 65, then 165/90 would be good for that person.
Makes me wonder if all the BP meds I'm taking are really necessary. What is TRUTH? Can we ever know.
Last edited by jaminhealth; 12-14-2017 at 04:01 PM..
My friend sent this note to me from what her Cardio MD said about the "new" BP guidelines, we had a thread here but it's closed...I believe the new ones supposed are 130/80 for med considerations.
"I do not think this is realistic and logical to have such low blood pressure recommendations. Based on these guidelines nearly half of Americans then become hypertensives. I am not a conspiracy theorist but most of the studies on blood pressure are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and it is very possible that pharmaceutical companies will benefit substantially from these new guidelines." --DUH... Of course they will
Why would my cardiologist care if drug companies make money? He doesn't. But he does want my BP below 130/80 to protect my heart.
Well, could be all these MD's get their payouts...huh. The more for pharma, the more for doctors.
I really doubt this, but I do think there is the whole managed, mandated care thing which is to one degree or another, strangling what the Dr really wants to prescribe and do for his patient.
Who said all the time, I didn't say 90 was all the time.....
Often this comes up with visits to doctor and BP cuff and white coat syndrome. If doctors took BP two or three times at these visits, readings COULD be just fine.
But before this NEW edict on guidelines came out, 140/90 was just fine and especially for my age.
Everyone trust their doctors, please. That is if they feel good about that trust.
Likely 140/90 is still just fine for a person of your age, especially if you have a history of hypertension and are taking meds fot it. Regardless of any new guidelines out there for blood pressure, doctors will consider individual patients, their medical history, age and other factors in evaluating their blood pressure readings.
The motivation behind these new guidelines are so totally transparent. When I was young, for eons the rule of thumb for "normal" blood pressure had been 100 plus your age. It is normal for it to increase as we get older and I've read studies suggesting that we're seeing more dementia in recent years as a result of unnatural drug-induced lower pressures.
Yes, extremely high BP is dangerous long-term. But the pharmaceutical cartel peddling the notion that 150/90 is deadly for an older person is shameless fear-mongering for profit.
So if you're 65 then 165 is OKAY? That seems very lax, especially if the 165 isn't just a spike but an ongoing average for your systolic. And what was okay for diastolic? Because that is even more important.
Why would my cardiologist care if drug companies make money? He doesn't. But he does want my BP below 130/80 to protect my heart.
Exactly....
But there are certain people here who post all the time with no knowledge about what they talk about who believe in conspiracy theories and trust wacko websites like Weston Price Foundation over actual science...
BP recommendations aren't pulled out of thin air...
"Data from observational studies involving more than 1 million individuals have indicated that death from both ischemic heart disease and stroke increases progressively and linearly from BP levels as low as 115 mm Hg systolic and 75 mm Hg diastolic upward (Figures 9 and 10⇓).18 The increased risks are present in all age groups ranging from 40 to 89 years old. For every 20 mm Hg systolic or 10 mm Hg diastolic increase in BP, there is a doubling of mortality from both ischemic heart disease and stroke."
"In addition, longitudinal data obtained from the Framingham Heart Study have indicated that BP values in the 130 to 139/85 to 89 mm Hg range are associated with a more than 2-fold increase in relative risk from cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared with those with BP levels below 120/80 mm Hg"
The relationship between BP and risk of CVD events is continuous, consistent, and independent of other risk factors. The higher the BP, the greater is the chance of heart attack, HF, stroke, and kidney diseases.
Prior to about 1970, "your age + 100" was considered normal (but wrinkles, arthritis & arteriosclerosis are also "normal" with aging. Do you necessarily want to be normal?). There was no evidence collected as yet to suggest treating hi BP did any good.
Remarkably, among mammals, from mice to elephants, 120/80 is the median BP.
There was a famous study from the VA about that time that showed in the control group (no treatment) there was a linear relationship between BP and death rate with no clear "cut-off" where there was a "safe" BP, as noted above. They also showed that when the subjects were divided into three groups (mild, moderate & severe hi BP), death rate went down in the two higher groups, but UP in the mild group....keep in mind, however, that back then they only had salt restriction, weak diuretics & reserpine, rarely used now, for treatment. Side effects of the treatment apparently had a deleterious effect that was not outweighed by benefits in that lowest group.
We now have several groups of drugs, each attacking the cause of elevated BP in different ways. Rates of hemorrhagic stroke are lowered with treatment. Progression of renal disease (especially in diabetics) is delayed by treatment. Decompensation in CHF is less likely with treatment (maybe not because BP is lowered per se, but because cardiac output is improved by vasodilatation-- I'm splitting hairs here). But rates of MI are NOT improved by treating HTN.
Everybody seems to agree BP >140/90 deserves treatment. Everybody agrees no treatment is necessary for BP <130/90. The controversy comes about those in between those values, and more importantly, what should the target of treatment be?... <140, <130, <120????
As I've said here before, there are certain, usually elderly folks who actually have a better quality of life if their BP is allowed to be a little higher, say 150 or 160 systolic than if it's lowered to the "cook book" level recommended of <130-- less confusion, less dizziness, better mobility, etc.
Doctors need to remember to treat the patient, not the lab value. They need to strive for optimum, not necessarily maximum or minimum.
ps/ Remember that BP readings and standards were set when BP was taken "manually." Newer electronic devices have better "ears" than humans and tend to read a little higher. Also remember that BP recommendations are based on resting BP-- good sleep, no pain, no recent exercise, no aggravation or anxiety. Elevated readings should be verified by repeated readings at one sitting and over several weeks before treatment is initiated or changed.
"In addition, longitudinal data obtained from the Framingham Heart Study have indicated that BP values in the 130 to 139/85 to 89 mm Hg range are associated with a more than 2-fold increase in relative risk from cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared with those with BP levels below 120/80 mm Hg"
I can't resist, referring to our previous discussion about statistics
Risk of MI with no risk factors = 4/1000
Risk of MI with HTN the only risk factor = 8/1000... ie, TWICE the risk-- 100%!
That also means risk of no MI, normal BP = 996/1000
Risk of no MI, hi BP = 992/1000
That's a difference of only 0.8%.
Big Deal. No research grant money for you... ONE YEAR! (to paraphrase The SoupNazi)
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.
