 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / January 2005Blood pressure - My Doctor is a putz.
Last year my blood pressure was considered good for my age. Now however, it seems it is bad. I have gained weight and been relatively inactive for the latter six months of last year. In November I had a BP reading of 140/90, so I started brisk walking exercise for at least 40mins, and at least three times a week. Today I had another BP reading and it is now 120/90. My doctor has prescribed drugs. I asked what the reading meant and what I could do to bring it down myself. He said the lower reading of 90 is the problem and that he was going to treat it with drugs. He then gave me a prescription, which is now in the bin. Also, on both occasions I had just arrived at the surgery and had not rested. Now I have just found this.. > Tips for Having Your Blood Pressure Taken > > Don't drink coffee or smoke cigarettes 30 minutes before having your > blood pressure measured. Had a cup of tea within that time. > Before the test, sit for five minutes with your back supported and > your feet flat on the ground. Rest your arm on a table at the level > of your heart. Did not rest and held my arm level with my heart *without* support. > Wear short sleeves so your arm is exposed. Didn't expect the test, was wearing long sleeves. > Go to the bathroom prior to the reading. A full bladder can change > your blood pressure reading. Didn't do this either. > Get two readings, taken at least two minutes apart, and average the > results. Or that. > Ask the doctor or nurse to tell you the blood pressure reading in > numbers. Doctor became aggravated when I pushed for information. All I asked is one question, "what does that mean please"? The reason I visited the doctor is due to pain in the area of the kidneys. I have just read that high blood perssure can result in a strain on the kidneys. Given my history of contracting septicaemia a couple of years back, I would not be surprised if my kidneys were 'vulnerable'. Can anyone advise on what the readings mean and what I can do to reduce them? I am gurrently walking three times a week as perviously mentioned. I also cut my alcohol intake to a couple of glasses of wine two nights a week. I eat salad and vegetables, meat and fish, fruit and er.. chocolate. :-) Thanks. > Last year my blood pressure was considered good for my age. Now > however, it seems it is bad. [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > Thanks. Have you considered purchasing a home blood pressure monitor? They're relatively inexpensive, and reasonably accurate. They also allow you to monitor your blood pressure more frequently, and at your own convenience. And, when you take your own blood pressure, you can follow the recommended testing protocol (something many busy doctor's office's do not seem to do). Here's some reading for more info: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/hbp/ http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=2114  SignatureGG http://www.WeightWare.com Your Weight and Health Diary Mike, I cannot really add much to Gary's advice except to reinforce the importance of exercise, mainting the appropriate weight, and a suitable diet. I have my own Sphygo and monitor my blood pressure regularly under resting conditions. I agree with most of the other ideal conditions too.You seemed to be against medication. You may have to resort to this treatment as many people do. But first, I agree, monitor it over a period when you have the appropriate weight for your age and height, and are still exercising regularly. I assume you don't smoke. The wine, it is said, will actually be of benefit in the amount you consume. The upper figure is the pressure in your arterial system just after the heart has pumped blood into the system. The lower figure is the pressure with your heart at rest (between beats). It is important, as it can indicate the condition of of your arteries and 90 is a bit high. And yes, sustained high blood pressure can damage kidney function. It seems that the gain in weight and relative lack of exercise caused the deterioration in your BP. I am not medically qualified, but like Gary,I advise you to get your own measuring devise and get a good estimate of what your blood pressure really is. BP is often higher in the doctor's surgery for different reasons. One of them is called "the white coat syndrome" - probably due to a rise in anxiety level for various reasons. Anyway goodluck Mike. Regards, Barry > Last year my blood pressure was considered good for my age. Now > however, it seems it is bad. [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > Thanks. Hi - I give my patients a chart which is to be filled with no less than 20 measurements, either taken with a home monitor, or by the nurse, and with similar instructions to those you already cited. I tell them I don't want to see them again before at least 20 measurements are marked (with a smile of course). The worst thing a physician can do is take a single blood pressure and draw conclusions. Actually, I don't believe a physician should be taking the patients' blood pressure at all. Best left to a machine, or to a pleasant nurse. Better validity of results. (that's in GP settings of course, emergency is different). After the initial chart is filled, I give the liturgy on exercise, weight, diet, stress etc. Then wait a few months (unless exceptionally high BP), then if the BP is still high, it's time to start a drug. That's the general idea. Remember - sometimes it's worth being aggressive about BP treatment. The conditions in the BP measuring "tips" you quoted rarely exist in real life, and it may be realistic to say, "you smoke and drink coffee and work long hours, have 4 kids and your wife nags. Although your BP at the nurse's office is only 140/85 after resting, not drinking coffee and emptying your bladder, I'll bet it's around 160/95 for the rest of the day. I'm going to start you on this drug here, and no tossing that prescription in the bin." Cheers, DrJoshua http://doctorjoshua.blogspot.com > Hi - I give my patients a chart which is to be filled with no less than > 20 measurements, either taken with a home monitor, or by the nurse, and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > if the BP is still high, it's time to start a drug. That's the general > idea. Joshua said: "Remember - sometimes it's worth being aggressive about BP treatment." Salut Joshua Does that include being aggressive with diet, daily aerobic exercise, meditation and other stress relieving techniques, cutting back work hours and responsibility--consistently, and over a period of at least a year, with extensive supervison and revamping of modalities from you? BEFORE considering meds? Zee > The conditions in the BP measuring "tips" you quoted rarely exist in > real life, and it may be realistic to say, "you smoke and drink coffee [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > DrJoshua > tp://doctorjoshua.blogspot.com Zee said:"Does that include being aggressive with diet, daily aerobic exercise, meditation and other stress relieving techniques, cutting back work hours and responsibility--consistently, and over a period of at least a year, with extensive supervison and revamping of modalities from you? BEFORE considering meds?" -- Howdy Zee - Not really. Like I said, sometimes the best option is to be realist and start medication, like in my imaginary case. The treatment you suggest above is great, and in a perfect world it would work (man, I wish I could achieve all of that..). But who's gonna take care of the "extensive supervision" you mentioned, and who's gonna pay for it? Ultimately, the patient is responsible for taking care of himself, the doctor/government/health care system cannot offer individually tailored lifestyle monitoring and cannot tell you how to live. The problem exists with medication, too. In medical terminology, it's called compliance (or non-compliance, rather). We know that about 50% of patients fail to take their prescribed medications regularly. Fine, if you're a movie star or otherwise rich and can afford to hire a Personal Blood Pressure Lifestyle Trainer, go for it, but for the rest of us, it's not an option. We know that high blood pressure kills. I know that some of my patients run a real risk of dying before their kids are out of high school, and that they will keep on working overtime/drinking/smoking/not exercising no matter what I tell them. It would be unethical to deny them effective treatment in the form of medication. Cheers, DrJoshua http://doctorjoshua.blogspot.com > Last year my blood pressure was considered good for my age. Now > however, it seems it is bad. