Ideal BP

Quoted message said:

My BP is currently in the 130-115/65-80 range w/o
meds. I was told that the new limits for BP are 120/80?
Is there empirical research to suggest these new lowered
standards?

The lower a person's BP is, the less likely he is to suffer from
BP-related cardiovascular disease. I think the new limits are a bit on
the stupid side ... after all, why not just define ideal BP as "as low
as possible without producing symptoms"? Obviously, since the CV system
is like a bunch of pipes, lower pressure means less wear and tear, and
less possibility of failure, but that doesn't mean that BP must be
constantly and artificially driven lower and lower.

Your BP sounds fine. But I'm not a doctor and this is not medical
advice. Besides, wait a few more years and someone will probably define
new limits at 100/50 or something, after discovering that people with BP
at that level rarely suffer from hemorrhagic strokes (duh!).

Quoted message said:

I try not to be skeptical and think that the lowered standards are more
about pharmaceutical business than health.

I don't think that there are any decent standards. We know what BP we
observe in normal, healthy individuals, but nobody knows what "ideal" BP
should be. Maybe everyone could benefit from lowered BP. Then again,
maybe higher BPs aren't as bad as they are made out to be.

I think the problem is that researchers notice that low BP reduces CV
disease, and thus incorrectly assume that an "ideal normal" BP is
unrealistically low. People are thus medicated for no reason just to
get their BP as low as possible, in order to reduce their CV risk.

Well, that's like encouraging people to lie in bed all day because it
reduces their risk of broken bones. Sure, it's _safe_ to lie in bed all
day, but is it really _ideal_ to behave that way, just to avoid broken
bones?

Quoted message said:

What are the risks associated with untreated BP in the
125/80 range?

Essentially nil. If it gets to 145/92, watch it carefully. If it rises
even more, or fails to go down even after weight loss and exercise, then
you might reluctantly consider medication. I don't know why anyone
would worry about 125/80, but then again, I've never been very good at
jumping on bandwagons.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Quoted message said:

I have always had BP in the 115-140/65-75 range (average probably 125/75).
A few years ago, I was placed on Atenolol because of mild high/borderline
BP. I have exercised and lost weight in order to get off the medication b/c
of the side effects. My BP is currently in the 130-115/65-80 range w/o
meds. I was told that the new limits for BP are 120/80? Is there empirical
research to suggest these new lowered standards? Do you have the citations?
I try not to be skeptical and think that the lowered standards are more
about pharmaceutical business than health. What are the risks associated
with untreated BP in the 125/80 range? Thanks in advance.

Current guidelines are to treat to goal of 115/75 or less.

Risks associated with untreated BP of 125/80 would be increased risk of
developing problems attributed to hypertension.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com

Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:27:52 GMT in article
<[email hidden]> Matti Narkia

Quoted message said:

Sun, 02 Nov 2003 19:11:32 GMT in article
<[email hidden]> "Dr. Andrew B.

Chung said:

Quoted message said:

I have always had BP in the 115-140/65-75 range (average probably 125/75).
A few years ago, I was placed on Atenolol because of mild high/borderline
BP. I have exercised and lost weight in order to get off the medication b/c
of the side effects. My BP is currently in the 130-115/65-80 range w/o
meds. I was told that the new limits for BP are 120/80? Is there empirical
research to suggest these new lowered standards? Do you have the citations?
I try not to be skeptical and think that the lowered standards are more
about pharmaceutical business than health. What are the risks associated
with untreated BP in the 125/80 range? Thanks in advance.

Current guidelines are to treat to goal of 115/75 or less.

Based on what?

Quoted message said:

Risks associated with untreated BP of 125/80 would be increased risk of
developing problems attributed to hypertension.

