Hypertension Alternatives Archives

High Blood Pressure?

[ Hypertension Alternatives Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ]
   Search this site!
 
        

High Blood Pressure?

Posted by Michele [4954.6457] on August 27, 2009 at 21:23:24:

I have low blood pressure almost always. low to normal. Today at the
GYN they said it was 130/80 or 90 (forget bottom #) but right before
that I was talking about a recent very scary event that I am still
dealing with (long story but VERY stressful...stalking type thing and
how the police are now getting involved but can't do much until he
makes a move or threatens me that I can "prove".) ..
Anyway, I small talked about that (she kept asking) and I felt
anxious...they took it and that was my pressure. After my annual
check up I asked and it was 126/70 or something like that.... still
high for me but better....

Well? Do I need to be concerned?


Follow Ups:



Re: High Blood Pressure?

Posted by Jayne [10093.8061] on August 27, 2009 at 21:53:58:

In Reply to: High Blood Pressure? posted by Michele [4954.6457] on August 27, 2009 at 21:23:24:

I don't think that is low, Michele...........
a dear friend has low BP - under 100/70!!!!!!!!


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: High Blood Pressure?

Posted by lmd [11129.7683] on August 27, 2009 at 22:06:13:

In Reply to: Re: High Blood Pressure? posted by Jayne [10093.8061] on August 27, 2009 at 21:53:58:

Mine was checked by a doctor today as 140/50, then when repeated as 150/40. I guess it can change easily.


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: High Blood Pressure?

Posted by Dizzy Melissa [13590.7765] on August 28, 2009 at 00:15:24:

In Reply to: Re: High Blood Pressure? posted by lmd [11129.7683] on August 27, 2009 at 22:06:13:

My top # is always in the 120's ... lower 130's.

My doctor doesn't seem to be too concerned right now.


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: High Blood Pressure?

Posted by michele [4954.6457] on August 28, 2009 at 00:44:31:

In Reply to: Re: High Blood Pressure? posted by Dizzy Melissa [13590.7765] on August 28, 2009 at 00:15:24:

the LOWER in the 130's???




Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: High Blood Pressure?

Posted by Michele [4954.6457] on August 28, 2009 at 00:45:54:

In Reply to: Re: High Blood Pressure? posted by Jayne [10093.8061] on August 27, 2009 at 21:53:58:

I should state that I meant 117/120 over 70 is my norm.
I meant when she did it again, it was the 126#

I know I have a friend who is 107/67 often and she is constantly
dehydrated and has leg cramps. When she drinks water she is fine!


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: High Blood Pressure?

Posted by AB [6388.8028] on August 28, 2009 at 10:09:00:

In Reply to: High Blood Pressure? posted by Michele [4954.6457] on August 27, 2009 at 21:23:24:

Hi Michele,

My bp is always under 110/68 - sometimes as low as 97/60. He told me it's genetics - my mother had the same low bp all of her life.

My doc says "no problems - I would kill to have that bp".

So I don't worry.


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: High Blood Pressure?

Posted by Walt Stoll [93.7937] on August 28, 2009 at 10:10:07:

In Reply to: High Blood Pressure? posted by Michele [4954.6457] on August 27, 2009 at 21:23:24:

Michele,

NOT about your BP.

Walt


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Dr Stoll - Is this correct?

Posted by AB [6388.8028] on August 28, 2009 at 10:11:02:

In Reply to: High Blood Pressure? posted by Michele [4954.6457] on August 27, 2009 at 21:23:24:

Just wondering - a consultant told a friend of mine that the bottom number is the most important. Don't know why.


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: High Blood Pressure?

Posted by Eric d'cleric [3011.7869] on August 28, 2009 at 10:40:38:

In Reply to: Re: High Blood Pressure? posted by michele [4954.6457] on August 28, 2009 at 00:44:31:

I think the "..." indicates a range in this case for that number, not the
OTHER number.


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Nope *NM*

Posted by Lurch [140.8061] on August 28, 2009 at 10:56:36:

In Reply to: High Blood Pressure? posted by Michele [4954.6457] on August 27, 2009 at 21:23:24:

NM


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct?

Posted by AT [11797.4426] on August 28, 2009 at 11:32:05:

In Reply to: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? posted by AB [6388.8028] on August 28, 2009 at 10:11:02:

That's odd, my elderly MIL's lower number was very low, like 40, and the cardiologist she has gone to for years said he wasn't that concerned if it went to zero. She is on a beta blocker if that makes a difference.


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: High Blood Pressure?

