Low blood pressure

[MyNameIsJeff]

According to this statement In the American Journal of Medicine
"On the other hand, the blood pressures optimal for longevity are those below 110 mm Hg systolic and 70 mm Hg diastolic.

Your citation from the AJM is from the year 1973. You really think our understanding of medicine has not improved in the last 50 years?

If you will notice i stated "longevity" not heart disease heart disease is just one factor in longevity.

Do you understand what all-cause mortality means? It's the opposite of longevity, and anyone with a DBP < 60 is statistically at a higher risk of dying prematurely from any cause.

You might feel fine and be content to ignore the issue, up to you. But don't spread misinformation just so you can pretend to yourself that everything is hunky-dory.

 

[DugPrime]

Unfortunately i found. I must admit it was nice to be lower..now i'm running higher Test with EQ and my BP raised to normal levels. For the first time i saw 120/65 but i think that was later in the day after training. Morning BP is 112/60.

Still ok but it doesn't make me immune as i thought, it seems if i raise more the total androgens it will start to creep up. Also with high amounts of food lately i found out my RHR raised as well. But even at my lowest measures and while i was still had a hematocrit under 44 my veins were prominent. It doesn't make sense though.

Have you tried to raise your electrolytes? Add more sodium and drink more water, it might increase your blood volume. Otherwise add EQ and anadrol haha

I'm already doing salt caps, but it only seems to temporarily increase it, and fuck, it makes me retain much more subcutaneous water.

That's my BP right now, but it shouldn't be an issue, because from what I understand, what is meaningful is the MAP, which is at 64.



By the way, it’s because I’m taking 5mg of Nebivolol in the morning and 40mg of Telmisartan in the evening. I’m doing it to prevent LVH, and without Nebivolol, Trestolone makes my resting HR shoot up to almost 90-100.

Maybe I should lower the Telmisartan dose to 20mg instead.

 

[buck]

Your citation from the AJM is from the year 1973. You really think our understanding of medicine has not improved in the last 50 years?

Do you understand what all-cause mortality means? It's the opposite of longevity, and anyone with a DBP < 60 is statistically at a higher risk of dying prematurely from any cause.

You might feel fine and be content to ignore the issue, up to you. But don't spread misinformation just so you can pretend to yourself that everything is hunky-dory.

Do you realize that all cause mortality can go up or that it can go down. It is not a one way street.
If low blood pressure was a killer then runners should be dropping dead from heart disease at a high rate.

 

[Ghoul]

Your citation from the AJM is from the year 1973. You really think our understanding of medicine has not improved in the last 50 years?

Do you understand what all-cause mortality means? It's the opposite of longevity, and anyone with a DBP < 60 is statistically at a higher risk of dying prematurely from any cause.

You might feel fine and be content to ignore the issue, up to you. But don't spread misinformation just so you can pretend to yourself that everything is hunky-dory.

You're also spreading "misinformation". The 2017 article you linked to is ancient history, relative to the most current guidelines.

Systolic of 120-129 and diastolic below 80 is now considered clinically elevated, in other words, intervention is warranted, and a target BP below systolic 120 and a diastolic between 70-80 is ideal, though diastolic only adds additional risk below 60.*

If you're 90/65, and it's not symptomatic, ie, dizziness, you're doing great.

120/70, the former "ideal" BP, is now considered the lowest level of high blood pressure. but only among general practitioners who keep current, which is rare.


*assuming no one here is geriatric
.

 

[MyNameIsJeff]

I'm already doing salt caps, but it only seems to temporarily increase it, and fuck, it makes me retain much more subcutaneous water.

That's my BP right now, but it shouldn't be an issue, because from what I understand, what is meaningful is the MAP, which is at 64.

View attachment 298580

By the way, it’s because I’m taking 5mg of Nebivolol in the morning and 40mg of Telmisartan in the evening. I’m doing it to prevent LVH, and without Nebivolol, Trestolone makes my resting HR shoot up to almost 90-100.

Maybe I should lower the Telmisartan dose to 20mg instead.

"During the diastole phase when your heart relaxes after a contraction, your heart fills with blood via your coronary arteries. Low diastolic pressure means your heart is lacking adequate blood supply and oxygen, a condition called ischemia. If you consistently have low diastolic pressure, you may develop chronic ischemia, which can weaken your heart over time and lead to heart attack, heart failure, or other heart conditions." Is a Diastolic of 50 Too Low? Causes, Low Blood Pressure

Go see a cardiologist as soon as possible.

 

[MyNameIsJeff]

You're also spreading "misinformation". The 2017 article you linked to is ancient history, relative to the most current guidelines.

Systolic of 120-129 and diastolic below 80 is now considered clinically elevated, in other words, intervention is warranted, and a target BP below systolic 120 and a diastolic between 70-80 is ideal, though diastolic only adds additional risk below 60.*

If you're 90/65, and it's not symptomatic, ie, dizziness, you're doing great.

120/70, the former "ideal" BP, is now considered the lowest level of high blood pressure. but only among general practitioners who keep current, which is rare.