I will believe it, if I see the evidence. Meanwhile, have a look at
this study:

Merlo J, Ranstam J, Liedholm H, Hedblad B, Lindberg G, Lindblad U,
Isacsson SO, Melander A, Rastam L. Related Articles, Links
Incidence of myocardial infarction in elderly men being treated with
antihypertensive drugs: population based cohort study.
BMJ. 1996 Aug 24;313(7055):457-61.
PMID: 8776312 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7055/457>
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8776312&dopt=Abstract>

The above study was commented in Journal Watch as follows:

MI AND ANTIHYPERTENSIVES: THE J-SHAPED CURVE REVISITED
Journal Watch (General), October 1, 1996; 1996(1001): 2 - 2.
http://general-medicine.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/1996/1001/2

"MI AND ANTIHYPERTENSIVES: THE J-SHAPED CURVE REVISITED

This Swedish cohort study adds to the growing body of evidence
that it is possible to overtreat hypertension. The study
involved 484 men born in 1914 who were initially examined from
1982 to 1983 and followed for up to 10 years. The outcome of
interest was myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death.

Subjects taking antihypertensive agents were 2.6 times as
likely to have an ischemic cardiac event as those not taking
antihypertensives. After adjustment for confounders (smoking
habits, blood pressure, duration of hypertension, diabetes,
obesity, and elevated serum creatinine level), this relation
weakened, but did not disappear (hazard ratio, 1.9). In men
with diastolic blood pressure higher than 90 mm Hg, the use of
antihypertensives was associated with a two-fold increase in
cardiac risk that disappeared after correction for confounders.
In men with a diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or lower,
the use of antihypertensives was associated with a 3.9-fold
increase in risk that persisted after adjustment for
confounders.

Comment: While the number of cardiac events was relatively
small, the investigators did a good job of eliminating other
kinds of bias, such as lower blood pressure being a sign of
more severe underlying illness. Thus, these data support a J-
shaped relation between treated blood pressure and cardiac
events in men. In other words, lowering blood pressure below a
certain level increases risk. --KI Marton

Published in Journal Watch October 1, 1996"

--
Matti Narkia

Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:40:34 GMT in article
<[email hidden]> Matti Narkia

Quoted message said:

Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:27:52 GMT in article
<[email hidden]> Matti Narkia

Quoted message said:

Sun, 02 Nov 2003 19:11:32 GMT in article
<[email hidden]> "Dr. Andrew B.

Chung said:

[email hidden] wrote:

> I have always had BP in the 115-140/65-75 range (average probably 125/75).
> A few years ago, I was placed on Atenolol because of mild high/borderline
> BP. I have exercised and lost weight in order to get off the medication b/c
> of the side effects. My BP is currently in the 130-115/65-80 range w/o
> meds. I was told that the new limits for BP are 120/80? Is there empirical
> research to suggest these new lowered standards? Do you have the citations?
> I try not to be skeptical and think that the lowered standards are more
> about pharmaceutical business than health. What are the risks associated
> with untreated BP in the 125/80 range? Thanks in advance.

Current guidelines are to treat to goal of 115/75 or less.

Based on what?

Quoted message said:

Risks associated with untreated BP of 125/80 would be increased risk of
developing problems attributed to hypertension.

I will believe it, if I see the evidence. Meanwhile, have a look at
this study:

Merlo J, Ranstam J, Liedholm H, Hedblad B, Lindberg G, Lindblad U,
Isacsson SO, Melander A, Rastam L. Related Articles, Links
Incidence of myocardial infarction in elderly men being treated with
antihypertensive drugs: population based cohort study.
BMJ. 1996 Aug 24;313(7055):457-61.
PMID: 8776312 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7055/457>
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8776312&dopt=Abstract>

The above study was commented in Journal Watch as follows:

MI AND ANTIHYPERTENSIVES: THE J-SHAPED CURVE REVISITED
Journal Watch (General), October 1, 1996; 1996(1001): 2 - 2.
http://general-medicine.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/1996/1001/2

Here a couple of more articles about the same topic

1: Cruickshank J.
The J-curve in Hypertension.
Curr Cardiol Rep. 2003 Nov;5(6):441-52.
PMID: 14558984 [PubMed - in process]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14558984&dopt=Abstract>

2: Cruickshank JM.
Antihypertensive treatment and the J-curve.
Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 2000 Aug;14(4):373-9. Review.
PMID: 10999643 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10999643&dopt=Abstract

--
Matti Narkia

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have always had BP in the 115-140/65-75 range (average probably 125/75).
A few years ago, I was placed on Atenolol because of mild high/borderline
BP. I have exercised and lost weight in order to get off the medication b/c
of the side effects. My BP is currently in the 130-115/65-80 range w/o
meds. I was told that the new limits for BP are 120/80? Is there empirical
research to suggest these new lowered standards? Do you have the citations?
I try not to be skeptical and think that the lowered standards are more
about pharmaceutical business than health. What are the risks associated
with untreated BP in the 125/80 range? Thanks in advance.

