Blood Pressure and Age

I would never take statins. I think when looking at HBP family history is important too. It runs in my family big time as do strokes. When my BP reaches 150 I end up with a pounding headache. Also I read that including over the counter drugs no one should take more then 4-5 drugs a day.
 
Beats me. Didn't say they should be. Just saying big pharma ain't getting rich off those things.

Anymore. However, they have gotten immensely rich off of them previously. But now we're all going to have to switch to PCSK9-inhibitors, which will make Big Pharma another ton of money.

Statins are now, effectively, out of patent. They were the most profitable drugs in the history of the pharmaceutical industry. Lipitor/atorvastatin made tens of billion dollars in profit each and every year it was in patent, and turned Pfizer into the biggest drug company in the world. But statins are now cheap as chips.

[...]And to access that market, all you need to do is to find another way of getting cholesterol down. [Using new drugs that can be patented, and sold at a price that makes a whopping profit]. As a quick aside, the HDL ‘good’ cholesterol raising agents all crashed and burned before you ever knew they existed. They raised HDL and also raised the rate of death from heart disease at the same time. Ooops. So maybe HDL isn’t ‘good’ cholesterol after all. Shhhh, let that be our little secret. So the industry looked around, and studied everything they could, and they have come up with Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors. However, you must ensure that you don’t ever call them that, or everyone’s eyes will simply glaze over followed rapidly by sleep. So this moniker has been shortened to PCSK9 inhibitors. Very catchy.
Here they come – take cover
 
I had never heard of Pulse Pressure. It is the difference of your two numbers.

Here is an article:
Pulse pressure: An indicator of heart health? - Mayo Clinic

Also, last week I was at the doc and my blood pressure was a little higher than normal. While 'white coat syndrome' was most of it, he made an interesting statement. paraphrase 'We use to think it was salt, but the current thinking is weight, weight, weight! I was on medicine before loosing 30 lbs. Not needed now. However, having kept records on BP and Weight, I think what the Doc said make since.
 
Anymore. However, they have gotten immensely rich off of them previously. But now we're all going to have to switch to PCSK9-inhibitors, which will make Big Pharma another ton of money.

Here they come – take cover
Anymore is the time frame we're talking.

The article makes no case for these new things other than profits. Nor is anything stated on why we have to switch to them. Net, unless they provide a new benefit, people should just keep taking their dirt cheap statin.
 
No question that at a certain level, HBP is dangerous. But if you are at 120-80, is it really beneficial to take drugs with multiple side-effects to try to get it to 110-70, or 100-60?

My mother started taking BP drugs in her 60's. She live to her 90's. The drugs certainly helped her.
 
Anymore is the time frame we're talking.

The article makes no case for these new things other than profits. Nor is anything stated on why we have to switch to them. Net, unless they provide a new benefit, people should just keep taking their dirt cheap statin.

Here's some interesting information from Numbers Needed to Treat on statins for healthy people - no diagnosed heart conditions:

Statins for Heart Disease Prevention (Without Prior Heart Disease) – TheNNTTheNNT

Benefits:


  • None were helped (life saved)
  • 1 in 104 were helped (preventing heart attack)
  • 1 in 154 were helped (preventing stroke)

Harms



  • 1 in 50 were harmed (develop diabetes*)
  • 1 in 10 were harmed (muscle damage)
Of course, read the entire link, not just the parts I cherry picked. ;)
 
Last edited:
My mother started taking BP drugs in her 60's. She live to her 90's. The drugs certainly helped her.


How do you know that the drugs helped her?

What were her numbers without treatment, and where did she wind up with the BP meds?

what other things was she doing to control her BP in terms in diet and exercise?
 
How do you know that the drugs helped her?

What were her numbers without treatment, and where did she wind up with the BP meds?

what other things was she doing to control her BP in terms in diet and exercise?

I just checked the NNT for blood pressure drugs. Maybe she was not helped that much by the drugs.
  • 1 in 125 were helped (prevented death)
  • 1 in 67 were helped (prevented stroke)
  • 1 in 100 were helped (prevented heart attack*)
 
I lost 40lbs and it made no difference in my BP. We have a strong family history so I am sure that is why it did not matter. However, I know it has helped some people get off the meds.
 
I lost 40lbs and it made no difference in my BP. We have a strong family history so I am sure that is why it did not matter. However, I know it has helped some people get off the meds.

What are your numbers without meds, and at what point are your docs satisfied?
 
Anymore is the time frame we're talking.

The article makes no case for these new things other than profits. Nor is anything stated on why we have to switch to them. Net, unless they provide a new benefit, people should just keep taking their dirt cheap statin.

Well, the new benefit they'll be flogging is the fact that the dirt cheap statins have all these nasty side effects that weren't worth mentioning while they were still under patent. But now that they are so cheap, it's a bad idea to continue them, so you should switch to the new things.

And less sarcastically, people should stop taking the statins unless they are in dire need of them. They don't help much (as shown by Chuckanut's post), and they really do have some nasty side effects that impact a significant number of their users.
 
Blood Pressure and Age

This morning I went to the Doctor for a heart/liver/kidney health check-up, having done fasting blood test last week.

While taking my BP she said that for my age (62) the target should be less than 140/90. I was 132/82 today which was nice to see, particularly since I'd walked briskly for 20 minutes in a temperature of ~37F in snow flurries and only had a 10 minute sit down. I take my own BP most days and it is usually in the range 130-150/70-90 so it was good to get confirmation that my own readings are reasonably accurate. The longer I can stay off meds the better.
 
