Safest way to normalise high Blood Pressure

[Moonlover]

3 minutes ago, partington said:

This is waffle.

 

The way "hypertension" is defined is through epidemiological studies and is quite logical.

 

In principle: you take a very large group , say 1000 people and measure their blood pressure. You then follow them up through an extended period, say  10 years or longer  (prospective study) recording deaths, heart attacks, strokes and all observable serious health outcomes.

 

At the end of the study period (the Framingham study that alerted clinicians to the association of high cholesterol with heart disease was followed up for more than 30 years), you group the study population into levels of blood pressure, and you statistically analyse the probability of developing any condition that you find seems to be associated.

 

Statistically you can then  demonstrate what the 10 year risk of developing, a stroke, say, is for a person in the 100-120/80 group compared to the 160-190/80 group. Lets say it's 1 in 30 for the 120/80 group and  1 in 5 for the 190/80 group, just to make it clearer.

 

You then, if you are a National Health service, for example simply define what you think is an unacceptably high risk for getting a stroke, and therefore where you choose to call a person "hypertensive" and urge treatment. A 1 in 5 risk is huge therefore you decide this is the cut-off.  

 

I am making these figures up, but you can see how it is done.  

Most of what you say makes perfect sense partington.  Expect for one small sentence. 'This is waffle'. What is waffle?

[laislica]

2 minutes ago, partington said:

This is waffle.

 

The way "hypertension" is defined is through epidemiological studies and is quite logical.

 

In principle: you take a very large group , say 1000 people and measure their blood pressure. You then follow them up through an extended period, say  10 years or longer  (prospective study) recording deaths, heart attacks, strokes and all observable serious health outcomes.

 

At the end of the study period (the Framingham study that alerted clinicians to the association of high cholesterol with heart disease was followed up for more than 30 years), you group the study population into levels of blood pressure, and you statistically analyse the probability of developing any condition that you find seems to be associated.

 

Statistically you can then  demonstrate what the 10 year risk of developing, a stroke, say, is for a person in the 100-120/80 group compared to the 160-190/80 group. Lets say it's 1 in 30 for the 120/80 group and  1 in 5 for the 190/80 group, just to make it clearer.

 

You then, if you are a National Health service, for example simply define what you think is an unacceptably high risk for getting a stroke, and therefore where you choose to call a person "hypertensive" and urge treatment. A 1 in 5 risk is huge therefore you decide this is the cut-off.  

 

I am making these figures up, but you can see how it is done.  

 

Sort of and a great theory but....

Sometimes, not saying true in this case but, of the recorded serious diseases, some can be excluded and or the numbers changed by redefining the criteria.

Now we can make our study properly reflect OUR bias...

Sadly, that sort of thing happens all too frequently.

See the link given before.

It is, IMHO, extremely difficult to know what to trust and what not to trust.

Science has perhaps been hijacked?

 

[partington]

32 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

Most of what you say makes perfect sense partington.  Expect for one small sentence. 'This is waffle'. What is waffle?

I simply meant that as an answer to the question you posed: "how do you define hypertension?" this response left something to be desired in both relevance and clarity.

[muskoka]

Another article about taking low dose aspirin daily which I have been doing for a few months. I am considering reducing it to one every other day.

 

 

Quote

 

Taking an Aspirin a Day to Prevent a Heart Attack or Stroke May Be Risky

Written by Sandra Levy | Published on 06 May 2014

 

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning people that a daily aspirin regimen may not help prevent a heart attack or stroke, and may cause dangerous bleeding into the brain or stomach.

Although a daily low dose of aspirin has been shown to be effective in preventing a reoccurrence of a heart attack or stroke, the FDA is now warning people who have not had a first heart attack or stroke that taking an aspirin every day may not have a benefit. In fact, doing so may actually cause serious side effects. ...

 

 

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/aspirin-heart-attack-stroke-050614#1

[Sheryl]

1 hour ago, laislica said:

 

Sort of and a great theory but....

Sometimes, not saying true in this case but, of the recorded serious diseases, some can be excluded and or the numbers changed by redefining the criteria.

Now we can make our study properly reflect OUR bias...

Sadly, that sort of thing happens all too frequently.

See the link given before.

It is, IMHO, extremely difficult to know what to trust and what not to trust.