Current guidelines are to treat to goal of 115/75 or less.

Risks associated with untreated BP of 125/80 would be increased risk of
developing problems attributed to hypertension.

Is this guideline universally accepted? When or during which hour of
a day should the BP be measured? Early in the morning or late in the
evening. I think there is a diference in using this guideline when
applied to patients with or without inherited HBP. People with HBP
that is of an inherited nature should be expected to assume a higher
number. No? Personally i would feel a bit uncomfortable and tense
when it goes about near 140/90 _before going to bed_ but anything
below 135/85 is just fine.

FP

francispoon said:

Is this guideline universally accepted?

Nothing is ever universally accepted. It is widely accepted.

Quoted message said:

When or during which hour of a day should the BP be measured?
Early in the morning or late in the evening.

It matters little, as long as you are quietly at rest and you always
measure it under the same circumstances (with an empty bladder, after
sitting quietly for a time, on the same arm, with arm in the same
position and cuff level with the heart, etc.).

Quoted message said:

I think there is a diference in using this guideline when
applied to patients with or without inherited HBP. People with HBP
that is of an inherited nature should be expected to assume a higher
number. No?

The damage done by hypertension is independent of how it developed, so
the guidelines would be the same for people with or without a given type
of hypertension.

Quoted message said:

Personally i would feel a bit uncomfortable and tense
when it goes about near 140/90 _before going to bed_ but anything
below 135/85 is just fine.

In theory, the higher it is, the sooner it will cause problems. If it
is only very slightly elevated and you are not still a child, you may
die of other causes before the BP causes any problems. Contrary to what
many people seem to wish to believe, there are no sharp cutoff points.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

francispoon said:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have always had BP in the 115-140/65-75 range (average probably 125/75).
A few years ago, I was placed on Atenolol because of mild high/borderline
BP. I have exercised and lost weight in order to get off the medication b/c
of the side effects. My BP is currently in the 130-115/65-80 range w/o
meds. I was told that the new limits for BP are 120/80? Is there empirical
research to suggest these new lowered standards? Do you have the citations?
I try not to be skeptical and think that the lowered standards are more
about pharmaceutical business than health. What are the risks associated
with untreated BP in the 125/80 range? Thanks in advance.

Current guidelines are to treat to goal of 115/75 or less.

Risks associated with untreated BP of 125/80 would be increased risk of
developing problems attributed to hypertension.

Is this guideline universally accepted?

Nationally it is. That's why they call it JNC guidelines. *J*oint *N*ational *C*ommittee.

Quoted message said:

When or during which hour of
a day should the BP be measured? Early in the morning or late in the
evening.

Morning is preferred.

Quoted message said:

I think there is a diference in using this guideline when
applied to patients with or without inherited HBP.

The predisposition for HBP seems to be inherited.

Quoted message said:

People with HBP
that is of an inherited nature should be expected to assume a higher
number. No?

No.

Quoted message said:

Personally i would feel a bit uncomfortable and tense
when it goes about near 140/90 _before going to bed_ but anything
below 135/85 is just fine.

FP

Not sure what your question is.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

see below

Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

francispoon said:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:

> I have always had BP in the 115-140/65-75 range (average probably 125/75).
> A few years ago, I was placed on Atenolol because of mild high/borderline
> BP. I have exercised and lost weight in order to get off the medication b/c
> of the side effects. My BP is currently in the 130-115/65-80 range w/o
> meds. I was told that the new limits for BP are 120/80? Is there empirical
> research to suggest these new lowered standards? Do you have the citations?
> I try not to be skeptical and think that the lowered standards are more
> about pharmaceutical business than health. What are the risks associated
> with untreated BP in the 125/80 range? Thanks in advance.