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and at least three times a week. Today I had another BP reading > and it is now 120/90. My doctor has prescribed drugs. My guess is that despite the walking, you have not lost weight. You are not alone. > I asked what the reading meant and what I could do to bring it > down myself. He said the lower reading of 90 is the problem and [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Can anyone advise on what the readings mean and what I can do to > reduce them? You have hypertension, by definition. You can lose weight to reduce your blood pressure. The 2PD Approach is a simple lifestyle change that may help you. Would suggest you ask your doctor about it: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp > I am gurrently walking three times a week as > perviously mentioned. I also cut my alcohol intake to a couple of > glasses of wine two nights a week. I eat salad and vegetables, > meat and fish, fruit and er.. chocolate. :-) It is not what you are eating but how much. > Thanks. You are welcome. At His service, Andrew -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist ** Suggested Reading: (1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048 (2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2F325D1A (3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A (4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A (5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A (6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A (7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129 Interesting approach. DrJoshua > Interesting approach. > > DrJoshua It works every time. For this reason, doctor supervision is need to decrease any medications whose dosing may be affected by weight/compartmentalization. At His service, Andrew -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist ** Suggested Reading: (1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048 (2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2F325D1A (3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A (4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A (5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A (6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A (7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129 Interesting approach, and the simplicity of it is appealing. I'm certain it will lead to short-term weight loss, but long term? Not likely, in my opinion. As for weight loss, I agree that in the end it is the quantity, not quality, of food which determines the results, but when it comes to prevention of cardiovascular events, weight, though probably the most important especially in America, is not the only risk factor, and quality of food (esp. fat) does matter. The only way to long-term weight loss that I know of is permanent life-style change. And that, as we all know, is difficult. DrJoshua http://doctorjoshua.blogspot.com >Interesting approach, and the simplicity of it is appealing. I'm >certain it will lead to short-term weight loss, but long term? Not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >long-term weight loss that I know of is permanent life-style change. >And that, as we all know, is difficult. Not when there is the added diagnosis of high BP which will cause increased mortality via a variety of unpleasant and painful health failures, it isn't. In fact I'm finding it quite easy. The minute I think of food or alcohol, I also think of where it will lead. > Interesting approach, and the simplicity of it is appealing. I'm > certain it will lead to short-term weight loss, but long term? Not > likely, in my opinion. My experience has been different. Simple lifestyle changes are much more likely to last than complex ones. > As for weight loss, I agree that in the end it > is the quantity, not quality, of food which determines the results, but > when it comes to prevention of cardiovascular events, weight, though > probably the most important especially in America, is not the only risk > factor, and quality of food (esp. fat) does matter. In countries where food is simply not available in enough quantity for overeating, the cardiovascular events are happening only in the tourists (from Europe and America). > The only way to > long-term weight loss that I know of is permanent life-style change. > And that, as we all know, is difficult. The 2PD Approach teaches people how to make the necessary life-style change (eating less) for permanent weight loss. At His service, Andrew -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist ** Suggested Reading: (1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048 (2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2F325D1A (3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A (4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A (5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A (6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A (7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129 >> Last year my blood pressure was considered good for my age. Now >> however, it seems it is bad. >> >> I have gained weight and been relatively inactive for the latter >> six months of last year. In November I had a BP reading of >> 140/90, I re-checked this, and it was actually 148/101 on November 23rd 04 (I have a written note to prove it). > so I started brisk walking exercise for at least 40mins, >> and at least three times a week. Today I had another BP reading >> and it is now 120/90. My doctor has prescribed drugs. > >My guess is that despite the walking, you have not lost weight. You are >not alone. You are correct, that was the case up to last week, however I have now done something to change the situation. >> Can anyone advise on what the readings mean and what I can do to >> reduce them? > >You have hypertension, by definition. >You can lose weight to reduce your blood pressure. Last week, I visited a local Chinese Medicine practitioner, also a local English Herbalist. I purchased "medication" from both and then opted for the English variety which includes garlic, hawthorne berry and Reflex Serramax to be taken three times a day. The latter product information can be found here: http://www.reflex-nutrition.com/products/healthier_living/document_26_6.php Also, I have upped the stakes on my exercise routine by including some running (until I am exhausted) within my fast-walking regime. I have also increased the frequency of my timetable. >The 2PD Approach is a simple lifestyle change that may help you. Would >suggest you ask your doctor about it: > >http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp This looks like a similar, in essence, approach to my own which is simply to cut back on amounts, eat smaller portions more often and make sure the overall intake is less. >> I am gurrently walking three times a week as >> perviously mentioned. I also cut my alcohol intake to a couple of >> glasses of wine two nights a week. I eat salad and vegetables, >> meat and fish, fruit and er.. chocolate. :-) > >It is not what you are eating but how much. I agree and in addition to the above, I have also reduced my food intake by about half. I simply have fewer portions and eat less at each meal. My BP reading over the last two days (using a home monitor) has been around 123/83. Using the same device I recorded 140+/95+ last week. I feel better and I think the changes I have made are working, however my pulse rate has now increased. When my BP readings were in the region of 140/95 my pulse rate was mid 70's (ie. 75 - 78). Now it reads high 80's to mid 90's (ie. 88 - 96). I am hoping the exercise will eventually bring this down My doctor, is still a putz. :-) Regards, Mike. Your doctor is a putz. So is Chung, the board certified quack. Look, the idea that a 140/90 BP needs to be treated is a recomendation from a committee made up of pharmaceutical industry paid people. They want you to believe that there is something medically wrong with you and they want your doctor to sell you pills. There was plenty of press making it obvious that the people who recomended that nonsense were industry paid morons, but the recomendations still somehow get filtered down to the general practitioner who follow the guidelines by rote. Just like the ad men who came up with the idea of "acid reflux disease", it is an industry construct to justify selling you drugs, whether you need them or not. If you want to control yout BP, cut out the refined carbs, cut out the fake fats like margarine and shortening and get some regular exercise. By cutting the carbs you will lose weight and when you replace the refined carbs with actually-nutritious fresh produce like fruits and veggies, your BP will come down and you will see and feel the difference. Follow the Atkins diet, or any other good low-carb diet and your BP will improve. And whatever you do, don't listen to the putzes of this world, especially the board certified putz. TC >Your doctor is a putz. So is Chung, the board certified quack. > >Look, the idea that a 140/90 BP needs to be treated is a recomendation >from a committee made up of pharmaceutical industry paid people. They >want you to believe that there is something medically wrong with you There ~is~ something wrong with me, I have high BP which can cause long-term illness and premature death. However, I have now taken sensible steps to deal with it. >and they want your doctor to sell you pills. He can't sell me anything, I get my "pills" free on the NHS. > There was plenty of press >making it obvious that the people who recomended that nonsense were >industry paid morons, but the recomendations still somehow get filtered >down to the general practitioner who follow the guidelines by rote. Which press? >Just like the ad men who came up with the idea of "acid reflux >disease", it is an industry construct to justify selling you drugs, >whether you need them or not. Never heard of it. <snip guesswork> >difference. Follow the Atkins diet, or any other good low-carb diet and >your BP will improve. Atkins? Did you say ATKINS??? