Slashdot Mirror
46% of Americans Now Have High Blood Pressure (nbcnews.com)
"Millions more Americans will now be diagnosed with high blood pressure," reports NBC News, which describes the condition as "one of the leading killers around the world."
Anyone with blood pressure higher than 130/80 will be considered to have hypertension, or high blood pressure, the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology said in releasing their new joint guidelines. "It's very clear that lower is better," said Dr. Paul Whelton of Tulane University, who chaired the committee that wrote the guidelines... 130/80 to 139/89 is now considered Stage 1 hypertension and anything 140/90 or above will be considered stage 2 hypertension...
"Rather than one in three U.S. adults having high blood pressure (32 percent) with the previous definition, the new guidelines will result in nearly half of the U.S. adult population (46 percent) having high blood pressure, or hypertension," the groups said in a joint statement... While people may be confused by the change, the heart experts said three years of reviewing the research showed that many fewer people die if high blood pressure is treated earlier. "We are comfortable with the recommendations. They are based on strong evidence," Whelton said.
Slashdot reader 140Mandak262Jamuna blames the pharmaceutical lobby, arguing that "a few years down the line, we all will be taking blood pressure medications," though Dr. Robert Carey of the University of Virginia, who helped write the guidelines, claims there will only be a 1.9% increase.
The new guidelines recommend that everyone watch their diet and exercise, and that people with stage 1 hypertension should also first try eating less salt, more vegetables, fruits, and whole grains before taking blood pressure medications.
"Rather than one in three U.S. adults having high blood pressure (32 percent) with the previous definition, the new guidelines will result in nearly half of the U.S. adult population (46 percent) having high blood pressure, or hypertension," the groups said in a joint statement... While people may be confused by the change, the heart experts said three years of reviewing the research showed that many fewer people die if high blood pressure is treated earlier. "We are comfortable with the recommendations. They are based on strong evidence," Whelton said.
Slashdot reader 140Mandak262Jamuna blames the pharmaceutical lobby, arguing that "a few years down the line, we all will be taking blood pressure medications," though Dr. Robert Carey of the University of Virginia, who helped write the guidelines, claims there will only be a 1.9% increase.
The new guidelines recommend that everyone watch their diet and exercise, and that people with stage 1 hypertension should also first try eating less salt, more vegetables, fruits, and whole grains before taking blood pressure medications.
Let me fix that for you:
try eating less crap! try to find a less hostile working environment. and most important, don't take on debt.
Breath slow and deep. Learn how to work a defibrillator.
You're welcome
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Actually, it's okay. You're just so used to fat westerners, your perception has been warped.
https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2003nl/jul/030700puhowdoigainweight.htm
Sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but Big Pharma isn't getting rich on this one.
I've been taking Lisinopril for high blood pressure for a couple years now and a 90 day supply (1 x 20 mg tablet) costs me $3.00 with insurance. Without insurance it is about 3x-4x higher, from what I've seen.
At 1/3 of a penny per dose, *my cost*, that isn't exactly high profit margin. U.S. Patents expired in 2002, meaning right now it is one of the cheapest medications available. Over the counter aspirin costs more.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Correction: mild hypertension can *sometimes* be controlled by choice. You make is sound like taking medication is for the dumb and lazy.
Look at the studies for the affects of salt on blood pressure. Some people can drop their pressure 3 points with reduced salt - for others, it doesn't change anything. The latest studies actually say that there is *no* benefit to severe salt restriction!
If you're fat, losing weight is always a good idea. I'm not. I'm actually borderline clinically under-weight. Losing weight would probably kill me. Nothing to be done there.
Limiting caffeine intake is another oft recommended item. I don't drink pop, and have 1 cup of coffee a day. I'm not at risk there either.
And adding exercise - if you're not overweight, the measurable impact of blood pressure is again minimal.
I'm glad you could use lifestyle changes, but don't say that this works for everyone.
Depends on where the clams were harvested. In the US states regulate shellfishing; in my state (where the clams were harvested), shellfish beds are mapped and classified; some are entirely prohibited, others are entirely permitted, and some (where fecal-oral route pathogens in the water are a concern) require treatment in a depuration plant.
Small amounts of bioaccumulating toxins like metals aren't any reason to avoid an occasional shellfish feast here, although you might not want to eat them every day. I might avoid shellfish altogether when visiting China with its poor environmental practices and lax health regulation enforcement.
The biggest concern with occasional fried clam is exposure to rancid fat -- because that's something you can be continually exposed to in many places if you habitually eat fried food from not-very-good restaurants.
I have no problem with GMO grains, but I consume grains overall in moderation because they pack a large calorie wallop for their limited nutrient payload. That makes it hard to incorporate large amount of grain (GMO or not) into a calorie limited nutrient complete diet. As for health advice, I stick to information in peer-reviewed literature review papers in high impact factor journals, plus common sense.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Only a small percent of the people with high blood pressure actually benefit from salt reduction. In the median patient, reducing dietary salt intake does not improve health outcomes .
This is well known, though cue 5 people claiming to be RNs to respond claiming I'm murdering people by encouraging you to look up the actual risks of salt and high blood pressure and to ask the question, "Does it say salt is bad for everybody, or only for a minority of patients?"
Yor any other bottom feeders. These concentrate the toxins in the environment and are horribly bad for you.
This is the same moronic bullshit that uneducated fisherman think up. What part of the food chain concentrates toxins? Is it "bottom-feeders?" Is it known to science?! Is it a mystery where we can just make up any random answer and it might be true? No. No, no, no, no, and no.
Predators are the animals that concentrate toxins. Bottom feeders only concentrate toxins in very narrow conditions, for example in a bay with large amounts of water pollution. Predators concentrate all of the environmental toxins, including ones from bottom feeders!
So you have some idiot fisherman accusing carp of concentrating toxins, but carp eat mostly plants and insects and are very low on the food chain; they only concentrate a little bit of toxins, mostly because of their long lifespan. A trout, that eats mostly meat, is concentrating way more toxins than a carp!
This is why fish like Red Snapper, which are bottom feeders, have less toxins than Tuna; they're both carnivores, but tuna are higher on the food chain; more of their prey are also themselves predators, whereas most of the prey of a Snapper are small herbivores.
Most bottom feeders are omnivores, they are not very high on the food chain.