stopped cycle

Apparently they went off of what the medics said cuz at the hospital I was 80% better still shaky I just looked to see if I could find the papers to get my bpm I know it went retarded though cuz it was really fast not slow and from what I know having heart attack means you bpm are under 60 but I think not 100% sure my bpm were around 200
 
I was sent from the ED to the city cardio hospital and they let me go after all the testing said they don't see any strain on my heart and I'm hypertension but not bad enough for any medical attention for it
 
Apparently they went off of what the medics said cuz at the hospital I was 80% better still shaky I just looked to see if I could find the papers to get my bpm I know it went retarded though cuz it was really fast not slow and from what I know having heart attack means you bpm are under 60 but I think not 100% sure my bpm were around 200

What id BPM?
 
Apparently they went off of what the medics said cuz at the hospital I was 80% better still shaky I just looked to see if I could find the papers to get my bpm I know it went retarded though cuz it was really fast not slow and from what I know having heart attack means you bpm are under 60 but I think not 100% sure my bpm were around 200

So are you now saying YOU made the 'heart attack" diagnosis based on how fast OR slow your heart was going? I ask this question for several reason's but one in particular is just not consistent with current medical practice.

And that is discharging someone from the ED after they have had their first "heart attack", and that's particularly true for a 31 year old!

There are several reasons for this but suffice it to say we need to know WHY someone that young had an MI and institute measures to prevent it from occurring again.
 
Last edited:
So are you now saying YOU made the 'heart attack" diagnosis based on how fast OR slow your heart was going?
I'm saying the paramedic and hospital said I had a mild heart attack based on my vitals signs when they got to me and when I was admitted to the hospital which was high bp, high bpm, low oxygen level, uncontrolled shaking, and locked muscles. By the time I got to the hospital the nitro lowered everything but my bp that slowly decreased back to the level it has been the last few weeks still high but not as bad as Friday.
 
In the ambulance they gave me nitro, oxygen, and an IV with something to help vitals and saline so that made it so by the time I got to ED I was a lot better
 
I'm saying the paramedic and hospital said I had a mild heart attack based on my vials signs when they got to me and when I was admitted to the hospital which was high bp, high bpm, low oxygen level, uncontrolled shaking, and locked muscles. By the time I got to the hospital the nitro lowered everything but my bp that slowly decreased back to the level it has been the last few weeks still high but not as bad as Friday.

Nope it just doesn't work that way fella. VS can NOT be used to diagnose an MI PERIOD.

You need at least changes in "enzymes" an EKG or both to make such a diagnosis on an acute basis.

Nevertheless the notion you were just discharged from the hospital with a diagnosis of an MI and days later your asking about the very drugs that MAY have been part of the problem, tells me your priorities are ass-backwards.

Stop the cycling NOW, get your BP under control after contacting your PCO to review the hospital records, bc only then should you even consider a return to the gym, IMO
 
I stopped the cycle and sorry I don't know medical stuff I listen to what doctors tell me since it is their job if they hooked me up to shit and did a bunch of test and concluded I had a mild heart attack I'm going to listen to them I'm not planning on doing a cycle right now my original post was to see what would suit me best for the far future so I can do as much research as possible before I do decide to start again I'm actually pretty responsible and put my health diet and exercise before gear
 
Ok but when a patient is told they had a mild heart attack it's should be followed by WHAT EXACTLY THAT MEANS. And that's very important bc a little one can be a warning of the BIG ONE that is just around the corner.

Telling folk they had a "mild heart attack' often compels them to believe it's not such a big deal (which is why I avoid the term all together) when in fact it could be a VERY BIG DEAL!

Speak with your DOC and find out WHY you had a MI, and what needs to be done to prevent another from occurring.
 
Ok but when a patient is told they had a mild heart attack it's should be followed by WHAT EXACTLY THAT MEANS. And that's very important bc a little one can be a warning of the BIG ONE that is just around the corner.

Telling folk they had a "mild heart attack' often compels them to believe it's not such a big deal (which is why I avoid the term all together) when in fact it could be a VERY BIG DEAL!

Speak with your DOC and find out WHY you had a MI, and what needs to be done to prevent another from occurring.
I completely agree and like I said I don't understand a lot of what the cardio doctor said and when I asked for him to help me understand he talked to me like an idiot and said I'm fine just take it easy which just pisses me off but that's kinda what you get around here with speciality docs and ER docs so I'm going to follow up with my norm doc and have him check everything out and we have an online mychart thing to be able to look at records online so I'll do that as soon as I can. What your saying is true and very important but for someone that has never even been to the ER or had any problems like this it's hard to know and understand actually what happened and what went on when I pulled up my chart I'll post it on here and if you want you can take a look. You made a good point about them saying it was mild cause the way they put things if I wasn't smart enough or cared I would go right back to doing what I was doing since they made it sound like I was perfectly fine just had a little mishap
 
Back
Top