When I was 50 my BP was 195/100 and I had a erratic heart rate. They thought I was having a heart attack. Back then I was a perfect weight and walked 4-8 miles everyday. They immediately put me on a beta blocker to stabilize/slow down the heart rate and get my BP under control. I spent a few days in the hospital. I have never been off meds since of course. When I was working for the state my BP was around 132/83. Once I retired it dropped about 10 points. I gained weight and then lost it but it did not affect my BP.
 
This morning I went to the Doctor for a heart/liver/kidney health check-up, having done fasting blood test last week.

While taking my BP she said that for my age (62) the target should be less than 140/90. I was 132/82 today which was nice to see, particularly since I'd walked briskly for 20 minutes in a temperature of ~37F in snow flurries and only had a 10 minute sit down. I take my own BP most days and it is usually in the range 130-150/70-90 so it was good to get confirmation that my own readings are reasonably accurate. The longer I can stay off meds the better.
I was put on BP meds at age 61 with two doctor's office BP readings that were about like yours were today, or maybe 5 points higher. This was after years of having health professionals acting surprised that I wasn't on BP meds (probably assuming I would be, due to my weight problem).

But you know, I think being on BP meds is not all that bad. I am on two by now, and both together cost me only $2.46/month. Although my first BP med had side effects for me, these two do not. They keep my BP a little lower, at about 115/75 here at home, and I think that is probably good in the long run. (I hope that for me, it will be a very long run, and constantly work on diet and exercise to try to promote that possibility.)
 
Last edited:
Well, the new benefit they'll be flogging is the fact that the dirt cheap statins have all these nasty side effects that weren't worth mentioning while they were still under patent. But now that they are so cheap, it's a bad idea to continue them, so you should switch to the new things.

And less sarcastically, people should stop taking the statins unless they are in dire need of them. They don't help much (as shown by Chuckanut's post), and they really do have some nasty side effects that impact a significant number of their users.
If I'm having nasty side effects to anything, I stop doing that.
 
I was put on BP meds at age 61 with two doctor's office BP readings that were about like yours were today, or maybe 5 points higher. This was after years of having health professionals acting surprised that I wasn't on BP meds (probably assuming I would be, due to my weight problem).

But you know, I think being on BP meds is not all that bad. I am on two by now, and both together cost me only $2.46/month. Although my first BP med had side effects for me, these two do not. They keep my BP a little lower, at about 115/75 here at home, and I think that is probably good in the long run. (I hope that for me, it will be a very long run, and constantly work on diet and exercise to try to promote that possibility.)

I certainly don't intend to argue with a doctor if he/she recommends a BP medication for me, and I've had these readings in the 130's for the last few visits to primary care doctors, and also a cardiologist for the past 2 years since I was diagnosed with a-fib, and none of them have suggested a problem with my BP in this range.

Possibly it is because all other heart disease factors are very positive, and along with blood work, this last 2 years I've had several ekgs, an echo cardiogram, and a nuclear treadmill stress test where the BP goes really, really high.
 
This morning I went to the Doctor for a heart/liver/kidney health check-up, having done fasting blood test last week.

While taking my BP she said that for my age (62) the target should be less than 140/90. I was 132/82 today which was nice to see, particularly since I'd walked briskly for 20 minutes in a temperature of ~37F in snow flurries and only had a 10 minute sit down. I take my own BP most days and it is usually in the range 130-150/70-90 so it was good to get confirmation that my own readings are reasonably accurate. The longer I can stay off meds the better.

I turn 60 this week. I am starting back on meds after a year and a half. My PCP gave me the same guidelines, <140/90. I guess that's the new 120/80?
 
I turn 60 this week. I am starting back on meds after a year and a half. My PCP gave me the same guidelines, <140/90. I guess that's the new 120/80?

That's what I'm thinking :)
 
When I was 50 my BP was 195/100 and I had a erratic heart rate. They thought I was having a heart attack. Back then I was a perfect weight and walked 4-8 miles everyday. They immediately put me on a beta blocker to stabilize/slow down the heart rate and get my BP under control. I spent a few days in the hospital. I have never been off meds since of course. When I was working for the state my BP was around 132/83. Once I retired it dropped about 10 points. I gained weight and then lost it but it did not affect my BP.

so if I understand correctly, the docs were satisfied with 132/80?

Which makes perfect sense to me. What I take some issue with is the idea that now that we have meds that can get you down to 60, somehow that's what we should all strive for.
 
so if I understand correctly, the docs were satisfied with 132/80?

Which makes perfect sense to me. What I take some issue with is the idea that now that we have meds that can get you down to 60, somehow that's what we should all strive for.

Careful with going too low. I met some great EMTS the other night with a 64/32 BP. Staying conscious was difficult.
 
This morning I went to the Doctor for a heart/liver/kidney health check-up, having done fasting blood test last week.

While taking my BP she said that for my age (62) the target should be less than 140/90. I was 132/82 today which was nice to see, particularly since I'd walked briskly for 20 minutes in a temperature of ~37F in snow flurries and only had a 10 minute sit down. I take my own BP most days and it is usually in the range 130-150/70-90 so it was good to get confirmation that my own readings are reasonably accurate. The longer I can stay off meds the better.
Alan, those are really good results at the Doc's. Congratulations.

In my case I seem to have elevated readings at the Doc's. My theory is that it has something to do with my introversion and hence high "social BP". At the Doc's it might be 150/95 but at home it is usually in the 138/80 range. I have even taken in my BP device to check this out and it agrees with their readings.

So if one is like this, I would strongly suggest to do your readings at home and show the Doc.
 
Back
Top Bottom