I went through a fair amount of work to get down to 130/80. I don't know what they expect out of me.

I am going to ignore.

It's been known for some time that elevated risk of CVD and stroke starts with a blood pressure over 115/75. This is changing the cut mark for when to treat. I would presume because of some major studies showing you lower CVD/stroke events if you achieve the lower blood pressures.

The relationship between stroke risk and bp is linear starting from blood pressures so low they might make you faint. For people with just high blood pressure and no previous cardiovascular event you have to treat about 120 people with a systolic blood pressure (the upper number) between 140-160 for 5 years to prevent one cardiovascular event (stroke or heart attack). http://www.aafp.org/...2010/0601/p1333.html

I would imagine you would have to treat upwards of 200 people if you put 130 as the cutoff. So it likely is quite reasonable to ignore this recommendation. Is there less risk being treated. Maybe, but so much less risk that it doesn't make much difference. Lots of upside for the drug companies though!

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Numbers to treat...seem to me to commonly make it sound like there is no point in taking a drug :)

Message AHA doctors/nurses giving is lifestyle modification, drinking, salt, lack of exercise, weight. Only if that doesn't work, maybe some intervention needed.

What isn't covered is "white coat" syndrome that affects many of us. Age - BP normally rises when older so is this advice modified for age?

You had me until salt. One of the biggest nutrition myths out there. Should be grouped with egg yolks are bad for you, red meat causes heart disease, and diet soda is a healthy option.

My understanding is that it depends. In many people it causes fluid retention and elevates BP and in others it doesn't. I've certainly seen heart failure patients who have decompensated and ended up in the hospital by going off their salt restricted diets.

Don't disagree with you. As with everything, it depends. I guess my point was most of the time salt is discussed it is a blanket statement that people eat way to much of it and that it is terrible for you. That's the myth.

In keepcycling's context, I don't think salt should be put in the same category as alcohol consumption, weight loss, lack of exercise. All things that are proven to apply to just about everyone.

IDK who the upside is for. I work for a pharmacetical company who, to reduce their health care costs, is moving more of the cost burden onto the employees (not really surprising), and tells us to seek generics over name brand to control our costs. Seems a weird move for a name brand company, and a bit at odds with a vision of coercing the masses to take expensive meds just because. (yeah, yeah, DTC marketing blah blah. yes, ask your Dr if Insert-Name-Here might be right for you!)

---

To breathe, to feel, to know I'm alive.

There's some evidence that isometric exercise can cause large drops in BP in some people due to adaptation to the transient increase in BP this induces. Of course, if you're exercising regularly you're already elevating your BP regularly so my guess would be it's less likely to work for you, but maybe.

Get a tennis ball, give the ball a good squeeze for about 30 secs, do that 3 or 4 times, several times per week.

BP meds are almost pennies a day, HCZT, ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers so the pharm's are doing it doesn't ring true

On a side note, the American Heart Association president had heart attack right after giving keynote speech to the AHA annual conference just few days ago, 52 years old. https://news.heart.org/...dition-heart-attack/