Science has perhaps been hijacked?

 

There are some legitimate issues to be wary of when interpreting studies ,and some studies are indeed flawed, but  you are going way overboard in concluding that therefore all scientific evidence is flawed or that science has been "hijacked". It has nto been hijacked, in fact it is steadily getting better.  But not everything published meets scientific standards...and mass media versions of what studies show are almost always inaccurate or oversimplified.  http://dilbert.com/strip/1990-08-06

 

There are studies and then there are studies...and then there are things that have been validated repeatedly through multiple studies, which is one of the "gold standards" for research i.e. that different researchers can replicate the results.

 

The linkage between hypertension and heart disease/stroke/kidney disease is rock solid.

[Moonlover]

38 minutes ago, partington said:

I simply meant that as an answer to the question you posed: "how do you define hypertension?" this response left something to be desired in both relevance and clarity.

I've done a lot of SCUBA diving. Whenever I dive, I strap on a small bit of high tech on my wrist, called a dive computer. I have relied on that computer to keep me safe for over 700 dives, but it would never occur to me to ask Cressi how they derived their calculations (although I do have a pretty good idea). I accept the results and rely on them.

 

By the same token, I am prepared to accept that researchers, no doubt clever folks than I, have over many years come to the conclusion that 140/90 is the upper limit before one runs into hypertension. Who am I to argue?

[laislica]

22 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

1 hour ago, laislica said:

 

Sort of and a great theory but....

Sometimes, not saying true in this case but, of the recorded serious diseases, some can be excluded and or the numbers changed by redefining the criteria.

Now we can make our study properly reflect OUR bias...

Sadly, that sort of thing happens all too frequently.

See the link given before.

It is, IMHO, extremely difficult to know what to trust and what not to trust.

Science has perhaps been hijacked?

 

There are some legitimate issues to be wary of when interpreting studies ,and some studies are indeed flawed, but  you are going way overboard in concluding that therefore all scientific evidence is flawed or that science has been "hijacked". It has nto been hijacked, in fact it is steadily getting better.  But not everything published meets scientific standards...and mass media versions of what studies show are almost always inaccurate or oversimplified.  http://dilbert.com/strip/1990-08-06

 

There are studies and then there are studies...and then there are things that have been validated repeatedly through multiple studies, which is one of the "gold standards" for research i.e. that different researchers can replicate the results.

 

The linkage between hypertension and heart disease/stroke/kidney disease is rock solid.

 

Please read the post and do not jump to your own conclusions.

You say "but  you are going way overboard in concluding that therefore all scientific evidence is flawed or that science has been "hijacked". "

 

 

Just to be clear I said "Sometimes, not saying true in this case but, ....."

One of the links earlier in this thread gave much detail about falsification in reporting.....

 

I concluded with:

"It is, IMHO, extremely difficult to know what to trust and what not to trust.

Science has perhaps been hijacked?"

 

Please note "perhaps" followed by the question mark.

 

I repeat my point: It is, IMHO, extremely difficult to know what to trust and what not to trust.

 

Here is a well known saying:

Mark Twain (among others), attributed it to the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli:

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." .....

 

Again, I repeat my point:

It is, IMHO, extremely difficult to know what to trust and what not to trust.

 

PS

 

Question, is this post in your capacity as the Moderator or as a member of TVF and just posting like other Moderators do?

 

 

 

[mommysboy]

Its an area I must give some attention to.  I gave up drinking some time ago, and quit conventional cigarettes.  I'm ideal weight and do exercise.  I think I'll have a general check up. If diagnosed hypertensive I would take pills, rather than live like a monk.

 

I don't dispute the weight of empirical evidence, but am unsure about what is normal bp at age 55.  I was inclined to think 140/90 was quite acceptable, but if it is lower then I suppose you have to go with medical thought.

[mommysboy]

2 hours ago, laislica said:

 

Sort of and a great theory but....

Sometimes, not saying true in this case but, of the recorded serious diseases, some can be excluded and or the numbers changed by redefining the criteria.

Now we can make our study properly reflect OUR bias...

Sadly, that sort of thing happens all too frequently.

See the link given before.

It is, IMHO, extremely difficult to know what to trust and what not to trust.

Science has perhaps been hijacked?

 

It's really more about what happens when the media gets hold of things.

