On 24 Nov 2003 20:18:02 -0800, ElfHunter wrote:
First, loosen your sphincter and take a deep breath. This *is* Usenet. There, I hope you feel
better. Second, I'm certainly not attacking you or your way of life. As I mentioned, if you want to
attempt to reach 115/75, knock yourself out and I hope you make it.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:ElfHunter said:I read in one of the articles on nhlbi.nih.govnhlbi.nih.govOpen ↗ that damage to your circulatory system
can occur with BP as low as 115/75. Normal is currently defined as under 120/80. At 128/88 I am
prehypertensive. While I am not too concerned over my bp at this point of time, I would like to
lower it a little.
It's none of my business but this *is* Usenet. Who in the world told you that you were
hypertensive at 128/88??? If you are in the USA and it was a physician, you have good cause to
contact the AMA. And, damage can occur to the cardiovascular system at 120/80. "Normal" is, at
best, a range based on personal individual differences. While I'd never try to convince someone
not to reach a specific pressure ratio (it's your time and effort, after all), "hypertensive" is
a word that contains a number of serious implications. You truly may be hypertensive at 128/88
(it would surprise me but I've been surprised before); however, many people would not be
hypertensive at that level. Most significant range jumps recognized byt the AMA, NIH, and CDC (in
the USA, FWIW) move in 20/10 increments.
Perhaps you should run to a remedial reading class as soon as possible. The problem with the USENET
is that people like you don't spend the time to read carefully before replying. I wrote that I was
PREhypertensive, NOT hypertensive. My source is nhlbi.nih.govnhlbi.nih.govOpen ↗, which I clearly stated
that in my previous message. Here is the URL to the table:
nhlbi.nih.govcateg.htmOpen ↗
Yes, I read where you said PREhypertensive. I'm not debating the need for a remedial reading class.
I'm sure that there are many of us who would have a good time in such a class. Prehypertensive
suggests that you are either borderline hypertensive or have indicators that suggest you are
becoming hypertensive according to JNC 7. I think that this may be the *suggested* guidelines you
refer to later. They've been under study for over 2 years and were published last May -
jama.ama-assn.org289.19.2560v1Open ↗ - although the specific journal articles are
much more informative (see the references on the Web page - they aren't complete but they're a good
place for you to start). This suggested guideline has not been widely accepted, yet. Plus, there is
work ongoing with people who exercise regularly as opposed to people who do not (the subjects that
JNC 7 was based on). The research I know about is interested in regular recreational exercise people
(like us) as opposed to professional athletes.
Quoted message said:My theory is that you were not even aware of the term "prehypertensive" before reading my posting.
Either that or you really need glasses.
It's an interesting theory you have. Now I am embarrassed that you've taken so much time to read my
posts so that you could form such a theory. Of course, I'm sure that you realize that I am not
completely like "Layne Wallace" or any of the other nicks I've used on Usenet since 1982. Still, the
fact that you put so much effort into this is, well, a little scary.
Thanks and you're right! I do wear glasses - big thick ones - even when I run (unless I'm wearing
contacts). And, yes, I am aware of the term "hypertension" as well as the drugs, coincidental
symptoms (sleep apnea, kidney disfunction, and hormonal imbalances, for example), and most of the
treatments for it. If someone else had a BP of 120/80 without drugs (you are obviously on your own
since it's one of your goals), I would be surprised if their physician put them on a medical regimen
as may be required with someone diagnosed as prehypertensive. Right now, I'm taking Verapamil
(calcium channel blocker for the heart as opposed to the blood vessels) for headaches and I can
pretty much guarantee that a runner wouldn't take this stuff unless it was absolutely necessary.
Quoted message said:When was the last time you checked the NIH website? The optimal (not normal) bp has been revised to
115/75. This happened several months ago. I first heard it reported on my local news, and I found
an article supporting this on the website. The article is
nhlbi.nih.gov03 05 14.htmOpen ↗. Please go read it before shooting off your big
mouth again. You are embarrassing yourself with your brash ignorance.