*assuming no one here is geriatric
.

The fact that too low DBP adds risk is the point I have been making here.

 

[MyNameIsJeff]

120/70, the former "ideal" BP, is now considered the lowest level of high blood pressure. but only among general practitioners who keep current, which is rare.

You are wrong, the latest guidelines specify diastolic below 80, not 70. Reading the new blood pressure guidelines - Harvard Health

Also, there are no more recent guidelines on minimum DBP than the ones I have discussed.

 

[buck]

You are wrong, the latest guidelines specify diastolic below 80, not 70. Reading the new blood pressure guidelines - Harvard Health

Also, there are no more recent guidelines on minimum DBP than the ones I have discussed.

View attachment 298582

Ideal and normal are 2 different words with different meanings.at least in my dictionary.
And 70 is less then 80 last i checked. And as the chart you posted says less then 80 then............

 

[buck]

"During the diastole phase when your heart relaxes after a contraction, your heart fills with blood via your coronary arteries. Low diastolic pressure means your heart is lacking adequate blood supply and oxygen, a condition called ischemia. If you consistently have low diastolic pressure, you may develop chronic ischemia, which can weaken your heart over time and lead to heart attack, heart failure, or other heart conditions." Is a Diastolic of 50 Too Low? Causes, Low Blood Pressure

Go see a cardiologist as soon as possible.

Not sure i would quote that article as they say 120/80 is normal pressure where as the chart shows less then those pressures are normal. so at those pressures they are already higher then desirable. And they don't state what the most desirable pressures are. Just lower then that.

 

[Ghoul]

You are wrong, the latest guidelines specify diastolic below 80, not 70. Reading the new blood pressure guidelines - Harvard Health

Also, there are no more recent guidelines on minimum DBP than the ones I have discussed.

View attachment 298582

New Blood Pressure Guidelines Lower Treatment Target

Simplified and more aggressive targets are among the significant changes to the updated hypertension guidelines by the European Society of Cardiology.

www.medscape.com

To be fair these are less than 2 months old, however the point about intervening as soon as pressure goes above 120/70, particularly for anyone with additional risk factors, means it likely applies to just about every AAS user. The other major change with these guidelines is the recognized benefit of starting BP meds earlier, as the evidence of health benefits by keeping BP down lower than previously thought ideal, and being in that low range longer, is overwhelming.

I heard this sentiment a few years ago, listening to a panel of leading cardiologists and epidemiologists almost raging at the low hanging fruit of keeping. BP down, and the myriad of benefits made absolutely clear, being ignored not just by patients. but primary care doctors too!

It's no exaggeration to say at this point, nearly every organ has better long term outcomes when as much time as possible is spent exposed to lower BP.

"What's the ideal for long term health then?" one panel member asked another at this conference.

"We should stop assigning a number to it and the guidance should be, essentially, as low as you can get it without falling over" was the half joking answer.

 

[MyNameIsJeff]

Ideal and normal are 2 different words with different meanings.at least in my dictionary.
And 70 is less then 80 last i checked. And as the chart you posted says less then 80 then............

Do you really believe that they mean to imply here that any number below 80 is just perfect? Of course there is a number below which the blood pressure is no longer classified as normal. They try to make the graph easy to understand.

That information is contained in additional recommendations by medical authorities. I have shared those and tried to explain them to you. But clearly there is no getting through to you, either due to your obstinance or a lack of intellectual capacity.

 

[Ghoul]

Just want to say what a pleasure it is to have a spirited conversation with an intelligent, intellectually honest group for a change. @buck @MyNameIsJeff

 

[MyNameIsJeff]

View attachment 298584

View attachment 298585

New Blood Pressure Guidelines Lower Treatment Target

Simplified and more aggressive targets are among the significant changes to the updated hypertension guidelines by the European Society of Cardiology.

www.medscape.com

To be fair these are less than 2 months old, however the point about intervening as soon as pressure goes above 120/70, particularly for anyone with additional risk factors, means it likely applies to just about every AAS user. The other major change with these guidelines is the recognized benefit of starting BP meds earlier, as the evidence of health benefits by keeping BP down lower than previously thought ideal, and being in that low range longer, is overwhelming.

I heard this sentiment a few years ago, listening to a panel of leading cardiologists and epidemiologists almost raging at the low hanging fruit of keeping. BP down, and the myriad of benefits made absolutely clear, being ignored not just by patients. but primary care doctors too!

It's no exaggeration to say at this point, nearly every organ has better long term outcomes when as much time as possible is spent exposed to lower BP.

"What's the ideal for long term health then?" one panel member asked another at this conference.

"We should stop assigning a number to it and the guidance should be, essentially, as low as you can get it without falling over" was the half joking answer.

Thanks for sharing, really fresh of the presses. Notably, it's from the European Society of Cardiology. The American guidelines still specify <80, which is also what I would go with based on the totality of the evidence. But I'm sure that even the wacky Euros would acknowledge that a diastolic that is too low (certainly <60) is harmful in most cases.