 

But I do understand and agree on some points.  It seems that whenever a finding is announced there are two factions that turn it in to a tug of war contest, and truth goes out the window.  Ten years ago we were told not to drink coffee, but now we should drink a few cups a day!  

 

There is bias too.  Take the arguments over vaping.  Those against commission most studies and have resorted to some incredibly poor evidence, with nonsense interpretations. 

 

Thankfully not often, but science itself is found to in error.  I don't believe it to be the case regarding our subject matter however.

[partington]

10 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

It's really more about what happens when the media gets hold of things.

 

But I do understand and agree on some points.  It seems that whenever a finding is announced there are two factions that turn it in to a tug of war contest, and truth goes out the window.  Ten years ago we were told not to drink coffee, but now we should drink a few cups a day!  

 

There is bias too.  Take the arguments over vaping.  Those against commission most studies and have resorted to some incredibly poor evidence, with nonsense interpretations. 

 

Thankfully not often, but science itself is found to in error.  I don't believe it to be the case regarding our subject matter however.

It's not science that is at fault- science done correctly and honestly is the best way that human beings can try to establish the truth about the world.

 

However statements like " ten years ago we were told not to drink coffee, but now we should drink a few cups a day!"  usually (always ) mean I read something in a newspaper 10 years ago that differs from something I read in the newspaper yesterday.

 

Newspapers need to publish stories that will attract readers, and this includes what they write about "science". They write a headline or summary of  some published finding that usually is inaccurate, or publish the statement of a single professor or doctor who declares some "fact" or "advice" or other. But this is not science this is advertising.  Whoever they are, a statement by a single doctor or professor is not "science", and nor is an article in the Daily Mail announcing that toast can give you cancer.

 

These are not the representative statements of science.  Science is reading the evidence and weighing it up, or reading reputable judicious summaries of what current evidence is thought to indicate, written in non-specialist BUT ACCURATE sources like Scientific American or New Scientist. I

 

Current scientific opinion can rarely be gleaned from newspaper articles designed to scare or astonish, or the meanderings of some attention seeking GP.

[Moonlover]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

Its an area I must give some attention to.  I gave up drinking some time ago, and quit conventional cigarettes.  I'm ideal weight and do exercise.  I think I'll have a general check up. If diagnosed hypertensive I would take pills, rather than live like a monk.

 

I don't dispute the weight of empirical evidence, but am unsure about what is normal bp at age 55.  I was inclined to think 140/90 was quite acceptable, but if it is lower then I suppose you have to go with medical thought.

First off Mommsyboy, this much vaulted reading of 140/90 is only the tipping point, not the doomsday number. I doubt if even the most enthusiastic pill pushing doctor would put anyone on medication at that level. Rather, regard it a euphemistic speed limit. It's wise to try and stay below it if you can.

 

And secondly, where did you get the idea one has to live like a monk? I certainly don't. True, I don't live in the fast lane, but I do still have an enjoyable life.

 

Take care now and thanks for your contributions. I've enjoyed this topic, but I think it's time to move on.

[Khon Kaen Dave]

Moonlover.

Your question was not answered, so here goes.

Waffle is when you are going on about a subject in great depth, trying to convince people that you know what you are talking about, when actually you don't have a clue.

Hope that answers your curiosity, old mate.

[mommysboy]

3 hours ago, Moonlover said:

First off Mommsyboy, this much vaulted reading of 140/90 is only the tipping point, not the doomsday number. I doubt if even the most enthusiastic pill pushing doctor would put anyone on medication at that level. Rather, regard it a euphemistic speed limit. It's wise to try and stay below it if you can.

 

And secondly, where did you get the idea one has to live like a monk? I certainly don't. True, I don't live in the fast lane, but I do still have an enjoyable life.

 

Take care now and thanks for your contributions. I've enjoyed this topic, but I think it's time to move on.

 

Oh right! By then mate! Are you going anywhere nice!

 

To my mind, anyone that has smoked, drunk, and eaten rather a lot of bad food over the course of a few decades must have some kind of heart damage or hardened arteries.  Surely medicine is the best answer.  I exercise simply because I Iove walking, and like jogging.

[Kabula]

18 hours ago, partington said:

This is waffle.

 

The way "hypertension" is defined is through epidemiological studies and is quite logical.

