New Blood Pressure Guidelines

[audreyh1]

Apparently 30 to 40% of Americans have fatty liver disease (a lot of those are type II diabetic and/or obese), so it's not surprising to have a high number of US folks considered at risk.

 

[audreyh1]

Here's something purely anecdotal--years ago I took a yoga class (and since then have taken maybe 3 yoga classes) and after the class I went home.

I made a mental note to myself of how calm I felt. Now I'm one who doesn't go for new age ideas, but feeling so relaxed, I thought I'd check my BP. It was 90/60. My BP is never 90/60. It just fascinated me that one yoga class could do that to my BP.

I have in my notes to set a goal of watching a 5 minute yoga video on youtube. I'll try it and see what happens.

Yeah - I found that yoga was very effective at lowering my blood pressure when it was running a bit higher.

 

[audreyh1]

Just noticed the link to the ASCVD Estimator tool and plugged my numbers in. My 10-year ASCVD risk is 2.8%, which is under the 5% risk threshold for recommending treatment. That's nice to know. Thanks for the link!

Yeah - somehow in that NBC article the didn't explain this and uses terms like "everybody". Well - no, this guideline change is for folks with ASCVD risk of greater than 10%. Huge difference.

Not exactly - see below - you will be labeled hypertensive above 130.

 

[audreyh1]

is what I read in the NPR article.

The distinction is - you will be labeled "hypertensive" if you have BP over 130, but you will not need to take drugs to control it unless your ASCVD risk is over 10%.

So confusing!

 

[bolt]

This reeks of additional unnecessary medical metrics /costs/meds/etc. That BIG PHARMA's neurontin settlement in the billions in BOS suggests newer approved meds in the USA can often be costly experimental nonsense at best.

 

[Jerry1]

What happened to the new guideline that said 60 yr olds acceptable BP could be 150/90.

That's the first thing I thought of. Seemed like that came out less than a year ago.

All the comments about this being a money grab. Geeze, what a bunch of cynics. Don't you people know that the medical industry and Pharma are trying to save money by preventing illness? Don't question this, just take the pill. Oh, and don't listen to or read about the side effects. Nothing to see there.

 

[CRLLS]

That's the first thing I thought of. Seemed like that came out less than a year ago.

All the comments about this being a money grab. Geeze, what a bunch of cynics. Don't you people know that the medical industry and Pharma are trying to save money by preventing illness? Don't question this, just take the pill. Oh, and don't listen to or read about the side effects. Nothing to see there.

And how many of us have Big Pharma stock somewhere in our portfolio? Just take the darn meds like the good doctor says and increase my investments

 

[meierlde]

Actually many folks on this forum have at least tried one method of BP control de-stressing their life thru Retirement. With medication I have gotten mine down to 125/82 or so, but I think the big thing is seriously destressing my life and living as an almost hermit. (Except for the computers). I don't in general go out at night etc. Retirement and thereby ditching a bunch of worries can be a big help.

 

[meierlde]

I'm going to continue to follow my personal medical plan, which consists of enjoying myself to the extent that whatever kills me does it quickly. Hopefully a good while from now, but that's not the primary goal.

Given all the other ways besides this that we are told we could die of ranging from nuclear war, huge volcanic eruptions, climate change, epidemics of unknown diseases and even recently discussion of an antibiotic resistant form of the black death, it makes sense to follow the injunction to Eat Drink and be Merry because tommorrow we die: Ecclesiastes 8:15 or the injunction from the sermon on the mount to take no thought for the morrow. Of course any day a truck could decide to run us over also etc. So your attitude could well be stated to be a biblical one.

 

[Winemaker]

In the end, we are all dead. Live life to the fullest in moderation, and hope and pray that whatever takes you out of this world, does so immediately.

 

[REWahoo]

...and hope and pray that whatever takes you out of this world, does so immediately.

+1

She's threatened to do that more times that I can recall and one of these days she'll probably follow through.

 

[mickeyd]

122/75~just took it. Good to go for both old and new guidelines.


Off to the gym...

 

[audreyh1]

OK - I've read several more articles on this and I see several problems.