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahar! "Dr" bloody "Atkins" died an unhealthy, obese, dog-breathed fraud. >And whatever you do, don't listen to the putzes of this world, >especially the board certified putz. Hmm. If you honestly believe that you will gain good health from a pill, then you deserve what you get. TC >If you honestly believe that you will gain good health from a pill, >then you deserve what you get. What are you babbling about, what "pill" ? > >Your doctor is a putz. So is Chung, the board certified quack. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > He can't sell me anything, I get my "pills" free on the NHS. FWIW, your pills are not free, NHS notwithstanding. > > There was plenty of press > >making it obvious that the people who recomended that nonsense were [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Hmm. >"Mike" <find@reply.to> wrote in message >> >and they want your doctor to sell you pills. >> >> He can't sell me anything, I get my "pills" free on the NHS. > >FWIW, your pills are not free, NHS notwithstanding. Perhaps you should read what I wrote, again, repeatedly, until you understand. >>"Mike" <find@reply.to> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Perhaps you should read what I wrote, again, repeatedly, until >you understand. Perhaps you missed the point. The doctor is still promoting a sale, and he is selling you the idea. You may not be out the money, but the doctor and the drug company are still making money off the deal, and therefore, they are biased. It doesn't mean you *need* the drugs. Even if they are free to you, do you want to take a drug you don't really need? I sure don't. -- Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com >>The doctor is still promoting a sale, and he is selling you the idea. You may not be out the money, but the doctor and the drug company are still making money off the deal, and therefore, they are biased. << COMMENT: You need some explaining about economic reality. The drug company may be biased, but unless the doctor makes money from writing a prescription (vs spending the same time giving dietary advice) there's no reason for the doctor to be biased. The free pens the drug companies give out, are not a big bias source. Very few doctors charge a prescription-writing fee. And no insurance companies would pay one if they did. In the US, Medicare certainly doesn't pay any such thing. You can add on a charge for medication review, but it's the same as face-to-face time reviewing diet, so there's no point. If you really want to take a look at a situation where there's absolutely no way to disentangle the doctor's interests from the patient's when it comes to the profits make in prescribing drugs, take a look at veterinarians, who very often sell the very drugs they prescribe. Then take a look at oncologists, most of which would go broke if they weren't allowed to keep the difference between what they charge for the chemo they charge to deliver, and what they buy it for wholesale. The oncologist who gives no chemo at all, is a poor (ie, moneyless) oncologist indeed. And there's no comparing even these to the intrinsic bias that all surgeons face. But aside from the situations above and perhaps a few others, I think medicine is remarkably free from direct bias when it comes to recommending drug treatment. Certainly far less biased than most of the businesses and professionals you deal with in your daily life. I mean, come on. The chiropractor recommending manipulation. The naturopath selling you vitamins. The guy repairing your car has a big economic interest in the results of his advice. So does your lawyer. So does your real-estate agent. So does the guy administering your retirement fund, which (more than likely) pays him a fully legal kickback to recommend it, and not some other fund. And so on and so on. Compared to these, nearly all of standard medical care is pretty darned pure. You pay for the advice, sure, but the doctor stands to gain very little, either way, from whether you follow it or not. Now. The real reason why doctors prescribe pills is something the cynics really don't want to admit. The pills aren't as good as the diet and exercise (for sure), but on the other hand, most people can't or won't follow the diet and exercise. If they would, they wouldn't be overweight in the first place, now would they? The pills get blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose right where they should be, even if the patient doesn't lose weight. The doctor paid by office visits would make more from a given patient struggling to make him do it by diet and aerobics alone, kind of like a piano teacher whose students don't practice, or a dentist whose patients don't brush. So why don't doctors do that? Because they're more interested in what works than in how many times the patient has to come back. Sorry. You really can't explain it any other way. You say you'd rather go to a naturopath or nutritionist instead, and struggle with the diet to get off the drugs? But NOW who has the economic bias? At least the doctor can help you do which ever you want to do, or can do. The people who *can't* legally prescribe the pills are stuck recommending anything *but* pills, out of the very same kind of self-interest that has you all fired up in the case of doctors, but more-so. SBH >You need some explaining about economic reality. > >The drug company may be biased, but unless the doctor makes money from >writing a prescription (vs spending the same time giving dietary >advice) there's no reason for the doctor to be biased. The free pens >the drug companies give out, are not a big bias source. Hmm. I got the impression they get a lot more than free pens. Free meals, free samples to push, etc. It's big money to the drug companies, so they need the doctors to push their drugs. So, they do a lot of freebies and gimmicks to keep the doctors interested in their products. -- Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com > >You need some explaining about economic reality. > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Equine and Pet Photography > http://www.zoocrewphoto.com Drug Promotion Database: http://www.drugpromo.info/ Section 2.4: CONCLUSION Doctors' attitudes are influenced by promotion much more than they think. http://www.nofreelunch.org See Comment 1999: The Bullshit Parade From: <xxxxxx.net> To: <justsayno@nofreelunch.org> The worst problem with drug promotion lies not with the sales reps but with industry-funded research. I personally witnessed the excesses for 8 years while on the faculty of a major medical school. This operates at several levels. First, one must understand that in academics teaching is like catching fly balls and publishing is like hitting home runs. They didn't pay Hank Aaron for his fielding. It isn't just the publishing and reflected glory to the institution that drives academicians to do research. The institution takes a cut of every grant, whether it's industry money or an NIH grant. The percentages vary, but they are rather large; a $10MM grant yields several million for the hospital, school, or whatever institution the grantee works for. Those who bring in grant money have *power*. What can they get with that power? A raise, a bigger office, private secretary, less time actually having to teach residents or touch a patient (when I was in academics it seemed to be a matter of prestige to *not* carry a pager). Also, although it is difficult to directly gain monetarily from grant money, one can usually buy a few new computers or other toys that may find their way home. Publishing favorable articles leads to invitations to speak at fun places - all expenses paid - and receive nice honoraria to boot. Yes, the drug companies fly private practitioners to nice places, but who are they listening to? Impartial lecturers? No - they are listening to the drug whores who will say nice things about the product. Some of the drug whores I met during my own march in the bullshit parade were big names in the field, including departmental chairmen. Some of the biggest names in my