 

In principle: you take a very large group , say 1000 people and measure their blood pressure. You then follow them up through an extended period, say  10 years or longer  (prospective study) recording deaths, heart attacks, strokes and all observable serious health outcomes.

 

At the end of the study period (the Framingham study that alerted clinicians to the association of high cholesterol with heart disease was followed up for more than 30 years), you group the study population into levels of blood pressure, and you statistically analyse the probability of developing any condition that you find seems to be associated.

 

Statistically you can then  demonstrate what the 10 year risk of developing, a stroke, say, is for a person in the 100-120/80 group compared to the 160-190/80 group. Lets say it's 1 in 30 for the 120/80 group and  1 in 5 for the 190/80 group, just to make it clearer.

 

You then, if you are a National Health service, for example simply define what you think is an unacceptably high risk for getting a stroke, and therefore where you choose to call a person "hypertensive" and urge treatment. A 1 in 5 risk is huge therefore you decide this is the cut-off.  

 

I am making these figures up, but you can see how it is done.  

If you fail to consume the 90 essential minerals and trace elements, fail to eliminate the toxic GMO's, soft drinks, toxic drugs and fail to drink clean water, fail to read vaccine and prescription warning inserts over time you will drop like a dead fly without hypertension sooner than you should!  The above with a brisk daily walk will eliminate high blood pressure.  Everyone is so brain washed; most don't understand what the body needs to repair itself.  As they age, the prescriptions pile up, which creates more toxicity and acid in the body?  The medical community gets rich and the patient cuts their life shorter!  I'm 69 and I have lost all my younger U.S. friends, some as young as 45 to cancer, stroke and heart problems.  They didn't listen and wanted to argue.  Meanwhile, I'm prescription free and feel great.  The problem with people today, is no one listens and doesn't do their own research.  Easier to read all the bull shit.  If you want to live even longer and turbo charge your body, hang with young, healthy person over 18!

[agudbuk]

Strange that is in countries where they take the most prescribed drugs, vaccinate and follow medical guidance that the AVERAGE life expectancy is rising furthest and far exceeds countries without as much medical intervention .

[Sheryl]

Regarding the issue of what level of high BP warrants treatment,   the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians  have just released the following updated  evidence-based  recommendations  for hypertension in adults 60 years and older.

 

These advise treatment for all patients who have a persistent systolic blood pressure at or above 150 mm Hg, with the aim of treatment being to achieve a target of less than 150 mm Hg.  However, in

 patients with  a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack or cardiovascular risk factors such as  diabetes, vascular disease, metabolic syndrome, or chronic kidney disease,  physicians should "consider" starting or increasing drug therapy to achieve systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg. However the evidence base for that recommendation was much weaker than for the recommendation to treat at 150, which had a strong evidence base.

 

https://www.acponline.org/acp-newsroom/acp-and-aafp-release-guideline-for-treatment-of-hypertension-in-adults-60-years-old-and-older

[Moonlover]

52 minutes ago, agudbuk said:

Strange that is in countries where they take the most prescribed drugs, vaccinate and follow medical guidance that the AVERAGE life expectancy is rising furthest and far exceeds countries without as much medical intervention .

I do not see why you consider this as strange. Your observation is quite correct and the reasons why are patently obvious.

But, consider this. The countries with the longer life expectancies, are the same ones that have the higher incidence of HBP related deaths and debilitating diseases. And that should be no surprise either, because these afflictions are, in the main. Age related.

So whilst your observation is quite correct, in the context of this thread, it is a self-defeating argument.

 

 

 

[Krataiboy]

Just for the record, according to a recent report I read (I think) in the Guardian, the  "high" limit for blood pressure was recently raised from 140/80 to 150/90 in the case of older people. Kinda makes sense when you think about it. I ask you, as a lay person, how likely is it that a geriatric like me could be expect to have the same blood pressure reading as a 25-year-old?

 

What worries me that it took so long for the penny to drop with "experts", who it seems to me are constantly changing their minds about just about everything and rely on some some pretty dodgy techniques for diagnosing out problems.

 

For example, the other week, my sister, who's in her mid-seventies, went for her annual check-up with her local health centre in the UK. After taking her blood pressure the doc expressed concern that it was slightly higher than the last time she took it A YEAR AGO  - and wanted to put her sister on a higher dose blood pressure tablet.