Current guidelines are to treat to goal of 115/75 or less.

Risks associated with untreated BP of 125/80 would be increased risk of
developing problems attributed to hypertension.

Is this guideline universally accepted?

Nationally it is. That's why they call it JNC guidelines. *J*oint *N*ational *C*ommittee.

Quoted message said:

When or during which hour of
a day should the BP be measured? Early in the morning or late in the
evening.

Morning is preferred.

Quoted message said:

I think there is a diference in using this guideline when
applied to patients with or without inherited HBP.

The predisposition for HBP seems to be inherited.

Quoted message said:

People with HBP
that is of an inherited nature should be expected to assume a higher
number. No?

No.

Quoted message said:

Personally i would feel a bit uncomfortable and tense
when it goes about near 140/90 _before going to bed_ but anything
below 135/85 is just fine.

FP

Not sure what your question is.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

B-0b1 here...why not less than 135/75 as in 110 max over about 65 average??
It IS attainable..as I have been in the 180/110+ bracket a good part of my life UNTIL I
learned the RULES about proper eating AND took a regular Vitamin Mineral (balanced)
regimine with all AVERAGES taken into consideration. My OWN products also made it a
certainty. Since 1994/5...I have been where I belong...as in age 63 + I am NOW 71+
and have never been so healthy. I can HELP anyone do the same thing by giving them a
FREE KIT with instructions that take about 2 hrs average week or less. (Total additive)

You may pay the shipping IF you can hack it...otherwise I'll do it.all I need are ADDY"S.
Once you begin to FEEL the "differences" You'll wonder why you didn't do it years ago??
Simplicity is the answer to any complex problem...B-0b1 "Dead Doctors do NOT Lie"

Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

francispoon said:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:

> I have always had BP in the 115-140/65-75 range (average probably 125/75).
> A few years ago, I was placed on Atenolol because of mild high/borderline
> BP. I have exercised and lost weight in order to get off the medication b/c
> of the side effects. My BP is currently in the 130-115/65-80 range w/o
> meds. I was told that the new limits for BP are 120/80? Is there empirical
> research to suggest these new lowered standards? Do you have the citations?
> I try not to be skeptical and think that the lowered standards are more
> about pharmaceutical business than health. What are the risks associated
> with untreated BP in the 125/80 range? Thanks in advance.

Current guidelines are to treat to goal of 115/75 or less.

Risks associated with untreated BP of 125/80 would be increased risk of
developing problems attributed to hypertension.

Is this guideline universally accepted?

Nationally it is. That's why they call it JNC guidelines. *J*oint *N*ational *C*ommittee.

Quoted message said:

When or during which hour of
a day should the BP be measured? Early in the morning or late in the
evening.

Morning is preferred.

Quoted message said:

I think there is a diference in using this guideline when
applied to patients with or without inherited HBP.

The predisposition for HBP seems to be inherited.

Quoted message said:

People with HBP
that is of an inherited nature should be expected to assume a higher
number. No?

No.

Quoted message said:

Personally i would feel a bit uncomfortable and tense
when it goes about near 140/90 _before going to bed_ but anything
below 135/85 is just fine.

FP

Not sure what your question is.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

B-Ob1 said:

B-0b1 here...why not less than 135/75 as in 110 max
over about 65 average??

Why not 90/50?

Indeed, why allow blood pressure at all? Any non-zero pressure just
puts a strain on the heart and blood vessels.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic said:

B-Ob1 said:

B-0b1 here...why not less than 135/75 as in 110 max
over about 65 average??

Why not 90/50?

Indeed, why allow blood pressure at all? Any non-zero pressure just
puts a strain on the heart and blood vessels.

This is a great point. My blood pressure was 135/80 for as long as I can
remember. My cholesterol in medschool was 150 after eggs and bacon! Last
year it was slightly over 200 fasting with an LDL of 125.