specialty are, in my opinion, on the take. The people who really get wined and dined at these meetings are the "mouthpieces", not the attendees. One time I was even mailed a lecture, complete with slides to present, at a sponsored meeting at a very nice resort. When I balked and insisted on giving my own lecture with my own slides it caused a major storm. Another time, one of my colleagues asked another colleague to do the statistics for his drug company data. When the results came back unflattering he asked if perhaps a different statistical test might be tried. If a researcher plays the game well, publishing flattering studies and giving lots of positive lectures, he might get a real plum: a "consultant's contract", or a position on the "advisory board". This can mean tens ofthousands of dollars of income per year for very little actual work. Therefore the real danger is in the poisonous influence the private sector has on the generation of scientifi studies. Bad results and balanced lectures are not rewarded. Sadly, with the drying up of public funds for research in the past two decades, academic institutions have had to rely more and more on private funding. When I graduated medical school in 1979 medical journals did not require financial disclosure. Now you see it everywhere - a sad reflection of the influence of commercial research funding, and the closest anyone will come to actually admitting we have a serious problem. When a drug rep buys you lunch you know you are being fed a sales pitch. The truly insidious aspect of all this is that published peer-reviewed articles funded by drug companies are usually taken at face value, and the lectures are given by drug whores (after all, they are the ones with funding and have written all the articles - they are the "authority" by virtue of the sheer volume they have published). The damage done by this misinformation takes years to undo." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Hmm. I got the impression they get a lot more than free pens. Free >meals, free samples to push, etc. It's big money to the drug >companies, so they need the doctors to push their drugs. So, they do a >lot of freebies and gimmicks to keep the doctors interested in their >products. Free samples are given out free to the patient, so where is the "pay off" in that. Free meals are roughly the same incentive as pens and I don't know of any docs who supplement their income to any great degree selling zyprexa coffee mugs or viagra mouse pads on E-bay. There MIGHT have been some actual concerns about the trips, but even then, they weren't based (like the one my wife's financial advisor boss used to go on) on sales. -------------------------------------------------------- They say Jesus will find you wherever you go But when He'll coming looking for you, they don't know In the meantime, keep your profile low. -Warren Zevon > Free samples are given out free to the patient, so where is the "pay off" in that. Well, the doctors tend to pass it along to the patients rather than toss it in the trash. So, it does influence their choice of drug to prescribe for the patient. They aren't going to offer a sample of one drug and prescribe a different one. Free >meals are roughly the same incentive as pens and I don't know of any >docs who supplement their income to any great degree selling zyprexa >coffee mugs or viagra mouse pads on E-bay. There MIGHT have been >some actual concerns about the trips, but even then, they weren't >based (like the one my wife's financial advisor boss used to go on) >on sales. So there have never been any kickbacks or unethical deals to promote their drugs? I think we know that stuff like that happens all the time. Drugs are big business. Not everybody is ethical. -- Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com > Well, the doctors tend to pass it along to the patients rather than > toss it in the trash. So, it does influence their choice of drug to > prescribe for the patient. They aren't going to offer a sample of one > drug and prescribe a different one. I had a dr give me samples of prilosec, once, with a prescription for prevacid. The prevacid was cheaper for me to buy at the time but he only had samples of the prilosec when I was there. He also gave me drugs (tablets not capsules) other people had given him because they couldn't take them for some reason, when I was already taking the same drug. He also would prescribe twice the dosage of some things and tell me to cut the pill in half to save money. SignatureNo Husband Has Ever Been Shot While Doing The Dishes >I had a dr give me samples of prilosec, once, with a prescription for >prevacid. The prevacid was cheaper for me to buy at the time but he only >had samples of the prilosec when I was there. He also gave me drugs >(tablets not capsules) other people had given him because they couldn't take >them for some reason, when I was already taking the same drug. I haven't seen any of these. My new doctor tried to switch me on asthma inhalers. I went in for a bad cold that wasn't going away, about a year ago. During the visit, she realized it was because my asthma was acting up. It took a couple more days for the cold to leave and the asthma to be more obvious to me. Anyway, I explained that I used to be on albuterol as a rescue inhaler, but my prescription had run out, and my doctor had moved away. I just never got a new doctor until getting sick. So, she prescribed a new type of inhaler, which she had samples of. At the time, it was no big deal as my insurance was good. It cost me $5 to get one each month. But I never noticed any change in my asthma. I also had to call the doctor and request albuterol a few days after the prescription as my coughing was still getting worse, and was now obviously full asthma cough. In the past, the only way to stop it was the albuterol. So, she prescribed one of those, and I picked it up that night. My breathing improved instantly, and the cough was completely gone in 2 days. The prescription for the monthly inhalers has expired, and I have not gone back to the doctor. I never felt any difference, and my insurance went bad after the last contract. It now would cost me $20 a month for this prescription (that doesn't help), while my albuterol will last me til the expiration date (I have never needed one enough to finish it). I would much rather stick with what works for me (the rescue inhaler for those rare times I have an actual problem) than a more expensive daily prescription that doesn't even help when I am having problems, and is completely unneeded most of the time. It bothers me that I had to specifically ask for the correct prescription after trying something that didn't help. Especially, since I have successfully used the correct prescription for over 10 years. If it has been shown to be effective for me, why change to something else? And why limit the prescription so that I have to keep going back to the doctor just to get another slip of paper? The montly one was only good for 6 months. And the rescue inhaler was a one time deal. So, if I lose it, I have to go back to the doctor. My old doctor had it unlimited, so I could have one in my backpack, one in my camera bag, one at work, and one next to my bed. Granted, they never got finished, but I had them in multiple places. Now, I just keep it in my backpack, so that if I am at work, it is in my locker, and if I am at home, I have it there. Fortunately, I rarely need it, but I have to specifically remember to take it with me on trips or to photo shoots (where my allergies can set off an attack). >He also >would prescribe twice the dosage of some things and tell me to cut the pill >in half to save money. I have seen this one. I have also had vets who recommended the over the counter human pills (cut down) for my pets rather than prescribing the official animal version. -- Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com The daily type like Flovent is supposed to prevent you from needing the rescue inhalers as often. They are corticosteroids, meaning they work like steroids by reducing inflammation but its a long term thing process taking weeks of daily use to show improvement. They do nothing during an attack but they are not meant to. Your doctor is supposed to still give you a rescue inhaler for attacks. Rescue inhalers like albuterol are bronchodilators, meaning they open the passages in your lungs fast. That's why they work during an attack but do nothing to prevent them. Flovent helps me but does not stop my attacks entirely so I carry both. The reason they are trying to move people to corticosteroids is, in the cases where they do work, they are better for your long term health then a rescue inhaler. Albuterol acts as a stimulant - raising blood pressure and heart rate. Long term use of rescue inhalers can contribute to heart failure. Although problems with overuse of corticosteroids exist they aren't as common as they are with bronchodilators. Debra > The prescription for the monthly inhalers has expired, and I have not > gone back to the doctor. I never felt any difference, and my insurance > went bad after the last contract. It now would cost me $20 a month for > this prescription (that doesn't help), while my albuterol will last me > til the expiration date (I have never needed one enough to finish it). > I would much rather stick with what works for me (the rescue inhaler > for those rare times I have an actual problem) than a more expensive [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the correct prescription for over 10 years. If it has been shown to be > effective for me, why change to something else? >The daily type like Flovent is supposed to prevent you from needing the >rescue inhalers as often. They are corticosteroids, meaning they work like >steroids by reducing inflammation but its a long term thing process taking >weeks of daily use to show improvement. They do nothing during an attack but >they are not meant to. I know what they do, but after several months, I felt no difference. Personally, I saw no reason for it all. I have asthma because of allergies and a small throat (30% smaller than typical for my body size). So, if I put too many triggers together, I can have an asthma attack. but if I avoid the triggers, I can go months without any problems. I went over 2 years without needing an inhaler before this doctor visit. So, I don't see my asthma as a daily problem. I know it exists, and I make sure I avoid the triggers. But I don't see the need for a daily medication. >Your doctor is supposed to still give you a rescue >inhaler for attacks. Rescue inhalers like albuterol are bronchodilators, >meaning they open the passages in your lungs fast. That's why they work >during an attack but do nothing to prevent them. Yes, and I had to ask for it *after* my doctor's appointment when my breathing got worse, and I knew I needed it. I don't understand why my doctor thought I needed a preventative medication but not a rescue inhaler. Especially considering my actual problems are only 2-3 times a year max (sometimes none), and are usually brought on by a trigger and require a rescue inhaler. >The reason they are trying to move people to corticosteroids is, in the >cases where they do work, they are better for your long term health then a >rescue inhaler. Albuterol acts as a stimulant - raising blood pressure and >heart rate. Long term use of rescue inhalers can contribute to heart >failure. True, but then I don't have a problem with overuse. When I was prescribed the inhaler, I was told only to use it when I am having an asthma attack, only 2-3 puffs at a time, and no closer than 4 hours apart. A typical problem for me is a small attack (1-2 puffs), and no inhaler needed again for several months. If I have a cold that goes from cold-cough to asthma-cough, then I will use my inhaler 1-2 puffs twice a day for the 2-3 days it takes to get rid of the cough. I have gone over 2 years at a stretch without needing my inhaler. And I probably haven't needed it more than 3 or 4 episodes in a year. My current inhaler was prescribed a year ago January when I had the cough. That was after 2 years of not needing one. Since then, I have used it once. I was diagnosed with asthma when I was 19 years old and cleaning houses (I am allergic to dust), and since that year (and quitting the house cleaning), I have not had many problems, other than some bad allergy attacks (flooded room got moldy, brushed the dog on my bed, new deoderant used in bathroom at work, etc). I am 32 now, and I have learned how to avoid most trigger combinations, and I can feel when my lungs are starting to work harder and back off. I have also learned how to exercise so that I don't set off exercise-induced asthma. -- Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com > <nonegiven@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >He also > >would prescribe twice the dosage of some things and tell me to cut the pill > >in half to save money. This is theft of the insurance company. Only if he gives the other half to somebody else. Otherwise, it may save the insurance company money--- probably more than the lost co-pay on the scrip which has to be filled only half as often. Datum? zee >>>"Mike" <find@reply.to> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Perhaps you missed the point. I didn't, you did. >The doctor is still promoting a sale, and he is selling you the idea. >You may not be out the money, but the doctor and the drug company are >still making money off the deal, and therefore, they are biased. On the NHS I get my pills free, but I am still required to pay for the prescription at a cost of around £6.00 (6ukp) each. This means that pills, to me, are all of the same monetary value, ie six quid a box. The phsycology of this is that in the UK, generally, "pills are pills" and are subsidised by a cash strapped NHS. That means the Doctor's first choice is usually the cheapest broad spectrum solution, esp., when prescribing for common problems like BP. The result of all this is that the Doctor does not "sell" anything, he simply does it. He assumes that everyone will fit into the "average" statistic and that Mr Average will not question anything. He is usually right. In my case however, he is dead wrong, hence in my OP, "He then gave me a prescription, which is now in the bin." >It doesn't mean you *need* the drugs. Even if they are free to you, do >you want to take a drug you don't really need? I sure don't. Like I said, read what I wrote eh?! >>Perhaps you missed the point. > >I didn't, you did. Okay, then please explain it better. I understood that your system pays for it, and that your statement was referring to the fact that you don't have to pay for it. Now, it sounds totally different. >On the NHS I get my pills free, but I am still required to pay >for the prescription at a cost of around ?6.00 (6ukp) each. Can you please explain this. What is the difference? Are you paying the doctor to give you a slip of paper, and then you can either choose to pick up the pills (for free) or not pick them up? This is completely different from our system, so this is what I need to understand for this to make any sense. I thought you picked up the pills and tossed them in the trash, not the slip of paper. Here, we refer to both the paper AND the pills (or liquid) as the prescription. Basically, any medication that is not available over the counter is considered a prescription. >strapped NHS. That means the Doctor's first choice is usually the >cheapest broad spectrum solution, esp., when prescribing for >common problems like BP. > >In my case however, he is dead wrong, hence in my OP, "He then >gave me a prescription, which is now in the bin." So, do you mean that he prescribed something cheap, and you feel it was not the right drug? >Like I said, read what I wrote eh?! Please keep in mind that our systems are different. And if we both consider what you wrote in our own terms, we can see completely different meanings. I read what you wrote. I did not see what you *meant*. I have never heard of a system that charges you for the doctor's slip of paper (that's their job and whether they write one or not, that is covered under the cost of the office visit), and the medication is completely different. Payment goes to the pharmacy. -- Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com >>>Perhaps you missed the point. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >referring to the fact that you don't have to pay for it. Now, it >sounds totally different. Why? I still do not have to pay for it. I offered further explanation to assist tunderbar's and GaryG's understanding and dispel the incorrect assumption about my Doctor's agenda. >>On the NHS I get my pills free, but I am still required to pay >>for the prescription at a cost of around £6.00 (6ukp) each. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Are you paying the doctor to give you a slip of paper, and then you >can either choose to pick up the pills (for free) or not pick them up? No. I get the slip of paper with the required dosage for a particular course of treatment. If I take said slip to a pharmacy, I then must pay around £6.00 to receive the prescribed drugs. Or I can simply bin the "slip", as in this case. Perhaps I should have said... 