 

Is this the kind of pseudo science on which our medical system is based? In which case, consider myself lucky to have survived so long despite the efforts of the medical profession, the oil industry and Big Pharma.

 

But they generally get you in the end.

[Sheryl]

They are referring to the article I cited above, and it would not be accurate to say that the high limit was raised. Rather, the newest guidelines are that in the absence of specific risk factors (which are in fact present in many older people), the advantages of treatment (with medication)  outweigh the risks for people over 60 if the BP is above 150/90.  In the presence of specific risk factors, make that 140/80. The rationale and the evidence on which these guidelines are based is detailed in the article.

 

That does not mean that anything up to 150/90 is fine, or that it would not be preferrable to have BP lower than that, or that BPs in the 135-149 systolic range are not associated with  any increased risk to health . It's not, and it would be, and they are. It is just that this is the threshold at which the benefits of medical treatment clearly outweigh the risks, since all medications do carry some risk. Lifestyle modifications though do not.

 

Incidentally, medical guidelines  "recommend that physicians initiate treatment in adults aged 60 years old with persistent systolic blood pressure at or above 150 millimeters of mercury .....The guideline notes that some patients may have falsely elevated readings in clinical settings (“white coat hypertension”). Therefore, it is important for physicians to ensure that they are accurately measuring blood pressure before initiating or changing treatment for hypertension.“The most accurate measurements come from multiple blood pressure measurements made over time,” said John Meigs, Jr., MD, president, AAFP “These may include multiple measurements in clinical settings or ambulatory or home-monitoring.”"

 

That  individual doctors  deviate from this standard advice does not mean that the medical system is based on "pseudo science". It means that doctors are individuals and vary just as much in how well they follow established guidelines as any other group of professionals, be they electricians, lawyers, architects or whatever.

 

There are also  times when circumstances are such that it is not practical to follow guidelines to the letter. It is not, for example, always possible to get  a series of BP readings. Some  patients are unable or unwilling to monitor at home; some  face difficulty in coming to clinic, and some are  unreliable about keeping follow-up appointments. In those  situations a doctor has to choose between the risk of ignoring a dangerous condition vs possibly treating unnecessarily or over-treating.

 

 

[mommysboy]

Whether HBP is age related, lifestyle related, stress related, or genetic, it appears to me to be rather important to lower it as much as possible to around 130/80 in older, or challenged middle age.

 

If anybody has smoked for a long period, drunk heavily (that's much less than is commonly assumed), is overweight or has a poor diet,  suffers glucose intolerance, or has a family history of heart disease, then at middle aged or above it's a fair bet that we have some degree of obstruction/disease.

 

White coat syndrome may well provide a false flag, but it also reveals someone who is prone to suffer anxiety/stress, and there's rather a lot of it about these days.  Stress is a major cause of HBP. 

 

Even lifestyle change only goes so far, and can have unintended negative consequences.  Middle aged guys in particular can embark on catastrophic attempts to return to the glories on youth.

 

A drug regime of some sort, tailored to the individual's needs, seems the a very good option to me.

 

Personally, I intend to pay much more attention to this in the future.  I'm guessing previous history, and stress are big dangers for me.

 

 

[laislica]

22 hours ago, mommysboy said:

On 27/03/2017 at 4:08 PM, laislica said:

 

Sort of and a great theory but....

Sometimes, not saying true in this case but, of the recorded serious diseases, some can be excluded and or the numbers changed by redefining the criteria.

Now we can make our study properly reflect OUR bias...

Sadly, that sort of thing happens all too frequently.

See the link given before.

It is, IMHO, extremely difficult to know what to trust and what not to trust.

Science has perhaps been hijacked?

 

It's really more about what happens when the media gets hold of things.

 

But I do understand and agree on some points.  It seems that whenever a finding is announced there are two factions that turn it in to a tug of war contest, and truth goes out the window.  Ten years ago we were told not to drink coffee, but now we should drink a few cups a day!  

 

There is bias too.  Take the arguments over vaping.  Those against commission most studies and have resorted to some incredibly poor evidence, with nonsense interpretations. 

 

Thankfully not often, but science itself is found to in error.  I don't believe it to be the case regarding our subject matter however.

 

Pity that I cant give three likes to this post.