Posted by Jayne [10093.8061] on August 28, 2009 at 12:35:36:

In Reply to: Re: High Blood Pressure? posted by AB [6388.8028] on August 28, 2009 at 10:09:00:

AB - do you drink much water??


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct?

Posted by Walt Stoll [93.7937] on August 28, 2009 at 13:44:21:

In Reply to: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? posted by AB [6388.8028] on August 28, 2009 at 10:11:02:

AB,

The bottom number IS the most important. The bottom number is what determines the long term damage that is occuring in the arterial walls and the top number is determined by how much damage there is already. This is a general rule.

Walt


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct?

Posted by Walt Stoll [93.7937] on August 28, 2009 at 13:55:15:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? posted by AT [11797.4426] on August 28, 2009 at 11:32:05:

Yeah, AT.

Her beta blocker does make a difference. If her doc is not concerned, neither would I be.

Walt


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct?

Posted by Sue [2694.7435] on August 28, 2009 at 14:29:51:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? posted by Walt Stoll [93.7937] on August 28, 2009 at 13:44:21:

an MD Major in the USAF told me the top number can be affected by having a large upper arm and that she wasn't concerned about the top number if the bottom number was good


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: High Blood Pressure?

Posted by Michele [4954.6457] on August 28, 2009 at 16:27:31:

In Reply to: Re: High Blood Pressure? posted by Walt Stoll [93.7937] on August 28, 2009 at 10:10:07:

Being stalked; by a psychotic from Philadelphia. I'm definitely stressed.
Police involved, etc. Not fun.


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct?

Posted by Walt Stoll [93.7937] on August 28, 2009 at 17:18:25:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? posted by Sue [2694.7435] on August 28, 2009 at 14:29:51:

Sue,

Absolutely true!

Walt


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct?

Posted by AT [11797.4426] on August 28, 2009 at 23:45:08:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? posted by Walt Stoll [93.7937] on August 28, 2009 at 13:44:21:

So why is it the "top" number that becomes the treatment issue (as in Over 130 or even 180)?


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct?

Posted by Walt Stoll [93.7937] on August 29, 2009 at 07:33:14:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? posted by AT [11797.4426] on August 28, 2009 at 23:45:08:

AT,

I believe it is because it is a lot more impressive to the patient. You know how we docs like to impress the patient!? Never stop learning. It is your only way to protect yourself from the allopathic monopoloy.

Walt


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct?

Posted by AT [11797.4426] on August 29, 2009 at 09:20:55:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? posted by Walt Stoll [93.7937] on August 29, 2009 at 07:33:14:

I'm not sure whether patients understand enough to be impressed but I feel "lied to". Not because of my blood pressure but two other peoples' that were troubling to me when I heard their blood pressure was in the 160 to 180 range for a long time. I don't even know what the lower number was. Neither one ever had strokes or heart attack so I guess I shouldn't have worried. Does that mean that blood pressure medication is for reduction of the lower number?


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: High Blood Pressure?

Posted by Ron [5412.1575] on August 29, 2009 at 09:24:00:

In Reply to: Re: High Blood Pressure? posted by michele [4954.6457] on August 28, 2009 at 00:44:31:

Hi Michele,

120/70
would be fine in a perfect world.
I can get to 134/ 80 if I am relaxed enough.

Maybe the 130 was a typo


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct?

Posted by Walt Stoll [93.7937] on August 29, 2009 at 10:14:58:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? posted by AT [11797.4426] on August 29, 2009 at 09:20:55:

AT,

Remember what I said about the meaning of the top number? Once the scarring is present (damage to the arterial wall) it is likeky to stay there. Only some of that damage can be reversed by controlling the BP.

Hope this makes sense to you.

Walt


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct?

Posted by maryb [11189.7997] on August 29, 2009 at 12:16:13:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? posted by Walt Stoll [93.7937] on August 28, 2009 at 17:18:25:

And I was told that the upper number is reflective of environmental influences (stressors) at the time of the measurement. Look at all the different interpretations!

When I had my colonoscopy 4 years ago, they put an automatic BP cuff on me that inflated & deflated at regular intervals, checking constantly. As I watched all the readings, I learned. The numbers changed every time. Because there was a wait for the doc to arrive, I had some time to experiment with this, by holding my breath, or panting a little, or meditating, or thinking of something scary, or pleasant, etc. And the results were predictable: much higher spikes in the numbers with the negative influences, and much lower with calming techniques.

mary


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct?

Posted by Walt Stoll [93.7902] on August 29, 2009 at 12:24:25:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? posted by maryb [11189.7997] on August 29, 2009 at 12:16:13:

Maryb,

Anything is possible. I am talking about functional anatomy. You personal experience is one person. Tell me when you have experienced at least 100,000.