'I must pay £6 to exchange the prescription for the drugs', but I wasn't thinking that this part of a question about blood pressure would be so deeply scrutinised. >This is completely different from our system, I understand that, everyone in the UK understands that. We are aware that we have one of the most envied health systems in the world, which is why it is now over-stretched and in danger of collapse thanks to the influx of thousands if not millions of immigrants who all come here to benefit from it, having paid nothing into it themselves. >so this is what I need >to understand for this to make any sense. I thought you picked up the >pills and tossed them in the trash, not the slip of paper. The reverse, as I have now explained above. >Here, we refer to both the paper AND the pills (or liquid) as the >prescription. Basically, any medication that is not available over the >counter is considered a prescription. Same here, but here it has financial implications in addition to the obvious legal ones. >>strapped NHS. That means the Doctor's first choice is usually the >>cheapest broad spectrum solution, esp., when prescribing for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >So, do you mean that he prescribed something cheap, and you feel it >was not the right drug? In this instance, I feel he should not have been prescribed *any* drugs at all. I have given four high BP readings over a three month period, However, six months ago my reading was "normal". To now just reach for the drugs cabinet is ridiculous and irresponsible from a long-term aspect. In respect of the actual drugs prescribed (Bendrofluazide), I think he simply chose the most widely used drug with a high success rate. The *only* reason I went into further detail about this, was to dispel the idea that his motivation is in "selling" me expensive drugs. If anything, his motivation is in "prescribing" me the cheapest drugs he can get away with, because he will have an NHS budget to account for. Incidentally, I have taken "natural" steps to deal with the problem, and in less than 10 days I have lowered my BP to 121/83. How? .. Walking and running every other day, cut out booze, cut down on evening meals and taking a suppliment of garlic, hawthorne berry and Reflex Serramax tabs. >>Like I said, read what I wrote eh?! > >Please keep in mind that our systems are different. And if we both >consider what you wrote in our own terms, we can see completely >different meanings. I read what you wrote. I did not see what you >*meant*. Why not? What I "meant" was simple.. I have high BP and my doctor is a putz. My OP was to ask for advice about the *facts*, not for speculative commentary about my doctor's agenda. And that would be academic in any case, because we could spend all week waffling about why he's a putz, and at the end of it, still a putz he would be, right? >I have never heard of a system that charges you for the doctor's slip >of paper (that's their job and whether they write one or not, that is >covered under the cost of the office visit), and the medication is >completely different. Payment goes to the pharmacy. That's not what I explained, when my words are taken in their full context. >Why? I still do not have to pay for it. >No. I get the slip of paper with the required dosage for a >particular course of treatment. If I take said slip to a >pharmacy, I then must pay around ?6.00 to receive the prescribed >drugs. Or I can simply bin the "slip", as in this case. Okay. What's the deal. In one statement, you say you don't have to pay for it. In another, you say you do. It sounds to me like you *do* have to pay if you pick up the prescription. Maybe not the full amount, but something. Why did you make a big deal about not paying for it? >Why not? What I "meant" was simple.. I'm sorry. Apparently, I am an idiot when it comes to reading your posts. I thought you complained about the doctor prescribing you the wrong drug, and that you stated the doctor wasn't selling you anything because you didn't have to pay for them anyway. Somehow, I understood that you would get them free if you accepted the prescription when you meant you didn't pay for them because you threw out the slip. And you weren't upset with the choice of drug, but the fact that he thought you needed *any* drug. Have I got it right this time? -- Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com >Have I got it right this >time? I have more than adequately explained the position. >>Look, the idea that a 140/90 BP needs to be treated is a recomendation from a committee made up of pharmaceutical industry paid people. They want you to believe that there is something medically wrong with you and they want your doctor to sell you pills.<< COMMENT: The official US recommendations come from the Coordinating Committee of the The National High Blood Pressure Education Program (NHBPEP). And for the record, the cornerstone of their recommendations, based on the DASH study, is a diet centered around fruits, vegetables, non-fat dairy, and low in total and saturated fat. The "putz" here is you, how have no idea whatever what you're talking about. SBH > COMMENT: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > SBH If the National High Blood Pressure Education Program (NHBPEP) is anything like the National Cholesterol Education Program(NCEP), you've been had. Putz. http://www.forbes.com/technology/2004/07/12/cx_mh_0712mrk.html ************ Cholesterol Guidelines A Gift For Merck, Pfizer Matthew Herper, 07.12.04, 4:30 PM ET NEW YORK - New guidelines issued by the United States government could increase the number of people who take cholesterol-lowering medicines; already the top-selling medication in the world with $26 billion in annual sales. The new guidelines were predicted here months ago. (See: "Is Lipitor The New Aspirin?") Under previously existing guidelines, 36 million people should be taking cholesterol-lowering pills such as Lipitor, Zocor, or Pravachol to prevent heart attacks. In reality, only about 11 million do. Changes issued today by the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP), to be published in tomorrow's issue of the journal Circulation, advocate lowering cholesterol in even more patients. Moreover, patients at the highest risk should receive even more aggressive treatment--meaning higher, more expensive doses of these drugs. Now, that figure will increase by millions of people, as the new guidelines suggest treating diabetics and people who at one time would have been considered healthy. Those at high risk, or who have had recent heart attacks, should be treated even more aggressively. The NCEP did not release an estimate of how many patients should now take cholesterol-lowering drugs, called statins. Christopher P. Cannon, a cardiologist at Brigham & Woman's hospital, says 50 million people should take the drugs. Another cardiologist, Steven E. Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic, said that number looked reasonable, although James I. Cleeman, a researcher at the National Heart Blood and Lung Institute and a co-author of the report said it was "a little high." The cost of treating that many people with even the lowest dose of Pfizer's (nyse: PFE - news - people ) Lipitor could approach $40 billion. But an even more important facet of the guidelines is that many people would not be on low doses of these drugs. For patients at the highest risk of heart attack, the new guidelines suggest that "bad cholesterol," or low-density lipoprotein (LDL), be reduced to 70 mg per deciliter--although the new guideline is optional. Previous guidelines suggest that LDL of 100 mg was good enough. Many patients will not be able to get to those levels at starting doses of most current drugs. "It may be that reducing cholesterol to levels that are consistent with what used to be found in rural china is where we need to head," says Sydney Smith, a cardiologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a co-author of the new guidelines. Even for patients at modest risk of heart attacks--meaning that they have heart disease, diabetes, or a combination of some risk factors--the new guidelines suggest lowering cholesterol at least 30-40%. With weaker statins, such as Pravachol from Bristol-Myers Squibb (nyse: BMY - news - people ) or lovastatin, available as a cheap generic, that requires the second-highest dose. That could encourage doctors to use stronger drugs--a big boost for Lipitor. Crestor, an even more powerful statin from AstraZeneca (nyse: AZN - news - people ) could also benefit, but may be held back because it does not have the same track record of safety as Lipitor. Another big winner could be Vytorin, a new cholesterol pill from Merck (nyse: MRK - news - people ) and Schering-Plough (nyse: SGP - news - people ) that is expected to hit the market soon. It combines Merck's Zocor with another drug, Zetia, to lower cholesterol even more at lower doses. Some say the new guidelines do not go far enough. "It's very disappointing to me that NCEP couldn't get it right given the data," says Eric Topol, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic. He points out that two clinical trials have shown that many patients would benefit from more cholesterol lowering. Says Topol: "To make an LDL of 70 an optional strategy is ignoring the trials." *********** The "scientists"/marketers who are quoted as supporting these new guidelines are: Chistopher P. Cannon, Ph.D., Harvard Medical School.Hired consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb for the Prove It study. "Drug