View Single Post
Old 04-16-2012, 08:01 PM   #5
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: 11105
Posts: 123
dantescritic HB Userdantescritic HB User
Re: Hypertension studies... not really that "DRAMATIC"

Originally Posted by atengnr View Post
I think that you are right. The doubling of a small risk is of uncertain importance to you or me. Is it worth the lost quality of life? For me its lost exercise tolerance and enjoyment, being more tired all the time. Im not sure if its worth it either. Perhaps we both just say the H*** with meds!

Im not one to be anti-pharmeutical, because no one is forcing me to take medicine, and the evidence to prove or disprove their value is there for us to decide on. Thats my view anyway.

You might be right regarding lack of data on young people with hypertension.

You raise intriguing points and remind me again of why I was considering quitting beta blockers not too long ago.
I agree with you, I am also not 100% anti-pharmaceutical for one simple reason that many naturopaths ignore. The naturopaths ALSO have a profit motive, and their profit motive obviously conflicts with people being administered pharmaceutical drugs.

Im not sure we should both just say the hell with meds right away, but im glad that at least this forum has some open-minded people with which to discuss these issues. Even more helpful is the fact that both of us have developed hypertension at a young age, so we can discuss our issues with even more specificity.

I have actually found some studies "Im a hypochondriac who spends 5 hours researching this garbage, my life has been hell for the last 2 years less because of hypertension and more because of WORRYING about hypertension."

A really interesting one to me is this one from the University of Toronto, I found it one sciencedirect that shows that discontinuation of anti-hypertensives with patients who have mild/moderate hypertension remember that is anything below 180/110 which is severe hypertension don't necessarily even continue having hypertension once discontinuing the drugs.

Some patients currently receiving therapy for uncomplicated, mild to moderate essential hypertension may have been started on medication because of transient increases in office blood pressure (BP) or because of “white coat hypertension”. As a consequence, many patients who do not have persistent hypertension may be receiving therapy for this diagnosis. This possibility was examined by discontinuing medication in 98 patients without target organ damage who were receiving longterm antihypertensive therapy under the care of their family physician in the community. Development of hypertension was based upon an increase in the patient's ambulatory BP (mm Hg) to ≥ recorded during usual daily activities. Evidence of early target organ damage was sought by using echocardiography to measure changes in left ventricular mass during the period off therapy. In the 50 patients who remained off treatment for 1 year, mean ambulatory BP increased (P < .001) from baseline (128 ± ± 1) to 139 ± ± 1 at 1 year, but remained lower (P < .001) than corresponding office readings performed by the patient's family physician (baseline: 138 ± ± 1; 1 year: 150 ± ± 1). At 1 year, ambulatory BP was < and < in 41 and 21 patients, respectively. Withdrawal of therapy did not produce any changes in left ventricular mass index (g/m2) with the mean value at 1 year (104 ± 3) being similar to baseline (103 ± 3). Of the remaining patients, 35 redeveloped hypertension and 13 restarted therapy for reasons unrelated to BP. Many patients with treated, uncomplicated, mild to moderate hypertension may tolerate withdrawal of antihypertensive drug therapy without developing persistent hypertension or any increase in left ventricular mass.

This one is pretty basic, and doesn't mean much besides "we arent going to get huge hearts right away" but ive found others that followed young hypertensives "have to look for them" in 1947-1949 and did a follow up 20 years later. Keep in mind that in 1947 mild hypertension was considered anything above 160/100 43% didn't even have hypertension 20 years later without treatment, 33% of them merely had stabilized "probably remained in the 140-160 range" and the rest had increased blood pressure.. I don't remember reading anything in the study of deaths in the 20 years of follow up.

I'm going to put up the interview with Dr.Aldermann, might be interesting to see what you think. And this guy isn't a naturopath, he is currently an editor for the American Journal of Hypertension "AJH".