: High Blood Pressure.



Spyder
02-18-08, 12:44 AM
So...On Monday I've got a physical and drug test for a probable new job. One of the things I have to do on the physical is have blood pressure lower than 140/90. My 25 year old semi-active but horrible diet ass has been hovering right around there for the last two weeks I've been checking it to see if I'm going to pass.

Question is...what are some recommendations to lower it short-term, before the test. I'm thinking huge diet change for the week. Way less sodium, very little red meat, bacon, greasy food or sugary food. Lots more veggies.

Will a big increase in exercise help me by Monday, hurt because I'm out of shape or not make a difference?

Long term plans are a definite diet change and more jogging/biking because I've been wanting to for a while and this is a good reason to kick my rear into gear, but I need to pass this test to get the job and I'm worried about the fact that its only a week away.

Aspirin an hour before to thin the blood...good idea, bad idea?

SvB4EvA
02-18-08, 12:51 AM
make sure you rub one out before you go in for it.

dkozloski
02-18-08, 01:23 AM
Avoid sodium altogether. It's so hard to do that the best you do is barely adequate.

Spyder
02-18-08, 01:52 AM
Goddamn, I love salt though...that'll be tougher to dump than beer!

dkozloski
02-18-08, 03:20 AM
45 minutes to an hour of hard walking a day helps also. I'm 68 years old and my BP is 112/65. What the hell have you been doing with your life?

xshrpshtr
02-18-08, 04:55 AM
^^^he has sex with polar bears to keep fit...the rest of us are mere mortals.

illumina
02-18-08, 01:59 PM
What kind of job requires you to have a specific blood pressure??

AMGoff
02-18-08, 02:58 PM
Ahh.... well here's a subject I can actually be of some help, thanks to one of my useless degrees I've never really done anything with!

Exercise will help over the long run but won't make that drastic of an effect in one week's time... I'd definitely start now though and make sure you do so the day before for the sake of working out any stress - it'll be good for a couple of points at least.

Stress is a biggie... if you're worried about it, your BP will definitely be up when you're in the doctor's office... you need to make sure you're as calm as possible.

Diet is another biggie... basically, for the next week at least, if it tastes good - don't eat it! Salt is definitely a no-no, as are heavy fats and excessive carbohydrates - especially sugars and alcohol. Your body needs to cleanse and heal itself... your biggest friends for the next week should be high-quality protein, fiber, and vitamins. Soy is an excellent choice... I won't get into all of the boring details of it, but go to the supermarket or Walmart and pick up a canister of soy powder - you can use it in a variety of ways, but the easiest is just to make shakes from it. A scoop of the powder, some low or non-fat milk, and a banana will make for an excellent breakfast/lunch. As far as the fiber goes - you can't go wrong with oatmeal... but any green veggies will do the trick as well.

It's all about calorie restriction!

Also, get yourself a good, broad-spectrum multi-vitamin, as well as an extra B-complex to go along with it.

Another thing I would wholeheartedly recommend is green tea... again, I won't go into all of the boring details... but it's a miraculous substance. Not only are it's polyphenols a friend for your cardiovascular system but it also works on your serotonin levels, which in turn also helps with stress. DON'T buy it from the store.... make it yourself. DON'T load it up with sugar either. I make green iced tea from it all the time... I'll put about a quarter cup of sugar to the gallon.

Also, for now at least... if your body is accustomed to stimulants - caffeine, nicotine, meth(lol!), etc... don't go giving it up right now ... at this point, they do more to calm you down than anything else.

Anyway... for such a short amount of time, it's really a crap shoot, but it's always better to start now than later.

If you have any other questions, on the nutrition side at least, don't hesitate to send me a pm!

Good luck! :thumbsup:

Rolex
02-18-08, 03:23 PM
See the DASH diet for lowering blood pressure.

http://altmedicine.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=altmedicine&cdn=health&tm=36&f=20&su=p284.9.336.ip_p674.5.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/hbp/dash/

Cessation of alcohol and tobacco use will make a BIG difference short term. I say completely cut out all caffiene intake and drink H2O exclusively. If you take in a hearty enough dose of caffiene and nicotine every day that alone will give you high blood pressure. Also try taking in some potassium rich foods. Potassium and sodium balance each other within the body. If you increase your potassium intake it may help decrease your sodium levels if they're too high. You should be careful here and a guy your age should avoid taking a potassium supplement IMO. Too much potassium is NOT a good thing. A couple of bananas a day would do you fine.