Walt


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct?

Posted by maryb [11189.7997] on August 29, 2009 at 13:36:01:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? posted by Walt Stoll [93.7902] on August 29, 2009 at 12:24:25:

Walt, I'm not speaking with any authority, just sharing my own experience. I'm as confused as the next person about it. The thing that interests me about this is all the different explanations about the systolic reading. And that these explanations have been coming from trained medical people. Yours is the first I've heard that actually factors in anatomical changes, and seems both logical & credible.

thanks,
mary


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct?

Posted by AT [11797.4426] on August 29, 2009 at 14:01:53:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? posted by AT [11797.4426] on August 29, 2009 at 09:20:55:

I'll repeat: Does that mean that blood pressure medication is for reduction of the lower number?

If so, why does the upper number go down (with medication)? It shouldn't go down if it measures permanent damage, should it?

This is funny considering the prevalence of high blood pressure, that probably none of the patients understand this.

I can see why Eric d'Cleric is all mixed up about his!





Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct?

Posted by VF [12036.4528] on August 29, 2009 at 15:01:03:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? posted by Walt Stoll [93.7937] on August 29, 2009 at 07:33:14:

100 plus your age isn't good anymore??))


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct?

Posted by Walt Stoll [93.7902] on August 29, 2009 at 16:02:23:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? posted by maryb [11189.7997] on August 29, 2009 at 13:36:01:

Thanks, Maryb.

Keep looking. If you ever come up with a plausible explanation for the mechanism, that contradicts what they taught me in medical school--which I have never seen or contradicted in the past 45 years--I would be interested in hearing (or seeing any research) about it.

I am a "trained medical person". My medical school taught me what I know and I have never... As to your comments, what resources are you telling me that are not word of mouth? Really, I would be interested in knowing.

Walt


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct?

Posted by Walt Stoll [93.7902] on August 29, 2009 at 16:10:44:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? posted by AT [11797.4426] on August 29, 2009 at 14:01:53:

AT,

This principle has been archived under functional anatomy. The short explanation is: if any tissue is only sick unto death and not already dead, and the main causes are reversed, some of the tissue can recover. That tissue that is already dead is dead.

Hope this helps.

Walt


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct?

Posted by Sounder [9319.7683] on August 29, 2009 at 16:33:23:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? posted by Walt Stoll [93.7902] on August 29, 2009 at 16:02:23:

Link



Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct?

Posted by maryb [11189.7997] on August 29, 2009 at 18:41:14:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? posted by Walt Stoll [93.7902] on August 29, 2009 at 16:02:23:

That's my point, Walt...it's all word of mouth, from docs & nurses, those who are taking my BP at the time. Yours is the explanation that makes the most sense to me. Do you see how hard it is to trust the advice given by doctors, then, if it's so variable? I know it's ultimately up to me to read up & learn. I'm just reporting on what I've been told by professionals.

Going a bit further with this, about 10 years ago, when I was in my mid-40s, I went through a phase of extremely LOW blood pressure, 90/45, etc. I would feel faint whenever I arose from a seated position, and did faint in a grocery store after rising from squatting down to fetch a product from a low shelf.

At that time, I saw 3 different doctors: one primary care & two cardiologists. They each had different explanations & solutions. The primary care doc labeled me a "type A personality" (I'm not, but hey), and attributed my problem to psychological causes. He offered no remedy, just implied that I was doing this to myself. I wish I had a dime for every time I've been shamed by a doctor :(.

The next was an east Indian cardiologist, who claimed I had mitral valve prolapse (sigh), which was causing the low BP. At the time, I was into fitness in a big way & did a lot of weight training. This cardiologist forbade me from lifting any weights at all, and threw in that, as a woman, I "didn't need to". He was very disapproving of it...more shaming.

Then I went to another cardiologist, who said I had a blood sodium imbalance which was causing my blood pressure to drop, and suggested that I add a little sea salt to my diet. That helped a lot. It still didn't account for the imbalance, though.

None of these doctors ever thought to associate my problem with hormonal causes, despite the obvious fact that I was perimenopausal at the time. I had to learn the cause from OPRAH! It turns out she went through the same thing, went from doctor to doctor, test after test, til they discovered that her hormonal fluctuations were causing her BP to drop precipitously low. I still do not understand the relationship between hormones & blood sodium levels, but I know there is one.