When I performed my own CIMT, however, I was blown out of the water. A
subtle finding of my particular carotid intima-media complex appeared to be
muscular hyperplasia, and the thickness was worrisome.

This is why I now take lisinopril, 40 mg qhs (among other things), and my
blood pressure is 95/60. Yes, I sometimes feel light headed when I stand
quickly, but personally I am willing to put up with the side effects and
hope that it will help reverse the atherosclerosis that has developed. I do
not want to follow the footsteps of my grandfather, whom I never met. He
died of a massive coronary in his early 50's.

--
~~~
Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P.
Board Certified in Family Practice
http://www.familydoctor.org/blanchard

Patrick Blanchard said:

He died of a massive coronary in his early 50's.

You prefer renal failure instead?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Patrick Blanchard said:

Mxsmanic said:

B-Ob1 said:

B-0b1 here...why not less than 135/75 as in 110 max
over about 65 average??

Why not 90/50?

Indeed, why allow blood pressure at all? Any non-zero pressure just
puts a strain on the heart and blood vessels.

This is a great point. My blood pressure was 135/80 for as long as I can
remember. My cholesterol in medschool was 150 after eggs and bacon! Last
year it was slightly over 200 fasting with an LDL of 125.

When I performed my own CIMT, however, I was blown out of the water. A
subtle finding of my particular carotid intima-media complex appeared to be
muscular hyperplasia, and the thickness was worrisome.

This is why I now take lisinopril, 40 mg qhs (among other things), and my
blood pressure is 95/60. Yes, I sometimes feel light headed when I stand
quickly, but personally I am willing to put up with the side effects and
hope that it will help reverse the atherosclerosis that has developed. I do
not want to follow the footsteps of my grandfather, whom I never met. He
died of a massive coronary in his early 50's.

--
~~~
Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P.
Board Certified in Family Practice
http://www.familydoctor.org/blanchard

Thanks for sharing, Patrick.

I've seen folks walking around in the hallways waiting for a heart transplant
(sometimes many months) with blood pressures around 80/40. We know what little
heart muscle they have left is going to last longer with low blood pressure
rather than high.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com

Mxsmanic said:

Patrick Blanchard said:

He died of a massive coronary in his early 50's.

You prefer renal failure instead?

ACE inhibitors are renally protective.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com

Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

ACE inhibitors are renally protective.

Which organs suffer first when the blood pressure drops too low?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:07:37 +0100 in article
<[email hidden]> Mxsmanic <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

ACE inhibitors are renally protective.

Which organs suffer first when the blood pressure drops too low?

According to following articles even heart could suffer, if the population
consists of elderly men:

Merlo J, Ranstam J, Liedholm H, Hedblad B, Lindberg G, Lindblad U,
Isacsson SO, Melander A, Rastam L. Related Articles, Links
Incidence of myocardial infarction in elderly men being treated with
antihypertensive drugs: population based cohort study.
BMJ. 1996 Aug 24;313(7055):457-61.
PMID: 8776312 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7055/457>
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8776312&dopt=Abstract>

(The above study was commented in Journal Watch as follows:

MI AND ANTIHYPERTENSIVES: THE J-SHAPED CURVE REVISITED
Journal Watch (General), October 1, 1996; 1996(1001): 2 - 2.
<http://general-medicine.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/1996/1001/2> )

Cruickshank J.
The J-curve in Hypertension.
Curr Cardiol Rep. 2003 Nov;5(6):441-52.
PMID: 14558984 [PubMed - in process]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14558984&dopt=Abstract>

Cruickshank JM.
Antihypertensive treatment and the J-curve.
Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 2000 Aug;14(4):373-9. Review.
PMID: 10999643 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10999643&dopt=Abstract

--
Matti Narkia

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Patrick Blanchard said:

Mxsmanic said:

B-Ob1 writes:

> B-0b1 here...why not less than 135/75 as in 110 max
> over about 65 average??

Why not 90/50?

Indeed, why allow blood pressure at all? Any non-zero pressure just
puts a strain on the heart and blood vessels.