Physical activity is a biggie, but I agree will do nothing short term. Longer term being in good cardiovascular condition will keep your resting heart rate and blood pressure lower.

Herbal stress relievers may help with white coat syndrome. You could try chamomile tea and/or valerian to act as a (very mild) sedative before having your blood pressure and heart rate measured. Try taking these supplements ahead of time to see what effect, if any, they have on your BP.

The herb hawthorn is often used by traditional herbal practitioners for high blood pressure. I read a study from the UK not long ago that found a significant drop in blood pressure on patients treated with 1600 mg (I think) of Hawthorne, but they were treated over a period of 16 weeks. Taking a daily garlic supplement for a week may also have a mild effect on your pressure.

Herbals aren't FDA approved on monitored but there's some real science there. Trouble is they have real side effects like any other drugs, so proceed with caution.

JC316
02-18-08, 05:40 PM
Be sure to take some Ginko Biloba before going, it will thin the blood, thus reducing pressure.

theloanman219
02-18-08, 06:02 PM
Sounds to me that you should be doing this for a life change and not for a job. I agree on the rubbing one out, But that should be done daily. So what kind of HOB is it?

SvB4EvA
02-18-08, 06:24 PM
Sounds to me that you should be doing this for a life change and not for a job. I agree on the rubbing one out, But that should be done daily. So what kind of HOB is it?

:highfive: haha

mtflight
02-18-08, 06:33 PM
So...On Monday I've got a physical and drug test for a probable new job. One of the things I have to do on the physical is have blood pressure lower than 140/90. My 25 year old semi-active but horrible diet ass has been hovering right around there for the last two weeks I've been checking it to see if I'm going to pass.

Question is...what are some recommendations to lower it short-term, before the test. I'm thinking huge diet change for the week. Way less sodium, very little red meat, bacon, greasy food or sugary food. Lots more veggies.

Will a big increase in exercise help me by Monday, hurt because I'm out of shape or not make a difference?

Long term plans are a definite diet change and more jogging/biking because I've been wanting to for a while and this is a good reason to kick my rear into gear, but I need to pass this test to get the job and I'm worried about the fact that its only a week away.

Aspirin an hour before to thin the blood...good idea, bad idea?

The best thing you can do to lower your blood pressure is cut back on carbohydrates (Starches and sugars --yes including whole grains, juice and fruit and potatoes, rice, bread, tortillas, etc) dramatically. you can keep eating eggs, beef, chicken, fish, etc.

What will happen? your serum insulin levels will go down, and your kidneys will stop retaining sodium. Salt intake will not matter at that point, seriously. High insulin levels may be responsible for heart disease, as they also harden the arteries (causing for a higher resting blood pressure).


Also when u stop consuming those types of carbohydrates (you can still eat broccoli, spinach, cauliflower, green beans, lettuce, etc), your body will suddenly have lower blood sugar, so it will break into your glycogen (stored carbohydrate) stores located in both the liver and the muscle tissue. I forgot the ratio, but it is something like 3 or 4:1 of water to glycogen.

What does that mean? once you let go of your glycogen stores, you will lose water right with it, which will drop your blood pressure pretty dramatically.

If you're 140/90 you may end up at 120/75 for example. You will want to stay hydrated because once the kidneys stop clinging to sodium, you will pee it out along with potassium (Morton's Lite Salt, in heavy moderation would be useful to restore this electrolyte imbalance)

What are your numbers? One is systolic and the other is diastolic--one is max pressure when the heart pumps and the other is "resting" pressure. Resting pressure is really the biggie, because it means your blood is pushing your arteries out constantly, making your heart work too hard.

DO NOT exercise on the day of your test, as exercise typically raises blood pressure quite significantly.

Aspirin to thin blood? Why? Unless you want to take the 80mg pill which does reduce platelet aggregation (blood clot potential). The effect lasts all day.. no need to take it before the test (however, I doubt they check blood clotting factors). They will brobably do a metabolic panel, and CBC. The first measures your liver function ALT/ALP/AST, your kidneys: Albumin, protein, etc, and the CBC is a complete blood panel with counts on red blood cells, white blood cells, etc etc. You cannot change those outcomes in such little time.

