New Hypertension guidelines

Share
Embed
  • Published on Dec 14, 2017
  • www.functionalwellnessacademy.com Dr. Patrick Krupka, DC, CFMP talks about the new guidelines for diagnosing and treating high blood pressure, or hypertension in the United States. He shares his functional medicine / functional wellness approach to patient health and wellness as it relates to hypertension, nutrition, and functional medicine. The article being discussed is from CNN: www.cnn.com/2017/11/13/health/new-blood-pressure-guidelines/index.html
  • Howto & StyleHowto & Style

Comments • 11

  • Paranthropus Robustus

    Well said. This is another example of disease creep and over-diagnosis of for the most-part, "well" people who don't need medication.Normal being called abnormal for profiteers in the pharmaceutical industry. The American Heart Association (whose sponsors are Merck, Pfizer, and all the big drug Lords) now considers a diastolic of "80" and over, to be hypertension, and they now list "120/80" as Stage 1 Hypertension on their interactive webpage - 120/80! which was for a century the golden standard vital sign of vascular health. So even the text book healthy blood pressure is the new diseased state. The American Academy of Family Physicians, the Cochrane Institute, and a number of independent groups have decided to not Endorse these new Guidelines, as they may endanger the health of elder patients, and over-medicate healthy people.
    Looking at a hundred years of medical standards, of insurable persons in USA and Europe from 1910 to 2014, a range of 100 to 140 systolic, and 60 to 90 diastolic was always the normative bell curve, taking into account age and gender. even the World Health Organization in the 1970's considered values below 100/60 (even

    • Paranthropus Robustus
      Paranthropus Robustus Year ago +1

      That's true. Perhaps a more optimistic outlook is warranted with the internet etc., growing knowledge of GMO, healthy eating practices...if these trends grow beyond just 15 or 20% of consumers, and spread to a majority of the populace, (ideas can spread fast) we could see some real gains. I guess I shouldn't under-estimate these sorts of awakenings, in an age of internet and real time information , we may see quicker results than the decades it took for Tobacco and other carcinogens to be realized. I guess I shouldnt be so nihilistic, we are far more informed as persons, than say 25, 30, or 50 yrs ago. And information and awareness is spreading at exponential rates. Very good points.

    • Joseph1NJ
      Joseph1NJ Year ago +1

      All true, but on the optimistic side, there is a growing movement towards healthier eating habits, and industry has no choice but to respond to consumer demands, albeit not quickly enough. The supermarkets are quickly responding with more organic, less processed, less added sugar foods, and finally trans fats have been outlawed. Vegan advocates are growing, non GMO, and paleo, these are all people taking responsibility for their daily consumption choices.
      The growing obesity/diabetes epidemic is global, not just the US. Our western junk food love has spread like the plague. Sure, government has a responsibility to educate, but so do parents, as well as our school systems, and that's slowly happening. There's no shortage of information today.

    • Paranthropus Robustus
      Paranthropus Robustus Year ago

      Yes, exactly its about responsibility. I even experimented with coffee, vs. no coffee days, and I;d say I saw a difference in my systolic blood pressure of possibly as much as 5 -7 points. I could be close to 130 over 80 if I jack myself up on coffee. of course, the AHA protocol says no coffee within 1/2 hour of taking blood pressure LOL.,and to wait five minutes, and have no one present in the room. That's like never done in clinical setting. But yes, sitting for five minutes zero caffaine and not eating junk food for a week, and moderately walking, I think I averaged like 118/77 in left arm, 123/77 right arm. ..darned right arm is a wee high...as dominant arms tend. Gee I better go load up on pills! hahaha No but just experimenting with eating food and cutting coffee consumption down to 1 cup a day, and other horrible substances the body doesnt need, i can see differences. SO bet many many people can. Cholesterol I agree is more a symptom, than causative. THe crap foods Americans consume, in massively processed forms, I believe are the leading causes, in addition to the obvious baddies like Alcohol, smoking , and I'd add coffee/caffein and process sugars as well. Americans and western food based cultures would do well to obtain a more hunter-gatherer physiology, I think its a noble goal, and would probably prevent a massive amount of the disease we see. But society isnt going to change from industry down, it has to be from the people - the base. I see two major phenomena occuring, the lowering of thresholds of what a diseased state is, to increase pharma revenue, and the genuine massive increases of real diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular related diseases. what americans gained like 30 pounds since the 1960's or something, man for man. The food culture has to change. Sadly I just see Industry written all over our society now, being sick is being a good citizen now, cuz its supporting this massive medical ponsi scheme. All in all a bad joke.