This is a great point. My blood pressure was 135/80 for as long as I can
remember. My cholesterol in medschool was 150 after eggs and bacon! Last
year it was slightly over 200 fasting with an LDL of 125.

When I performed my own CIMT, however, I was blown out of the water. A
subtle finding of my particular carotid intima-media complex appeared to be
muscular hyperplasia, and the thickness was worrisome.

This is why I now take lisinopril, 40 mg qhs (among other things), and my
blood pressure is 95/60. Yes, I sometimes feel light headed when I stand
quickly, but personally I am willing to put up with the side effects and
hope that it will help reverse the atherosclerosis that has developed. I do
not want to follow the footsteps of my grandfather, whom I never met. He
died of a massive coronary in his early 50's.

--
~~~
Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P.
Board Certified in Family Practice
http://www.familydoctor.org/blanchard

Thanks for sharing, Patrick.

I've seen folks walking around in the hallways waiting for a heart transplant
(sometimes many months) with blood pressures around 80/40. We know what little
heart muscle they have left is going to last longer with low blood pressure
rather than high.

Humbly,

Andrew

I am new to this group so pardon me if I'm not following protocol. I
have a question about my own blood pressure. My systolic seems to be
normal (122) but my diastolic is a little high (92). What exactly
does this mean. What long-term consequences am I facing if any? What
action (if any) should I take?

Thanks,

Mike

Mxsmanic said:

Patrick Blanchard said:

He died of a massive coronary in his early 50's.

You prefer renal failure instead?

I am certain you know that atherosclerosis can also lead to renal failure.

--
~~~
Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P.
Board Certified in Family Practice
http://www.familydoctor.org/blanchard

Mxsmanic said:

Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

ACE inhibitors are renally protective.

Which organs suffer first when the blood pressure drops too low?

the brain.

--
~~~
Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P.
Board Certified in Family Practice
http://www.familydoctor.org/blanchard

Michael Brock said:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Patrick Blanchard said:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 08:01:12 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email hidden]> wrote:

> B-Ob1 writes:
>
>> B-0b1 here...why not less than 135/75 as in 110 max
>> over about 65 average??
>
> Why not 90/50?
>
> Indeed, why allow blood pressure at all? Any non-zero pressure just
> puts a strain on the heart and blood vessels.
>

This is a great point. My blood pressure was 135/80 for as long as I can
remember. My cholesterol in medschool was 150 after eggs and bacon! Last
year it was slightly over 200 fasting with an LDL of 125.

When I performed my own CIMT, however, I was blown out of the water. A
subtle finding of my particular carotid intima-media complex appeared to be
muscular hyperplasia, and the thickness was worrisome.

This is why I now take lisinopril, 40 mg qhs (among other things), and my
blood pressure is 95/60. Yes, I sometimes feel light headed when I stand
quickly, but personally I am willing to put up with the side effects and
hope that it will help reverse the atherosclerosis that has developed. I do
not want to follow the footsteps of my grandfather, whom I never met. He
died of a massive coronary in his early 50's.

--
~~~
Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P.
Board Certified in Family Practice
http://www.familydoctor.org/blanchard

Thanks for sharing, Patrick.

I've seen folks walking around in the hallways waiting for a heart transplant
(sometimes many months) with blood pressures around 80/40. We know what little
heart muscle they have left is going to last longer with low blood pressure
rather than high.

Humbly,

Andrew

I am new to this group so pardon me if I'm not following protocol. I
have a question about my own blood pressure. My systolic seems to be
normal (122) but my diastolic is a little high (92). What exactly
does this mean. What long-term consequences am I facing if any? What
action (if any) should I take?

Thanks,

Mike

Mike..It means that your heart is really healthy...95 IS a tad high but when it
was taken had you just walked up some stairs or some minor excercise..or had
just eaten something?? Check ir regualrly every 6 hrs for three days and note the
minute differences. If it is still hig, hen there may be a dietary reason. What IS a
"normal" diet for you..do you mix starch and meat as in HAMMY BUGGERS??
.do you take supplements regularly?? It may be a simple answer!
B-0b1