They may also do a lipid panel, which is total cholesterol, HDL, calculated LDL, and triglycerides.

The only value you could change, is to lower your triglycerides substantially by doing the above eating style. It takes about two weeks to reduce triglycerides to below 100.



If you think this is unhealthy--well that's how we survived for thousands upon thousands of years. Watch this clip:

v8WA5wcaHp4


And if you want to see how the government started pushing the current dietary recommendations:

xbFQc2kxm9c


Sad state of affairs/health.

Raise any questions, I have references. Good luck!

mtflight
02-18-08, 07:05 PM
Avoid sodium altogether. It's so hard to do that the best you do is barely adequate.

Sodium is so overrated in it's ability to raise blood pressure. Yes for those hypertensives [shall we call then hyperinsulinemics?] any little bit of reduction counts--but it's not going to make a difference.

"TOUCHSTONES OF THE SALT DEBATE

Dahl et al., 1972. Clinical, ecological, and rat studies supporting salt-blood pressure link.
Gleibermann et al., 1973. Review of 27 ecologic studies suggests a direct linear relationship between salt and blood pressure.
Cooper et al., 1979. Intrapopulation study of several hundred schoolchildren suggests "not wholly negative" relationship between salt and blood pressure.
McCarron et al., 1984. Analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database suggests that salt is harmless and that calcium and potassium protect against hypertension.
Smith et al., 1988 (Scottish Heart Health Study). Study of 7300 Scottish men finds no relationship between salt intake and blood pressure.
Intersalt, 1988. Study of 52 200-person populations shows weak or no relationship between salt and blood pressure but infers a relationship between salt and the rise in blood pressure with age.
Intersalt Revisited, 1996. Statistical reanalysis of the original Intersalt data now finds strong, consistent positive association between salt and blood pressure.
Cutler et al., 1991. Meta-analysis of 27 clinical trials finds that salt reduction lowers blood pressure in both hypertensives and normotensives.
Law et al., 1991. Review of 24 ecologic studies, 14 intrapopulation studies, and 78 clinical trials finds that salt-blood pressure link is "substantially larger" than generally appreciated and increases with age.
Midgley et al., 1996. Meta-analysis of 56 clinical trials concludes that benefit from salt reduction is small and does not support current dietary recommendations.
Cutler et al., 1997. Meta-analysis of 32 clinical trials concludes that benefit of salt reduction is larger and does support current dietary recommendations.
Trials of Hypertension Prevention Collaborative Research Group, 1997 (TOHP II). Clinical trial in 2400 subjects indicates that long-term reductions in salt intake are hard to maintain and result in little or no reduction in blood pressure.
Appel et al., 1997 (DASH). Clinical trial of 459 people shows that dietary factors other than sodium have a much greater effect on blood pressure.
Graudal et al., 1998. Meta-analysis of 114 clinical trials does not support a general recommendation to reduce salt intake."

The above were excerpted from one of the best, most well-research articles on Sodium and the politics behind it. Written by three time winner of the National Association of Science Writers Science in Society Journalism Award, Gary Taubes
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/281/5379/898?ijkey=c92629b2fdbfceb104812f52c8e065eb1088992a&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

mikes98sts
02-18-08, 07:05 PM
Ok guys I have a question for you. What should my bp be? Heres an average day for me....2 32 oz amp energy drinks, 15-25 smokes a day and probably close to 6-8 sodas a day. As for what I eat anything they sell from a convience store. I just did an annual physical last month and i can prove what i will state after a few guesses.

Thanks mike

JC316
02-18-08, 07:28 PM
Ok guys I have a question for you. What should my bp be? Heres an average day for me....2 32 oz amp energy drinks, 15-25 smokes a day and probably close to 6-8 sodas a day. As for what I eat anything they sell from a convience store. I just did an annual physical last month and i can prove what i will state after a few guesses.

Thanks mike

Your BP is probably pretty low for now, but later on is when it will get you. Probably 120/70?

I eat better than most people, I rarely have a soda, I play tournament tennis, and I exercise frequently. My BP hovers around 120/70 most of the time.

mikes98sts
02-18-08, 07:55 PM
Your BP is probably pretty low for now, but later on is when it will get you. Probably 120/70?

