Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire New Blood Pressure numbers

In the news today, medical experts have just changed the limits for high blood pressure. The old numbers were 140/90 signalling hypertension. The new cutoff is 130/80. "Normal" is still 120/80.

That means that millions of people who were "near normal" before are now classified as hypertensive. The reason, they claim, is that even a slight rise in BP leads to other serious illnesses.

But the effect will be lots of new prescriptions for statins, and the hidden effect will be that little box on insurance applications. Now, millions of people will have to check that "Have you been diagnosed with hypertension?" box. Watch your insurance rates go higher than your BP, folks.

I see you still wear your Tin-Foil Hat.

Getting your BP lower than 130/80 is a good thing. Statins are not always a bad thing. Life style changes, taking the correct (for you) meds, and making your health a priority is a good thing. Being on Medicare, they can't do much to my 'insurance rates'

I see you still believe in the tooth fairy, steve.

I see you still believe that everything is a conspiracy to benefit the evil insurance companies and the evil corporate America.

Hold on, while I go get my popcorn!

They just love to move zero.

Happens all the time,one day you are fine ,the next day you are going to explode.

The rates will go up just wait and see.
Sac make some more popcorn.

Dogs, my blood pressure dropped 20 points within a month of starting to have pets again...

Phil

My heart seurgeon told me to keep it under 135/80 almost a year ago

Well then, I have been seriously ill for longer than I can remember.

Sorry, but statins are to treat high cholesterol, not blood pressure.

Strokes are real, and they are serious, and are all too common. WTF should medicine do about it? Can't get ALL people to exercise, drop big weight and eliminate salt in their diet. Let's also be very aware that does not help everyone with hypertension. How do you want medicine to treat this?

The idea that it is automatically a conspiracy between medicine and "Big Pharma" (love that....) is a joke since most BP and statins have gone generic.

Yes, cardiovascular disease is a big problem as America lives longer and ages. Strokes are no joke. Medicine is trying to combat that. What do I think of these guidelines? I think medicine is too fixated on absolute numbers. Total cholesterol of 195 is ok but 210 is not? That 15 points isn't going to make a difference in anyone's lifespan.128/82 is passable but 131/83 is not?

I'm sure the stats show a correlation between lower BP and fewer vascular incidents. Older folks with hardening of their arteries develop a wider pulse pressure, the difference between systolic and diastolic, like 150/80. With those folks, forcing the top number to 130 when they've been running around with 145-150 could cause hypotension and falls. So, you gotta use common sense with that. Falls in the elderly are a major concern, a major cause of morbitiy and mortality.

I remember when they were doing similar with blood sugar. There is a down side to over control, hypoglycemic reactions in type II diabetics. I think they've adjusted the target blood suger a bit.

So, we'll see how the 130/80 target works out. I don't think it's going to be Kosher across the board, especially with older folks. One size may not fit all.

We'll see.

DF

]

I agree. These numerical guidelines are not based strictly on a body of research, but on a diagnostic convention agreed upon within a profession. Moreover, like blood glucose, blood pressure is a continuum, forming a more or less normal curve. It is certainly not binary, but for diagnostic purposes, above a number you have it, below you don't, and it is so noted on your chart, likely forever. It may or may not affect your insurance eligibility or rates, but it can also affect your driving privileges. In this state a driver's license application or renewal form has questions about such conditions.

There are also problems with test accuracy. In most medical practice it's like a snapshot, not multiple samples to reduce sampling error, and its accuracy may be affected by conditions at the time. Around here, when you have an appointment, you are typically led into an examining room, and an "assistant" or "technician", not a real nurse, quickly slaps a cuff on you and charts the reading. If you are not relaxed, or have eaten recently, it may be high. The other day mine was 146 over around 90, but when I am calm it is usually in the area of 120/70 something. You may not have another appointment for a year, but the number and diagnosis remain. After years of blood glucose in the prediabetic range, about six years ago my A1c hit 6.7 and the doc proclaimed me diabetic. Through diet and exercise I dropped it quickly to the mid 5s where it has remained. However, whenever I go to a doctor they look at my record and say "Oh, you're diabetic." Maybe, but what does it really mean?

It's a bit like taking a rifle, firing one group, and proclaiming its grouping ability on that basis.

Doesn't give me a comfortable feeling.

Paul

I typed "statins" without thinking. Thanks for the correction.

I didn't mention "conspiracy" anywhere. Nor do I think this is one. But insurance companies know that hypertension leads to other serious problems like kidney failure, strokes, and more. They already raise their rates for anyone with hypertension. And because the definition of hypertension has now changed, that means lots more people will be charged more for insurance.

On the drug issue, the same applies. Doctors who did not prescribe medicines for people not hypertensive under the old rules will start doing so now. Again, NOT a conspiracy. Just the way things will progress.

The researcher claimed that significant change could be from daily exercise of 30 min or so, little or no alcohol, low salt intake. He was saying that more meds may not be that necessary. Now, this guy is a researcher from some ivory tower institute. In the real world, pushing those BP numbers will mean more meds, no doubt about it.

These recommendations change from time to time. I remember wihen butter was bad, margerine was good. Now, margerine in bad, butter is good. So, we'll have to wait and see how all this shakes out.

DF

My answer wasn't all directed at your post. Sorry that I did not make that distinction. There are too many that automatically go to "Big Pharma" /medicine are in cahoots.

Back in the old days, 1977, when I took my first EMT class, 100 + your age/80 was considered normal BP. the 130/80 number was around at least 10 years ago. I ran 110/60 until my early 50's and then started climbing. I am 130/70 on meds, I think dropping 30lbs. would get me off the BP meds.

Gee, I guess they just don't buy the given lifespan of "three score and ten and if by strength more" and conceive more antihypertensives ($) are just the ticket to another 9 mos (if that) in the nursing home.

IMO, patients I see are way over-medicated the way it is; polypharmacy is rarely a benefit.

i have a Dr. appointment in two hours about BP,
haveing weird issues that all the googlefu won't anwser.
I'm medicated for high BP and some times my numbers are 130ish/mid 90s
couple hours later I'm at 180/130, for no rhyme or reason, and hour later back
down again, never really low enough but no idea what is going on.
I'm in my mid thirty's I could stand to lose about 10-15 lbs. I drink very little, no smoke,

Is mine bad? I just checked it at 110/59 & 110/64? The heart rate is 73 same as my age.