At the time when all this was going on, I worked at a university, & at lunchtime I would go over to the health center & have them check my BP. There was a very kind nurse who said that this was probably a hormonal issue and would go away in time. She was correct. Once I got through that phase of the transition, my BP returned to normal. The only problem now is that I got kind of hooked on adding salt to my food (I never used to use salt before that), and had to work on weaning myself from it, which wasn't much fun.

I know, TMI. Just had to share this.

mary


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct?

Posted by AT [11797.4426] on August 29, 2009 at 19:50:14:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? posted by Sounder [9319.7683] on August 29, 2009 at 16:33:23:

Interesting, Sounder. I'm a little less fuzzy.
I wonder what the statistics are for stroke victims with 'low' blood pressure.


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct?

Posted by Sounder [9319.7683] on August 29, 2009 at 23:09:43:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? posted by AT [11797.4426] on August 29, 2009 at 19:50:14:

I don't know AT. It seems somewhat low is good but not toooo low.

see the link.



Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: High Blood Pressure?

Posted by Dizzy Melissa [13682.7765] on August 30, 2009 at 01:06:14:

In Reply to: Re: High Blood Pressure? posted by michele [4954.6457] on August 28, 2009 at 00:44:31:

LOL .. sorry about that .. I mean in the lower 130's ... 131 .. 132 .. 132 etc.

My top # in the lower 130's. :)

I never remember my bottom #.


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? Archive in hypertension.

Posted by Walt Stoll [93.7937] on August 30, 2009 at 07:46:38:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? posted by Sounder [9319.7683] on August 29, 2009 at 16:33:23:

Sounder,

All of this is true. What do you think it means? The systolic BP is determined upon how elastic the walls of the arteries still are (nearly all stiffness is due to long term damage to the elastic fibers--exactly what I have been trying to tell the BB). The diastolic BP is maintained by how much neurogenic tension remains in the arterial muscularis. In other words, the ongoing process of pathological tension.

Walt


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct?

Posted by Walt Stoll [93.7937] on August 30, 2009 at 07:51:28:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? posted by maryb [11189.7997] on August 29, 2009 at 18:41:14:

Thanks, Maryb.

I guess that is why they call it "medical practice"! Congratulations for finally finding your own expert and getting over it!

Walt


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Nope *NM*

Posted by Michele [4954.6457] on August 31, 2009 at 20:43:51:

In Reply to: Nope *NM* posted by Lurch [140.8061] on August 28, 2009 at 10:56:36:

Thanks!


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Nope *NM*

Posted by Lurch [140.8083] on September 01, 2009 at 11:46:25:

In Reply to: Re: Nope *NM* posted by Michele [4954.6457] on August 31, 2009 at 20:43:51:

I don't think you need to worry, as far as your BP is concerned.

Feel free to ask us about that predator though. We're glad to help you out with that if we can.




Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? Archive in hypertension.

Posted by Sounder [9319.7683] on September 10, 2009 at 00:22:06:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? Archive in hypertension. posted by Walt Stoll [93.7937] on August 30, 2009 at 07:46:38:

Hi Walt,

Still trying to get a handle on what you mean.

"The systolic BP is determined upon how elastic the walls of the arteries still are (nearly all stiffness is due to long term damage to the elastic fibers--exactly what I have been trying to tell the BB)."

I was at a store that had a BP machine so I tried to raise mine up a bit. Been under some tension lately, so it wasn't really a problem. Came in at 141. I then took a minute to relax and the next test came in at 132. A minute or two later it got down to 129. Is this consistent with what you've been saying? There was another poster who posted that his(?) systolic had dropped since practicing wellness.

From the article:

"In those over age 50, measuring systolic blood pressure better identifies people with high blood pressure and also those at increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease.

Systolic hypertension is the most common form of hypertension in people over age 50, with an estimated 15-20 million people in the United States alone. Still, as recently as 2001, according to a study published in the March 16, 2004 edition of Hypertension, a journal of the American Heart Association, it was the type of hypertension least likely to be well treated. Until recently, doctors were trained to monitor diastolic pressure more closely. It will take time for the new recommendations to become standard practice."




Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? Archive in hypertension.

Posted by Walt Stoll [93.7937] on September 10, 2009 at 10:49:23:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll - Is this correct? Archive in hypertension. posted by Sounder [9319.7683] on September 10, 2009 at 00:22:06:

Sounder,

Of course all blood pressures are a mixture of both elements. The vast mnajority of the mechanism in systolic BPs is the stiffness of the damaged arteries. The vast majority of the diastolic BP is the ongoing damage caused by the pathology.

Hope this helps.

Walt


Go to First Post in this Thread

Follow Ups:



[ Hypertension Alternatives Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ]
   Search this site!