I eat better than most people, I rarely have a soda, I play tournament tennis, and I exercise frequently. My BP hovers around 120/70 most of the time.

Damn you nailed it! I am working on changing the lifestyle and habits i have.

mtflight
02-18-08, 09:08 PM
Mine usually hovers around 110/68. Remember that smoking hardens the arteries (so does insulin), and if the arteries can't expand to make room for changes in blood volume, pressure can only go up.

So just expanding on my earlier chapter (lol), how does one know they have too much insulin? Look aound your waist. Waist to hip ratio. Manboobs? That too. Insulin makes it difficult to lose weight.

If you have high blood pressure, yet you're skinny... then you have a major problem. What problem? It's called Lp(a) (pronounced, L P, little A). It is a lipoprotein (lipid bonded to a protein) that manifests itself by way of a heart attack. Usually carriers of this trait, tend to have relatives (father, grandfather, uncles) who died young of a heart attack (50s, 40s, 30s). Sometimes their cholesterol is normal (it's normal in at least half the heart attacks--wow right?). not to worry, you can lower its levels... usually with niacin therapy with the supervision of your physician.

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/search/label/Lipoprotein%28a%29

Add high triglycerides (Caused by high CHOs), low HDL-cholesterol (low fat diet or high insulin levels), small LDL-particles (wheat consumption and typically low fat diets), and throw in some elevated Lp(a) and you go bye-bye early. :(

EcSTSatic
02-18-08, 09:13 PM
Ok guys I have a question for you. What should my bp be? Heres an average day for me....2 32 oz amp energy drinks, 15-25 smokes a day and probably close to 6-8 sodas a day. As for what I eat anything they sell from a convience store. I just did an annual physical last month and i can prove what i will state after a few guesses.

Thanks mike

Mike,
If your doc is saying "do whatever you're doing" he's not helping you. It will catch up and the older you get the harder habits are to break.

mikes98sts
02-18-08, 09:59 PM
nope doc wasnt happy at all. the reason im am changing the lifestyle is i would like to see my daughters make it thru college.

dkozloski
02-18-08, 10:24 PM
Current dogma is that your blood pressure can hardly be too low. If you don't keel over when you stand up it's okay.

mtflight
02-18-08, 10:30 PM
Current dogma is that your blood pressure can hardly be too low. If you don't keel over when you stand up it's okay.


Agreed koz. My point was that dietary sodium is NOT what makes it high (other than by a handful of points). The problem is insulin and/or Lp(a) and/or smoking. With high insulin levels, the kidneys retain excess sodium, and the insulin (being a growth hormone) causes the inside of the smooth cells in the endothelium to overgrow, as well as harden.

Hypertension is absolutely horrifying in terms of its consequential damages. It will literally destroy the kidneys. Guys: unless you think dialysis is a good way to meet people, get your blood pressure under control. Hypertension also causes left ventricle defects in one's heart, among other things. If you have high blood pressure, don't just take a pill. Find out what is making it hard (tip: see above).


I'm 68 years old and my BP is 112/65.


Let me guess that you are a non-smoker, happy, in good physical shape (no beer/wheat belly), not a sugar or carb junkie. No diabetes. Right? I can assume parents did not die of massive myocardial infarctions at young age? (therefore no Lp(a)).

Guys, dkoz is the type of fella that will outlive most of us.... he'll be fartin' around on the forum for another 40 years, talking about complex systems in aircraft engines of the day. A walking encyclopedia....

The inuit, on their native high-fat/low vegetable and fruit diet, no grains or starches, had practically perfect health (no diabetes, no heart disease, no cancer). That of course, until they started getting canned goods, coca-cola, bread, corn, wheat products, krispy Kremes, mcDonalds etc. lol.

Rolex
02-18-08, 10:56 PM
Be sure to take some Ginko Biloba before going, it will thin the blood, thus reducing pressure.

I have systemically anticoagulated patients during the course of an anesthetic with a negligible change in blood pressure (from the anticoagulant). I have my doubts that a dose of ginko will make any significant difference. YMMV

AMGoff
02-19-08, 01:47 AM
Sodium isn't a problem in and of itself... just like anything else, excessive sodium is. When it comes to dietary habits, moderation is the key across the board. However, very few people take that to heart... it's usually way too much of some things and no where near enough of others.

