Re: Hypertension studies... not really that "DRAMATIC"
Agreed Aten, I believe in terms of severe hypertension 180/120 studies have shown more than beneficial reductions in mortality. What I am discussing are mild, even moderate levels of blood pressure. I should have been more specific.
However even then I am not sure that the benefits are all that different in regards to endpoints such as kidney disease, heart disease etc. However I can tell you that ive already seen several studies that show HYP drugs to INCREASE coronary diseases.
The bottom line is these companies benefit substantially from the administration of BP drugs.
Yes, you have a twofold increase for ever 20mm/hg above 120/80. So that means if you are 2/1000 risk of dying of a stroke this year you will be at 4/1000 risk if you rise to 140/90, or 8/1000 risk if you are 160/100.
I agree with you buddy, I am also very much on the fence. Part of me wants to continue taking these little side-effect inducing poisons to control my blood pressure.. I am also worried about the effects at 40-50 years from now "or if we can even get there".
As for the Beta-Blocker.. I can tell you 100000000000% with absolute certainty that it decreases your exercise capacity. I was prescribed "metropolol" a while back.. did wonders for my anxiety actually. Problem was my usual heart rate of 186 MAX on the bike was now 135-140... and it was a low dose. My legs felt like iron and I barely even managed to break a sweat.
Whatever happened to that fellow "Lenin" that used to frequent these boards? He seems to have found a natural way out of the downwards spiral.
I'd really like to post an interview I found with a hypertensive expert Michael Aldermann, although I know you aren't too keen on reading the pre-1990's studies/interviews. However essentially what he was saying is that the lower our blood pressures "even high" the less likely pharmaceuticals will benefit us in the first place.
So for instance if we reduce our 150/100 down to 135/85 are we really benefiting that much? Im not sure myself... but these studies really don't seem to show that dramatic a difference.
If a study was to come out and show a 200% reduction of an already substantial risk then I would of course be the first to support it. But 40% less heart attack and strokes "and this is for older people with hypertension" averages out to maybe a handful more people alive out of a thousand.. really not all the significant.
I think you should keep up the exercise, and we should keep discussing this extremely important topic. Because either decision could have substantial impacts on our life in the future. And im personally getting pretty fed up with side effects.
Also I think there is a reason you and me are unable to find studies relating to hypertensives at our age... I can think of only a few reasons but one of them is that THEY WOULDNT BE ABLE TO SHOW ANY SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE IN END TERM CONSEQUENCES! Thus it would be of little benefit to the companies themselves. To even get that 40% benefit most of these studies have to get thousands upon thousands of patients, it takes tens of thousands to show a mild increase in end points in regards to mild hypertension.
Pre-1990 mild hypertension only began at 160/100, this means that even if there were young men who had 150-155/85-90 readings without treatment like you and I they wouldn't be considered "hypertensive" at the time, and thus no studies really exist.
Hope we can keep this discussion up Aten.
Last edited by dantescritic; 04-16-2012 at 06:03 PM.