Marketing 101: Proving Our Pill is Better than Yours" By Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Jeff Gerth New York Times 12/23/00. Has received research grant support from Cor Therapeutics and Merck. (JAMA 2000;283:2941-47) Steven E. Nissen, M.D., Vice-chairman of Cardiology, and Head of Clinical Cardiology, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH. Research on lipid-lowering therapy on progression of coronary atherosclerosis through the use of statins Pravachol (pravastatin) and Lipitor (atorvastatin) funded by Pfizer. Research support from AstraZeneca, Merck-Schering Plough, Esperion Therapeutics, Takeda, Pfizer, and Sankyo. (JAMA. 2004;291:1071-80) *********** Committee roster members of the National Cholesterol Education Program: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/about/ncep/ncep_ros.htm American Diabetes Association, Inc. Please note: this link will open a new browser window; to return to this document, either close the new window, or toggle back (ALT-TAB for Windows users, Apple-TAB for Macintosh users). Alan J. Garber, M.D., Ph.D. Professor of Medicine Biochemistry and Cell Biology Baylor College of Medicine Chief of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism The Methodist Hospital Suite 1045 6550 Fannin Houston, TX 77030 American Dietetic Association Linda Van Horn, Ph.D., R.D. Professor Department of Preventive Medicine Northwestern University Medical School Room 1102 680 North Lake Shore Drive Chicago, IL 60611-4402 American Heart Association Scott M. Grundy, M.D., Ph.D. Director, Center for Human Nutrition Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas Room Y3.206 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard Dallas, TX 75235-9052 ********* TC > Look, the idea that a 140/90 BP needs to be treated is a recomendation > from a committee made up of pharmaceutical industry paid people. You ever heard that saying, "The fact that I'm paranoid doesn't meant that people aren't out to get me"? Well, the fact that people have hidden agendas doesn't mean all of their advice is bogus. Do you have evidence to support this assertion of yours? Because the people on the JNC-VII certainly have evidence to support theirs. >> Last year my blood pressure was considered good for my age. Now >> however, it seems it is bad. Sorry to hear that... >> I have gained weight and been relatively inactive for the latter >> six months of last year. In November I had a BP reading of >> 140/90, so I started brisk walking exercise for at least 40mins, >> and at least three times a week. Today I had another BP reading >> and it is now 120/90. My doctor has prescribed drugs. The 90 is a little high but, IMHO, total treatable through diet and exercise. I agree, your doctor is a putz (or afraid of a lawsuit) to just jump to meds so quickly. Of course, it's not *one* BP reading that counts, but rather your reading *over time*. >> > Tips for Having Your Blood Pressure Taken >> > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> > Ask the doctor or nurse to tell you the blood pressure reading in >> > numbers. The reasons why it's important to look at lyour BP readings over time and the treng, and not just one reading. Season and 'white collar tension' also affect BP (so it's a good idea to splurge, spend the $30 to buy a monitor, and take your own BP at home). >> Can anyone advise on what the readings mean and what I can do to >> reduce them? What works miracles for me (other than the usual.. proper diet, exercise, not smoking, maintain good weight etc.) is... DRINK 2 GLASSES OF TROPICAN ORANGE JUICE w/EXTRA PULP PER DAY (and you'll to exercise to work off the calorie content of course) >> I am gurrently walking three times a week as >> perviously mentioned. I also cut my alcohol intake to a couple of >> glasses of wine two nights a week. I eat salad and vegetables, >> meat and fish, fruit and er.. chocolate. :-) Make sure it's 'brisk' walking. Like your late in catching your bus... at least 30 minutes per day. You might want to add a Yoga class too. What do you guys think about blood pressure of 115-125/70-75. 33 year old male. The top number sometimes goes a bit over 120, which is too much according to guidelines. Signature223/173.4/180 >What do you guys think about blood pressure of 115-125/70-75. 33 year >old male. The top number sometimes goes a bit over 120, which is too much >according to guidelines. I think you should find something else to worry about. Perfectly normal. The new figures are drug industry propaganda. In news:cspsuu$i8$1@pita.alt.net, Ignoramus1606 <ignoramus1606@NOSPAM.1606.invalid> stated | What do you guys think about blood pressure of 115-125/70-75. 33 year | old male. The top number sometimes goes a bit over 120, which is too | much according to guidelines. > Perfectly normal. The new figures are drug industry propaganda. Thanks FOB. I suspect as much. i > In news:cspsuu$i8$1@pita.alt.net, > Ignoramus1606 <ignoramus1606@NOSPAM.1606.invalid> stated >| What do you guys think about blood pressure of 115-125/70-75. 33 year >| old male. The top number sometimes goes a bit over 120, which is too >| much according to guidelines. Signature223/173.3/180 >What do you guys think about blood pressure of 115-125/70-75. 33 year >old male. The top number sometimes goes a bit over 120, which is too much >according to guidelines. According to Dr. Michael Roizen (author of the 'Real Age' series) that's about optimal. Congratulations! :-) >>What do you guys think about blood pressure of 115-125/70-75. 33 year >>old male. The top number sometimes goes a bit over 120, which is too much >>according to guidelines. > > According to Dr. Michael Roizen (author of the 'Real Age' series) > that's about optimal. Congratulations! :-) Thanks. Do you have some references to this Doctor's writings? Signature223/173.3/180 Dr. Roizen if fairly well renowned, and you'll probably hear more from him shortly (I think he's just released a new book). He's the author of "Real Age - Are You As Young As You Can Be?" Published 1999, HarperCollins ISBN 0-06-019134-1 The book is defenitely worth checking out: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060191341/002-1431908-0883235 The 'number of years' that various risk factors and indicators add or take away from you life is a little 'gimicky' IMHO. Seems now-a-days that you have to have some sort of gimick to sell a health book. They just aren't 'sexy' enough to sell on their own. But apart from that, the book does a great job 'prioritizing' which things affect your health the most and least (for both better and worse) and gives good tips on how to reduce risk, and improve health. There is a Real Age website: http://www.realage.com/ As well as an electronic newsletter you can sign up for if you like. Blood pressure is one of the bigest health indicators. Some excerpts: "Preventing arterial aging is the most important thing you can do to reduce your RealAge..." "The most important marker for arterial aging is blood pressure. By keeping your blood pressure at the ideal level of 115/76, you can make your RealAge as much as 10 years younger than if your blood pressure were at the national median of 129/86" "Atherosclerosis... is the second leading cause of arterial aging, just behind high blood pressure" "Nothing ages you faster than mistreating your heart and arteries" "Blood pressure readings are measurements of the overall health and wellbeing of our heart and arteries" "89% of Americans have blood pressure higher than the ideal for preventing again - 115/76" "Nearly a quarter of all Americans (58 million) have blood pressure above the American Hearth Association's danger zone of 140/90" "The ideal blood pressure for maintaining youth and vigor is 115/76" >>>What do you guys think about blood pressure of 115-125/70-75. 