    • Joseph1NJ
      Joseph1NJ Year ago +1

      Well said. The other problem with medicating too early, is it gives people the green light to continue what they're doing, taking no personal responsibility and no active measures to improve their health or help prevent disease. Have high cholesterol? Take a statin and remain a couch potato eating pizza and cheese balls all day. BP going up? There's a pill, no need to exercise, eat better, get more rest, cut down on caffeine, processed foods, sodium, etc. Fasting glucose over 100? Ah, soon you'll probably be diabetic, and we have a pill for that too.
      I think the point of setting lower warning levels should be to encourage people to make sustainable lifestyle adjustments before disease sets in. We do have choices. Most people with a BP of 128/88 will leave the MDs office and never give it a second thought because they are never advised of it. Now, your care provider will have to say you are prehypertensive. What we do after that is up to us.

  • Tonya Knox
    Tonya Knox Year ago +1

    THEY changed guidelines I think so they can put more people on blood pressure medications we have right to refuse anyways thanks for info

    • Paranthropus Robustus
      Paranthropus Robustus Year ago

      Agreed on all your points. Well said.

    • Joseph1NJ
      Joseph1NJ Year ago +1

      Well, it does take some attention to keep it there. My point of course is education. Few realize how much control they can have with some effort, continuing education, and trial and adjustment. I once had a cholesterol of 250 / LDL 130. Now its in the 140's, LDL high 60's. I view cholesterol as symptom, not a disease. And while I accept there are those for whom no matter what they do, it may still be high, its really remarkable and quite encouraging what we can do with only modest and consistent adjustments. BTW, I'm an omnivore, not vegan or vegetarian.
      Certainly it's our responsibility to manage our health as best we can, but our medical care industry, and dare I say it, government, has an obligation to educate I believe. I never see any literature in any care provider's office on the subject, other than the usual big pharma pamphlets. While I don't advocate "nanny state" laws against certain foods, shouldn't the public be reminded on a regular basis that those 350mg caffeine energy drinks may not be so great for your health? Or how about that "healthy" can of vegetable soup with a whopping 850 mg of sodium per serving?
      And there's stress. There are entire libraries written on the subject. In the 21st century we know pretty much most of the deleterious physiological effects chronic low level stress has on our health, and there dozens of techniques to mitigate it. Yet nearly everyone around me simply accepts that's its just part of life, and there's nothing that can be done about it. I do not accept that. There's plenty we can do about it. We can't eliminate it, but we can compensate for it.
      Oh well, sorry for the loquacious reply. Good health to all of you.

    • Paranthropus Robustus
      Paranthropus Robustus Year ago

      110 over 70 is what highly trained endurance athletes tend to have. COngrats. 127 over 78 is the global average for men, and 122 over 74 for women, in their thirties. There are only a handful of countries that have sub 120 systolic averages for the male population, and up till age 50 to 60, men tend to have 5 to 8 points higher than women, systolic and diastolic - even in hunter gatherer populations. Looking at data from 100 years ago, men had about the same blood pressure as today. war recruits averaged 120 to 130, over 70 to 80's. Doctors even then noted that men with large muscles, tended to have higher readings by several points on the dominant arm due to higher arterial pressure, but higher pressure in general to those who were not large and muscular. I'm guessing improper cuff size was to blame.

    • Joseph1NJ
      Joseph1NJ Year ago +1

      There is a difference between "normal" and "optimal", too bad healthcare providers don't explain this. Certainly the incentive for big pharma to medicate for life is there, but most of us do have a great deal of control over our health. If I knew my BP was 120/80, I'd say, OK, that's fine, but not optimal, I can do better. 130/90, time to immediately make some active lifestyle changes (diet, exercise, better rest, stress management, sodium reduction, eating more potassium rich whole foods, etc). My goal would be to get it to 110/70, which is where it's been for many years after getting a 130/90, and paying attention to the above mentioned lifestyle changes.

    • Paranthropus Robustus
      Paranthropus Robustus Year ago

      Yes, because normal is that ever shrinking range..abnormal is that growing range $$.., they have the power to re-shuffle the deck when too many healthy people are walking around, they can re-define normal. They for one, are confusing "normal" with "ideal". Because the vast majority of humans, the "normative" curve, average 120 to 135 systolic, over 70 to 80 diastolic. therefore, 130/80 is actually, statistically, more "normal" than 105/69 like their silly new "Ideal" middle range would be. I think even like ten year old children don't have Blood pressures that good!