1. Their SPRINT study ONLY used over 50 folks that had 10% or more ASCVD risk yet they project the guidelines to the entire population?!?
2. They call everyone with >130/80 hypertensive, which means these folks now have a pre-existing condition! Even though they don't recommend drug therapy for folks who are <10% ASCVD risk.
3. I believe the difference in cardiac/stroke events between the two groups was small. Like 6% in the treated group and 8% in the control. That means 94% of the treated group did not have an event and 92% in the control group did not have an event.
4. No discussion of overall mortality, mortality from all causes, etc. A lot of these studies show one thing, but then when looking at overall mortality, there is no difference. Some physicians have spoken out concerned about the long-term effects on the kidneys from taking BP medications for a long time. Sure, you may avoid an ASCVD event, but what if your kidneys fail instead?

There were 9,361 folks in the study, so it wasn't tiny. Still, it's a limited subset of the population both by age and by risk (>10% ASCVD risk) - so this is a special group.

This really bugs me! I don't think you can make general population guidelines like this. It only seems valid to make guidelines for folks that fit the population subset they tested.

 

[Milton]

Also, they noticed my BP was 130/90 and suggested that I had it monitored for 60 days. My school nurse was more than happy to oblige.

"More than happy" ... why? Seems like a strange thing to be ecstatic about.

 

[Milton]

This reeks of additional unnecessary medical metrics /costs/meds/etc. That BIG PHARMA's neurontin settlement in the billions in BOS suggests newer approved meds in the USA can often be costly experimental nonsense at best.

Reminds me of when the lack of evidence for any significant benefits of dental floss emerged over the last few years. What a scam.

 

[Winemaker]

"More than happy" ... why? Seems like a strange thing to be ecstatic about.

Maybe my school nurse was happy to help an active, intelligent, athletic Eagle Scout achieve his goal of entering one of the best schools in the USA and serve our country, while a lot of my long haired classmates were busy protesting the Viet Nam war. She worked between 3 schools and was kind enough to make herself available to monitor my BP on school days and on weekends.

Methinks you parse my words too much.

 

[braumeister]

This really bugs me! I don't think you can make general population guidelines like this. It only seems valid to make guidelines for folks that fit the population subset they tested.

Of course, this is exactly what they did with the "cholesterol problem." They had drugs that lowered your LDL but not enough people were taking them. So they redefined the acceptable limit down and instantly created a huge new pool of "at risk" folks.

My doc convinced me to start a BP med a few months ago (I was routinely slightly over 150/90), but he made an interesting comment. He said if I used the drug for a few months and my BP came down a little but still not down to the "official" numbers, then I could say to him "Well, it's low enough for me" and he would be just fine with that.

So the powers that be still haven't been able to convince more than a subset of doctors yet the media tends to portray these guidelines as universally accepted gospel. What a farce!

 

[GravitySucks]

Reminds me of when the lack of evidence for any significant benefits of dental floss emerged over the last few years. What a scam.

My breath smells better without the chunk of last nights chicken wing in between my teeth.
I'll splurge on enriching "Big Floss"

 

[audreyh1]

I'm OK with floss as otherwise I have pre-cavities developing between my teeth.

 

[mpeirce]

I'll splurge on enriching "Big Floss"

You mean those dental floss ranchers up in Montana?

 

[harley]

You mean those dental floss ranchers up in Montana?

Somebody's got to pay for those zircon encrusted tweezers.

 

[candrew]

Somebody's got to pay for those zircon encrusted tweezers.

First you better find you a horse, Just about this big, An' ride him all along the border line

 

[Milton]

I'm OK with floss as otherwise I have pre-cavities developing between my teeth.

Unfortunately, research doesn’t demonstrate that flossing actually helps fight tooth decay. Fluoride does, though.

 

[audreyh1]

Unfortunately, research doesn’t demonstrate that flossing actually helps fight tooth decay. Fluoride does, though.

Well - I think it's a good idea to get rid of the food stuck between my teeth. And I have to floss to do that. My teeth fit tightly together.

The dentist also told me to use fluoride toothpaste. I'd been using non-fluoride for a while, so back to fluoride.

 

[tfudtuckerpucker]

Unfortunately, research doesn’t demonstrate that flossing actually helps fight tooth decay. Fluoride does, though.

That's interesting, since my dentist blamed my caries on not flossing adequately. But research shows you're correct (Pubmed health)

I've been using prescription 1% sodium fluoride toothpaste, but lately I am also using a stannous fluoride toothpaste, since that attacks decay-causing bacteria, whereas sodium fluoride doesn't. Or at least that's what google tells me.