Contrary to popular belief... it's extremely easy to eat a well balanced diet. It's only a matter of realizing you actually have to put a tiny bit of effort into recognizing what you actually put in your body. When it comes down to it, your body needs three basic sources of calories - carbs, protein, and fat... and as a general rule, they should be broken down to 60/25/15... although your individual mileage may vary.

That's why I loathe the thought of nonsense like the "atkins" diet... it's hogwash. Complex carbohydrates are your body's preferred source of fuel, it's that simple. You can't just up and decide to arbitrarily cut something out of your diet. There are good carbs and there are bad carbs... just like there are good fats and there are bad fats. It's just a matter of educating yourself as to which is which and then applying that knowledge to your eating habits.

Moderation is the biggest key and that only comes from a varied, well-balanced diet... once that's accomplished, it's only a matter of a conscious calorie reduction.

mtflight
02-19-08, 12:01 PM
I'm not here to argue, but rather to expose the other side of the issue, that most of us may not be aware of. I am referring to a of better understanding of the science involved.


Sodium isn't a problem in and of itself... just like anything else, excessive sodium is.

Exactly what is excessive, and according to who, and how did they reach that determination? Did you happen to read the well researched article from Science?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/281/5379/898?ijkey=c92629b2fdbfceb104812f52c8e065eb1088992a&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Or do u have a better one that we should read (with good references that we can look up)? I think we need to understand the facts and not take someone's word for it (or some organization's).


When it comes to dietary habits, moderation is the key across the board. However, very few people take that to heart... it's usually way too much of some things and no where near enough of others.

Moderation is a very vague word. What is it and who determines what it is? Do we go by the current consensus?



Contrary to popular belief... it's extremely easy to eat a well balanced diet. It's only a matter of realizing you actually have to put a tiny bit of effort into recognizing what you actually put in your body. When it comes down to it, your body needs three basic sources of calories - carbs, protein, and fat... and as a general rule, they should be broken down to 60/25/15... although your individual mileage may vary.

Yes we know what the nirvana of today's nutritionist is: whole grains, fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, and few meats (especially red meat). What is very questionable is how they came up with that formula. It happens to be very similar to the diet in ancient Egypt.

They followed such a diet, because that's all there was to eat. They had honey (in limited amounts), but no sugar. The staple was coarse stone ground whole wheat. The Nile provided a rich soil to grow all kinds of fruits and vegetables. Nothing artificial, no sodas, no preservatives, etc.

So did the Egyptians enjoy abundant health? Absolutely NOT. Their health was pretty miserable. Heart disease, high blood pressure, obesity--everything bad that we have today. I'm not making anything up. Check out this NY Times article on the CT scans of Queen Hatshepsut, a diabetic with bone cancer, from 3500 years ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/world/middleeast/27mummy.html

Interestingly, most mummies are one in the same (teeth are all jacked, and they have excess skin folds). If you look at the remains of Paleolithic man, who consumed a meat-based diet--you find nearly perfect teeth, and bones! Bad teeth are akin to CHO consumption. Brittle bones are too. Neolithic man shrunk in size by over a half foot (we are just barely regaining our stature today).



That's why I loathe the thought of nonsense like the "atkins" diet... it's hogwash. Complex carbohydrates are your body's preferred source of fuel, it's that simple. You can't just up and decide to arbitrarily cut something out of your diet. There are good carbs and there are bad carbs... just like there are good fats and there are bad fats. It's just a matter of educating yourself as to which is which and then applying that knowledge to your eating habits.


I know we hear this constantly: "carbohydrates are the body's preferred source of fuel." Not quite true. Our genes are virtually indistinguishable from Paleolithic man (before agriculture). The only thing that has changed is "gene expression."
If you had a time machine you could bring one of these "cavemen" babies and raise it to be an engineer or a medical doctor. Likewise one of today's babies could be raised back then and learn to be a highly skilled hunter (where it's all about survival). Look at the "Man of CroMagnon." A Homo sapiens hunter-gatherer dating back only 40,000 years. Perfect teeth, averaged over 6' tall, excellent bones (no signs of chronic debilitating illnesses). Neolithic man was shorter and more sickly, and this is no secret--look it up. Anthropologists look at bone remains and basically skeletal remains speak for themselves.
Our liver is able to produce carbohydrates necessary for all the carbohydrate-dependent tissue (thanks to the need for survival presented by our ancestors mentioned above). The energy to do this comes from fat, and the carbohydrates are produced from protein. This is called gluconeogenesis, and it is started by the opposite hormone of insulin called glucagon. Glucagon is produced in the alpha cells of the pancreas (insulin is made in the beta cells). We need about 200 grams per day, for part of our brain, kidneys, retinas and other tissues. No problem. guess what? The liver is like a precision instrument that when allowed to, does a perfect job of regulating blood sugar. The pancreas is more of a 50 lb sledgehammer and is likely there for emergencies such as when our good Paleolithic ancestor found a honey tree.
There are essential fats (heard of EFAs? omega-3 and omega-6), essential protein, but wait a minute--what are the essential carbohydrates? Can you name a few? No you can't--because they do not exist.