 

Partington says: It's not science that is at fault- science done correctly and honestly is the best way that human beings can try to establish the truth about the world. "

and I also agree with this but as you also mentioned, there is often a Bias.

And then there is the media hype!

 

Partington goes on to say " BUT ACCURATE sources like Scientific American or New Scientist. "

Unfortunately, even those sources are compromised at times and it really does make it almost impossible to know who and what to trust.

 

Should we trust the results of a scientific study of other studies?

Who validates all the studies - studied?

Or asks the question, Are all the possible studies on this topic included?

 

Should we trust a scientist who reads all the gruesome detail in the actual studies and then give us a POV that lay persons may be able to understand?

What to do?

 

Partington makes some very good points but I have no idea what, if any, bias he may or may not have.

Is he pro science and against the anti science folk?

Who knows, makes it hard to believe anyone I'm afriad.

 

Same with Sheryl, is he/she a Dr?

Is there a vast background of expertise there?

How would we know?

Hey, this is an anonymous forum - we can be keyboard warriors here if we want, and quite a lot are!

It's a place to have fun, or find facts about visas or expound our theories or.....

Of course, we're not allowed to talk about many things - see the rules....

You may have your posts deleted without comment.....

Get warnings

get a ban... etc.

 

So this forum has to be viewed in a special way, and also bearing in mind it's rules.....

 

If anyone knows of a similar forum with less restrictions, let me know and I'll see you there lol.

 

I suppose this may be my last allowed post on TVF he he, cos we're not allowed to discuss moderation and I suppose, I just did?........

Time will tell.

 

Thanks for all the great input with some great ideas and suggestions and hardly a troll post (maybe the mods do a good job then eh?)

 

Today my BP was 175/116

but that was after my annual trip to Immigration.....

See my other threads.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[agudbuk]

I'm just surprised that there hasn't been an idiot suggesting prayer as a solution to everything.....

[laislica]

28 minutes ago, agudbuk said:

I'm just surprised that there hasn't been an idiot suggesting prayer as a solution to everything.....

 

I used to think like that too but now I have understood a little more.

You are what you eat?

You are what you think you are?

 

If you have a belief that you will always be short of money... guess what

If you believe you will always have enough, well there is a chance you might.

 

Did you know that you are always right?

Oh no, I can't do thst....

OK, I'll give it a shot....

]See what I mean.

 

Don't knock what you don't know?

Have an open mind and give everything a shot?

 

Did you ever go on a course to learn how to be a Shamon?

Believe it or not - I did......

 

Opens the mind.

Our minds have been hijacked (my fav phrase lol) by the media.

There is a language of the brain and it's not words,

I bet that Kabula also knows it......

Your mind - Brain communicates through pictures - the No. 1 go to for advertising....

Got it?

Think it, see it, be it.

I can give examples..... Just ask.

 

Question is, do you know what you are thinking?

Do odd thoughts enter, wander about and go?

Who - what is in control of your body?

 

I am really looking forward to your brilliant reply

I mean that,

I am ready to learn.

 

However, please read this post enough times to know that I am serious.

No silly repartee please, share some of the good stuff you have.

Failing that try here:-

 

 

or this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[moe666]

Try magnesium works for me

[stancatts]

Get yourself a good quality BP measuring machine (eg, an OMRON) and regularly monitor BP yourself. If consistently high, then anti-hypertensives are indicated (but obvious causes like renal disease should be excluded). Starting with an ACE Inhibitor (eg, perindopril 5 mg once daily) is pretty standard internationally. Although perindopril may cause a dry cough in some, it may be better than the usual alternative, a calcium channel  blocker (eg, amlodipine), because often the latter in moderate doses causes oedema (fluid swelling especially in the feet and legs), which is more likely to happen in the older person in the tropics.  If perindopril 5 alone does not work, then a low dose (5mg) of amlodipine is usually added (this combination is readily available in Thailand, brand name Coveram 5/5, often over the counter without a prescription). Its cheap too, especially compared to treating a stroke or heart failure. All of this of course should be initiated under medical supervision - that is none of the above is medical advice.  