 

[buck]

Do you really believe that they mean to imply here that any number below 80 is just perfect? Of course there is a number below which the blood pressure is no longer classified as normal. They try to make the graph easy to understand.

That information is contained in additional recommendations by medical authorities. I have shared those and tried to explain them to you. But clearly there is no getting through to you, either due to your obstinance or a lack of intellectual capacity.

Of course not. That is why i stated as the start in general for those that have no symptoms lower is generally better. I did not say the lower the better. But thank goodness for your open mildness. But please continue as i support people having differences of opinion. And when it comes down to biology and human biology at that the rules change routinely and theories as to what is best last till the next round of knowledge comes around. And as i have seen BP and glucose levels revised downward on more then 1 occasion i don't take the lates medical recommendations as written in stone. It is a shame that they don't look at where people are that live the longest and go with that. Instead they have to prove what level causes disease. Then they lower recommendations when more data comes out.
Here is another study that shows SBP down to 110 has better out comes.

Systolic Blood Pressure and Survival to Very Old Age. Results from the Women’s Health Initiative

The association between systolic blood pressure (SBP) and longevity is not fully understood. We aimed to determine survival probabilities to age 90 for various SBP levels among women aged ≥ 65 years with or without BP medication.We analyzed blood ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Ghoul]

Of course not. That is why i stated as the start in general for those that have no symptoms lower is generally better. But thank goodness for your open mildness. But please continue as i support people having differences of opinion. And when it comes down to biology and human biology at that the rules change routinely and theories as to what is best last till the next round of knowledge comes around. And as i have seen BP and glucose levels revised downward on more then 1 occasion i don't take the lates medical recommendations as written in stone. Here is another study that shows SBP down to 110 has better out comes.

Systolic Blood Pressure and Survival to Very Old Age. Results from the Women’s Health Initiative

The association between systolic blood pressure (SBP) and longevity is not fully understood. We aimed to determine survival probabilities to age 90 for various SBP levels among women aged ≥ 65 years with or without BP medication.We analyzed blood ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Summed up in another discussion of cardiology researchers I heard recently:

"Is it ever too late? Does 'time in the ideal BP range' matter most?".

The answer was essentially:

Controlled BP any time you can achieve it will add lifespan. The longer it's controlled, the healthier that lifespan will be.

 

[buck]

Summed up in another discussion of cardiology researchers I heard recently:

"Is it ever too late? Does 'time in the ideal BP range' matter most?".

The answer was essentially:

Controlled BP any time you can achieve it will add lifespan. The longer it's controlled, the healthier that lifespan will be.

I think if BP and glucose levels are controlled early on preferably naturally we would have a far healthier population. seems those are maybe 2 of the biggest if not biggest things.

 

[Ghoul]

I think if BP and glucose levels are controlled early on preferably naturally we would have a far healthier population. seems those are maybe 2 of the biggest if not biggest things.

And the third leg of that longevity stool, keeping inflammation down.

Something GLPs seem to be providing systemically, using mechanisms we only have the most tenuous grasp on.

I believe within just a few years, a once annual or less "inoculation" of a GLP class med will become as common as smallpox vaccine, and we'll see the end of diabetes T2, and much of heart, liver, kidney diseases, most cancers, common neurodegenerative diseases, most addiction, and for the bros, banish the sight of fatties from the landscape, lol. All of these can largely be traced back to metabolic dysfunction as their root causes.

For instance, I had no idea until a couple of years ago that excess weight, and likely the inflammation arising from it, was the #2 cause of cancer after smoking.

They've got the tech for ultra slow release injectable encapsulations almost there at this point. A kind of "ultimate ester".

 

[buck]

And the third leg of that longevity stool, keeping inflammation down.

Something GLPs seem to be providing systemically, using mechanisms we only have the most tenuous grasp on.

I believe within just a few years, a once annual or less "inoculation" of a GLP class med will become as common as smallpox vaccine, and we'll see the end of diabetes T2, and much of heart, liver, kidney diseases, most cancers, common neurodegenerative diseases, most addiction, and for the bros, banish the sight of fatties from the landscape, lol. All of these can largely be traced back to metabolic dysfunction as their root causes.

For instance, I had no idea until a couple of years ago that excess weight, and likely the inflammation arising from it, was the #2 cause of cancer after smoking.

They've got the tech for ultra slow release injectable encapsulations almost there at this point. A kind of "ultimate ester".

People used to think and many still do , that fat is just this thing that hung on the body that stored fuel. In reality it seems to effect every system in the body and throws hormones out out of balance. For instance i know of many obese women that have difficult times getting pregnant. Yet healthy weight women get pregnant far easier in general.
As for GPLs they just help with people lack of control. Glucose and BP and inflammation, i find that getting them in line really doesn't require a science degree. There are countries like Japan that eat more sodium then the US and they don't eat whole grains. The same with other countries that are help up to be healthier. I find the reason they are healthier is that they are just far less over weight then those in the US. Weight seems to be the big issue and people want a chemical to deal with their lack of impulse control.