33 year >>>old male. The top number sometimes goes a bit over 120, which is too much [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Thanks. Do you have some references to this Doctor's writings? Thanks. The website said that my real age is 3 years younger, which I have hard times believing. i > Dr. Roizen if fairly well renowned, and you'll probably hear more from > him shortly (I think he's just released a new book). [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >> >>Thanks. Do you have some references to this Doctor's writings? Signature223/173.3/180 "Ignoramus22756" <ignoramus22756@NOSPAM.22756.invalid> wrote in message > Thanks. The website said that my real age is 3 years younger, which I > have hard times believing. It's a lifestyle monitor and does have a kook element. Eating right makes you about seven years younger providing one is the correct weight and one does exercise. One can tweak their system to show oneself as much as eleven years younger than one's chronological age. I have a friend who is a fitness fanatic and she consistently shows up at eleven years younger. I suspect that Chris might, too. I actually show up as older. Moira, the Faerie Godmother > "Ignoramus22756" <ignoramus22756@NOSPAM.22756.invalid> wrote in > message [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > shows up at eleven years younger. I suspect that Chris might, too. > I actually show up as older. I think that the site is basically a nice tool to collect valuable personal information about people, to be used for marketing purposes. A clever idea, actually. I used a fake email address on that site, because of that. Signature223/173.3/180 >>> Last year my blood pressure was considered good for my age. Now >>> however, it seems it is bad. >Sorry to hear that... >>> I have gained weight and been relatively inactive for the latter >>> six months of last year. In November I had a BP reading of >>> 140/90, so I started brisk walking exercise for at least 40mins, >>> and at least three times a week. Today I had another BP reading >>> and it is now 120/90. My doctor has prescribed drugs. >The 90 is a little high but, IMHO, total treatable through diet and >exercise. I agree, your doctor is a putz (or afraid of a lawsuit) to >just jump to meds so quickly. I recently recovered the record of my reading from last November which was 148/101 and 10 days ago I was averaging 140+/96. >Of course, it's not *one* BP reading that counts, but rather your >reading *over time*. This was over a three month period and including four "official" readings. >The reasons why it's important to look at lyour BP readings over time >and the treng, and not just one reading. Season and 'white collar >tension' also affect BP (so it's a good idea to splurge, spend the $30 >to buy a monitor, and take your own BP at home). I'm aware of "white coat" BP. but I don't think that affects me so much. >>> I am gurrently walking three times a week as >>> perviously mentioned. I also cut my alcohol intake to a couple of >>> glasses of wine two nights a week. I eat salad and vegetables, >>> meat and fish, fruit and er.. chocolate. :-) >Make sure it's 'brisk' walking. Like your late in catching your >bus... at least 30 minutes per day. You might want to add a Yoga >class too. I now do 40mins three times a week but jog part of the way. My reading yesterday was 121/83. >>>> Last year my blood pressure was considered good for my age. Now >>>> however, it seems it is bad. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >I recently recovered the record of my reading from last November >which was 148/101 and 10 days ago I was averaging 140+/96. >>Of course, it's not *one* BP reading that counts, but rather your >>reading *over time*. >This was over a three month period and including four "official" >readings. Hmmmm... if the diastolic (2nd number) has been consistently high over the past few months then I take back what I said... the meds are probably justified, especially if you have any other risk factors. Though don't give up on trying to control it through diet and exercise (and coming off the meds if you do go on). Causes for a high diastolic are not completely known, so doctors are working in the dark a little trying to control it. It is a strong 'warning flag' for heart attack and stroke. ** Still though, note that BP varies seasonally, and is usually highest in the winter (especially in cold climates). It's defenitely worth continueing to monitor your BP the whole year round: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8 301109&dopt=Abstract >>The reasons why it's important to look at lyour BP readings over time >>and the treng, and not just one reading. Season and 'white collar [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I'm aware of "white coat" BP. but I don't think that affects me >so much. Still far better to do it at home in a controlled environment, IMHO. >>>> I am gurrently walking three times a week as >>>> perviously mentioned. I also cut my alcohol intake to a couple of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >My reading yesterday was 121/83. Excellent!! Congrats! >>I recently recovered the record of my reading from last November >>which was 148/101 and 10 days ago I was averaging 140+/96. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>This was over a three month period and including four "official" >>readings. >Hmmmm... if the diastolic (2nd number) has been consistently high over >the past few months then I take back what I said... the meds are >probably justified, especially if you have any other risk factors. An competent doctor should give his patient alternatives and information about risk factor, etc. Mine just said, "we are treating the problem." >Though don't give up on trying to control it through diet and exercise >(and coming off the meds if you do go on). Meds? What meds?? >Causes for a high >diastolic are not completely known, so doctors are working in the dark >a little trying to control it. It is a strong 'warning flag' for >heart attack and stroke. So they just prescribe something which offers *this*... Thirst Muscle cramps Blood disorders Disturbances of the gut such as diarrhoea, constipation, nausea, vomiting or abdominal pain High blood glucose level (hyperglycaemia) High blood uric acid level (hyperuricaemia) which can cause kidney problems and gout A drop in blood pressure that occurs when going from lying down to sitting or standing, which results in dizziness and lightheadedness (postural hypotension) Disturbances in the levels of chemical components (electrolytes) in the blood Increased production of urine (polyuria) Rash Inability of a man to have an erection (impotence) ...I can't wait, really! >>I now do 40mins three times a week but jog part of the way. >> >>My reading yesterday was 121/83. >Excellent!! Congrats! Thank you. And I did it in under 10 days, without any "meds". >>Though don't give up on trying to control it through diet and exercise >>(and coming off the meds if you do go on). > >Meds? What meds?? Hopefully you never have to go on medication to control your blood pressure. But... if you do... it doesn't mean that you have to stay on them and can't come off. >>Causes for a high >>diastolic are not completely known, so doctors are working in the dark [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >...I can't wait, really! Doesn't sound appealing :-) But for many people, it's the least of two evils. Having high blood pressure destroys your arteries, your kidneys, leads to heart attacks, stroke, and heart failure. These problems lead to impaired speech, can leave you partially paralyzed, unable to care for yourself, decrease your quality of life, significantly shorten your life span and, of course, can lead to sudden death ('the silent killer') >>>I now do 40mins three times a week but jog part of the way. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Thank you. >And I did it in under 10 days, without any "meds". Good stuff - you deserve to go out and celebrate. That's an amazing achievement! Just remember though... it's not one or ten or 20 readings that count. It's best to continually monitor your blood pressure to get a feel for what's normal, the highs, and the lows ("the good, the bad, and the ugly") Best wishes! >>>Causes for a high >>>diastolic are not completely known, so doctors are working in the dark [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> >>...I can't wait, really! >Doesn't sound appealing :-) Indeed. > But for many people, it's the least of >two evils. Having high blood pressure destroys your arteries, your >kidneys, Ah.. Tell me more about this one... During the period of time my BP was so high, I felt pain in the area of the kidneys. Since I got things under control, the pain has subsided. In fact, it's gone unless I do something naughty, like having a few drinks on Friday night. I could feel the cost of doing that, on Saturday. Could I have done permanent damage to my kidneys? I recently had a blood test for anyone interested, the results of which (partially) are here.. <347u59F498c4vU1@individual.net> > leads to heart attacks, stroke, and heart failure. These >problems lead to impaired speech, can leave you partially paralyzed, >unable to care for yourself, decrease your quality of life, >significantly shorten your life span and, of course, can lead to >sudden death ('the silent killer') Sounds like marriage to me. :-) >>>>I now do 40mins three times a week but jog part of the way. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>Thank you. >>And I did it in under 10 days, without any "meds". >Good stuff - you deserve to go out and celebrate. That's an amazing >achievement! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >what's normal, the highs, and the lows ("the good, the bad, and the >ugly") I have a BP monitor and check the reading every other day, or when I feel something may have changed. I plan to get it down to below 120/80. My target is 115/75 within six months. |
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
|
©2008 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.