[jayboy]

I noticed reference in this thread to atenonol (Tenormin) with an an interesting comment by Sheryl suggesting doctors prescribing may not have been keeping up with the medical literature.I have been on a daily Tenormin 50 for 20 years combined with a daily Adalat CR 30.Various doctors haven't questioned the prescription I suppose because my BP is v.well controlled.I wonder whether I should take initiative and ask doctor to suggest an alternative to atenonol or stop taking it altogether - obviously carefully monitoring BP.I would prefer being weaned off atenonol and not replace it.I am 64.

[laislica]

4 hours ago, jayboy said:

I noticed reference in this thread to atenonol (Tenormin) with an an interesting comment by Sheryl suggesting doctors prescribing may not have been keeping up with the medical literature.I have been on a daily Tenormin 50 for 20 years combined with a daily Adalat CR 30.Various doctors haven't questioned the prescription I suppose because my BP is v.well controlled.I wonder whether I should take initiative and ask doctor to suggest an alternative to atenonol or stop taking it altogether - obviously carefully monitoring BP.I would prefer being weaned off atenonol and not replace it.I am 64.

IMHO, a problem with stopping a med like this is that your BP may go quite high, not good for your kidneys never mind risk of stroke/heart attack.

Talking to your Dr would be good but I would suggest that you Google and find out much more on the subject before you have the chat.

Even to the point that you know what to do/take. (informed consent?)

How is your general health?
Are you overweight? (By that I really mean carrying more % fat than is healthy)

A good measure is your waist to hip ratio.

If waist wider than hip then you have too much fat.

(That's why it's called a waist!)

If you have too much fat and reduce it, does your BP improve?

 

After I remarried, (4.5 years ago) I saw my Spanish Dr because my BP had increased, presumably  because my % fat had increased.

I said that I had been on Atenalol and Captopril.

The Dr looked at my wife and said that I should take something that would not depress my libido and put me on Balzac Plus.

I also have an enlarged prostate and started taking Lopress which, as a side effect makes BP drugs work harder.

My BP dropped dangerously low when I started the Lopress so I had to drastically reduce the Balzac to get the balance right.

I am still a bit too fat (happy married life LOL), but I am trying to keep it under control and monitor my BP constantly.

I did lose weight a few months ago and BP did improve but I can resist anything except temptation (and pain) LOL and it's increased again..... Back in Spain since the end of April.

The weather is fine, no mozzies, can go out in the evening, Tapas bars etc.....

The wine is plentiful, wonderful and very affordable, so why not?

 

Best of luck with your decision.

 

[jayboy]

IMHO, a problem with stopping a med like this is that your BP may go quite high, not good for your kidneys never mind risk of stroke/heart attack.
Talking to your Dr would be good but I would suggest that you Google and find out much more on the subject before you have the chat.
Even to the point that you know what to do/take. (informed consent?)
How is your general health?
Are you overweight? (By that I really mean carrying more % fat than is healthy)
A good measure is your waist to hip ratio.
If waist wider than hip then you have too much fat.
(That's why it's called a waist!)
If you have too much fat and reduce it, does your BP improve?
 
After I remarried, (4.5 years ago) I saw my Spanish Dr because my BP had increased, presumably  because my % fat had increased.
I said that I had been on Atenalol and Captopril.
The Dr looked at my wife and said that I should take something that would not depress my libido and put me on Balzac Plus.
I also have an enlarged prostate and started taking Lopress which, as a side effect makes BP drugs work harder.
My BP dropped dangerously low when I started the Lopress so I had to drastically reduce the Balzac to get the balance right.
I am still a bit too fat (happy married life LOL), but I am trying to keep it under control and monitor my BP constantly.
I did lose weight a few months ago and BP did improve but I can resist anything except temptation (and pain) LOL and it's increased again..... Back in Spain since the end of April.
The weather is fine, no mozzies, can go out in the evening, Tapas bars etc.....
The wine is plentiful, wonderful and very affordable, so why not?
 
Best of luck with your decision.
 

Thanks.I will talk to the doctor but probably not until my yearly physical in a few months.I'm inclined in the interim to very slowly wean myself off Tenormin while carefully monitoring BP.If it increases I'll revert to the original prescription and take stock with the doctor.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[jayboy]

Is Tenormin 25 available in Thailand? If anyone knows most grateful advise.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Oxx]

6 hours ago, jayboy said:

Is Tenormin 25 available in Thailand?

 

Not that specific bran, but there are some generic versions of Atenolol available here.