:-) Actually, I'm on the NIH Web site fairly often since I do a lot of work
with both the NIH and CDC. Your local NPR (at least I hope your news was NPR) is a little behind
(see above). That's OK, many of them are.
The 115/75 numbers were set for people who were receiving treatment to lower their BPs (see JNC 7).
Many physicians have not accepted this "set point" as a definition for a disease - prehypertension.
Most of the health associations (AMA and other countries' medical associations) still use the JNC VI
definitions of 130-139/85-89 for prehypertension (although they were still in the "normal" range).
See Medline/MedScape for the full JNC VI text. Editorials and opinion articles from WebMD, MedScape
(as well as medical and applied physiology journals) suggest that there is a hypertension problem in
the USA but that the JNC 7 limits are artificial and unnecessary. One Web example is
medscape.com463522 3Open ↗
Don't worry, I've embarrassed myself in many more obvious ways. It's interesting how embarrassment
changes from person to person.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:I guess my main point (other than to others who might stumble across this thread) is that you
shouldn't stress over 5 BP points at your current level. It's been my experience that my BP
changes 20/10 points during a normal (?) day. Saying that there is one, true, cosmic BP level
that is correct for anyone doesn't hold water.
Yes, I am aware that my bp varies throughout the day. What makes you think that I am not aware of
that? I have hundreds of data points. 25 of them from this month. Each data point is an average of
2 readings one on each arm. My average for the month is 127/86/72, where 72 is my average pulse
rate. I can stress 5 mmHg because it is the AVERAGE over the month. I can also tell the data trends
because I have enough data points for my analysis. The problem with people like you on rec.running
is that you assume technical incompetence in people you have never met. I am sure it is a part of
being young, arrogant and extremely stupid. BTW, I hope you are young, otherwise you don't even
have an excuse for being arrogant and extremely stupid.
Actually, I didn't (and don't) care whether you go for 115/75, 120/80, or
140/90. My main point was (and is), for people who might stumble across this thread, that 115/75 is
not a magical ratio. At this year's meeting of the American Society of Hypertension, a group
of physicians criticized the JNC 7 and several of the JNC & authors backed off their
classification of "prehypertension" and instead admitted (their word, not mine) that
prehypertension was not an accurate term and people who were in the "old" normal range did
not need to be treated for a disease called prehypertension. Several physicians also
expressed concern that the JNC had gone to the mass media before they had discussed their
suggestions with medical professionals. See the ASH Scientific Session proceedings from the
meeting in New York.
As I understand it, the European Society of Cardiology also has a number of problems with JNC 7. WHO
and ISH have decided to stick with the "range" approach put forward by JNC VI. This leaves the term
"prehypertension" in the disease category which requires some sort of intervention.
Quoted message said:As for your contention that there is no cosmic optimal bp, where is your source? What research back
up your assertion? If you can't back it up, perhaps you should take the result on
nhlbi.nih.govnhlbi.nih.govOpen ↗ a little more seriously. The NIH results are probably applicable to a
person of average build such as myself. After all, I am not 7 foot 2 or 4 foot 3.
Actually, they aren't applicable to every "average" sized person. I suggest that, if you are truly
interested in this topic, you check out a copy of Interventional Cardiology. There are several good
ones available. There are also a number of different textbooks about cardiovascular medicine which
talk about individual differences although even the newest ones don't include JNC 7 suggestions.
Naturally, Noakes has some material about BP alterations from various levels of exercise.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Again, your mileage may vary, everyone is different, who cares (the Usenet
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:;pve and adore your selected family (your genetic family you can blow off), do unto others, Bush
sucks, Layne
Well Layne, you are full of it. People like you are a dime a dozen on USENET. It is not a bad thing
to be ignorant, but you are both arrogant AND ignorant. That makes you a total nuisance. You are
truly irritating. Unlike the rec.running trolls, you are not even entertaining. I hope you take my
advise and learn to read CAREFULLY, and while you are at it learn some manners.
LOL.
Layne
-------------------------------------------------------
The rec.running report archives may be found at kinder.cis.unf.edurec.runningOpen ↗
