 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Cardiology / November 2007What level is considered high blood pressure?
A search brings up the typical low/medium/high risk categories with pressure ranges for each category, but the ranges are different depending on which website/article you are reading. Some consider >140 to be high, others say >160. Comments? In article <483a124d-0396-4ff8-8c67-3b90ea690ac7@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > A search brings up the typical low/medium/high risk categories with > pressure ranges for each category, but the ranges are different [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Comments? Lower the better - in general the lowest pressure that is sufficient to keep you functioning without side effects (like fainting, dizziness etc.) is best. The guideline numbers like cholesterol numbers are constantly being revised downwards. It would be wisest to assume "normal" is defined too high by current standards and shoot for an aggressive target say less than 110/70 as goal. High BP can damage too many systems to think you are on the borderline and reject treatment (be it lifestyle or medical). Roland > Lower the better - in general the lowest pressure that is sufficient to > keep you functioning without side effects (like fainting, dizziness [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Roland I do not think any guidelines suggest treating to 110/70 with drugs. Most guidelines recommend tight control 130/75 or so for high risk patients. Most of the side effects you noted will occur well before you reach 110/ Thanks Vince bigvince <Vince.Miraglia@gmail.com> wrote in part: >> Lower the better - in general the lowest pressure that is sufficient to >> keep you functioning without side effects (like fainting, dizziness [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Thanks Vince Mine runs about 110/70 now, and my doc continues my Beniicar (ARB). No side effects and I'm happy. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA > Mine runs about 110/70 now, and my doc continues my Beniicar (ARB). No side > effects and I'm happy. > -- "Your doc continues" your meds? That's awfully passive and compliant sounding. What do you need it for? I think you're way too happy about being chronically medicated, just IMO. Just sayinzall. Susan Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in part: >x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >"Your doc continues" your meds? That's awfully passive and compliant >sounding. Well, he writes the prescriptions after we discuss them and I decide to take it. Is that better? We have a good working relationship. > What do you need it for? Based on pretty extensive data starting about 1978, I estimate my BP would run about 140/85-90 without the ARB. That's *MY* estimate and I prefer 110/70. I have recently dropped one BP med I've been on since a mitral valve repair surgery in 1988. I plan to reduce the ARB dose soon and test. >I think you're way too happy about being chronically medicated, just IMO. I know you think that. >Just sayinzall. That's ok. My total drug "load" in normal times is 40 mg Benicar and 10 mg Lipitor. Plus some red wine at dinner. Having lost weight I always thought was "normal" I anticipate reducing or eliminating both drugs soon. But BigVince's suggestion that blood pressure treatment to reduce BP below 130/80 or whatever he quoted rubbed me the wrong way. I don't see the evidence that 110/70 on a blood pressure medication is worse than 130/85 without one. To the contrary. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA > Well, he writes the prescriptions after we discuss them and I decide to take > it. Is that better? We have a good working relationship. Yes. >>What do you need it for? > > Based on pretty extensive data starting about 1978, I estimate my BP would > run about 140/85-90 without the ARB. That's *MY* estimate and I prefer > 110/70. I have recently dropped one BP med I've been on since a mitral valve > repair surgery in 1988. I plan to reduce the ARB dose soon and test. That sounds like a good plan. I'd take it pretty slow though, because it's going to be a while before all the effects of the atenelol are really gone to the extent they will go. >>I think you're way too happy about being chronically medicated, just IMO. > > I know you think that. Yeah, I know you know. >>Just sayinzall. > > That's ok. I know. > My total drug "load" in normal times is 40 mg Benicar and 10 mg Lipitor. > Plus some red wine at dinner. Having lost weight I always thought was > "normal" I anticipate reducing or eliminating both drugs soon. It'll be interesting to see how your metabolism, and overall wellbeing change, if at all, once you accomplish all that. > But BigVince's suggestion that blood pressure treatment to reduce BP below > 130/80 or whatever he quoted rubbed me the wrong way. I don't see the > evidence that 110/70 on a blood pressure medication is worse than 130/85 > without one. To the contrary. > -- Big Vince makes the same unique spelling errors as another annoying know-it-all poster on asd. He kind of just spews. Susan > Lower the better - in general the lowest pressure that is sufficient to > keep you functioning without side effects (like fainting, dizziness [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > many systems to think you are on the borderline and reject treatment (be > it lifestyle or medical). I guess we should all avoid exercise, then? Raises bp way higher than that, if you're doing it right. There's absolutely no way people should shoot for targets that have been promulgated by those hellbent on selling drugs for that purpose. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Susan There is a real difference between a blood pressure reading naturally and one induced by chemicals. I thought Jim was on atenolol . Arbs tend to be better drugs but again most guidelines would call strick control something around 130/ 75 or so. In treating BP the family of drugs is also important. Thanks Vince bigvince <Vince.Miraglia@gmail.com> wrote in news:62e6e40a-0f19-4c6d- 8cd6-d5b349dbc47b@d50g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: >> x-no-archive: yes >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Thanks Vince OK. What's the real difference? bigvince <Vince.Miraglia@gmail.com> wrote in part: > I thought Jim was on atenolol . Yes. May you never have a mitral valve leaflet fail and go into heart failure as I did at age 44. I am now on 4 mg/d atenolol (two 2 mg doses) , down from 50 mg/d a year ago. My internist is working with me on this--to get me off if possible. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA > I am now on 4 mg/d atenolol (two 2 mg doses) , down from 50 mg/d a year ago. > My internist is working with me on this--to get me off if possible. > -- From the experiences of others, I can say the lower you, go, the slower you go, if you want to be comfortable and successful. Glad to see you're doing that. It's a marathon, not a sprint. :-) Susan > A search brings up the typical low/medium/high risk categories with > pressure ranges for each category, but the ranges are different [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Comments? Heres a good link http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/hypertension/express.pdf Thanks Vince |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.