Complex CHOs, begin to get digested by enzymes in saliva, then they become unfolded into simple CHOs in the stomach with the help of more enzymes and HCl acid. That means that the complex CHOs in a baked potato actually become 1/2 cup of sugar in our digestive tract.
Guess what a normal blood sugar (glucose) is for an individual? It is equivalent to 0.8 teaspoons of sugar dissolved in all their blood. yes that's it. So what's that compared to a diabetic's blood sugar? 1.2 teaspoons! The difference is ~0.4 teaspoons of sugar dissolved in the blood! Where does the half cup of sugar go, when u eat the potato? You guessed it--into the bloodstream. What hormone is called into action in order to prevent the individual from going into a sugar coma? Insulin. Insulin opens up the cells to receive this surplus sugar... packs them full of it. Day in and day out if you have such a diet. Over time the process becomes less and less efficient at clearing sugar from the bloodstream, until it no longer works to clear the system (insulin resistance/metabolic syndrome). Think of queen Hatshepsut and her diabetes.
I agree, that there are "good carbs" but they are most likely not the ones you would suggest. They come from exponentially more nutrient-dense things than whole grains. For example: nuts, berries, and some non-starchy vegetables such as spinach, broccoli, cauliflower, green beans, brussel sprouts, cabbage, and many more.



Moderation is the biggest key and that only comes from a varied, well-balanced diet... once that's accomplished, it's only a matter of a conscious calorie reduction.


There you go again with Moderation... what was that again? Calorie reduction? hmmm... When u cut out calories, you slow your metabolism down (and u become hungry as heck). This has been proven in numerous ward studies throughout the XXth century.

I'm not blaming you for repeating all the stuff we hear from nutritionists like a parokeet. There's just no sound science in what your'e repeating. Look at the George McGovern Senate Committee on Nutrition video I posted a few posts back. That's the sort of way this whole hogwash about grains and low fat started. It's simply NOT in our genes! Try eating some wheat without milling or grounding it. That's NOT food we were intended to eat.

Check these out:

The soft science of dietary fat:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5513/2536

NY Times: Diet and Fat: A Severe Case of Mistaken Consensus
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html

NY Times: How the Low-Fat, Low-Fact Cascade Just Keeps Rolling Along
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/how-the-low-fat-low-fact-cascade-just-keeps-rolling-along/

UC Berkeley Podcast:
The Quality of Calories: What Makes Us Fat and Why Nobody Seems to Care
(this is a lecture, 2 hrs...you will have a new understanding of what you were led (trained) to believe.
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=21216

Rolex
02-19-08, 12:22 PM
Sodium isn't a problem in and of itself...

It may be for people who are truly sodium sensitive. There are very simple studies in medical literature on the matter. When dietary intake of sodium is restricted to less then 3 grams sodium chloride per day in people with essential hypertension, some people's blood pressure will respond significantly to that change.

mtflight
02-19-08, 12:39 PM
It may be for people who are truly sodium sensitive There are very simple studies in medical literature on the matter. When dietary intake of sodium is restricted to less then 3 grams sodium chloride per day in people with essential hypertension, some people's blood pressure will respond significantly to that change.


Is it fair that due to a select few that may indeed be truly sensitive to sodium, that we are all told to follow the dietary mandate to reduce sodium?

Those hypertensives were likely not screened for metabolic syndrome or for Lp(a). Most people with hypertension I know are diabetic or overweight. Only 1 is not, but his father and grandfather died of massive MIs at relatively young age.

AMGoff
02-19-08, 01:12 PM
I'm not here to argue, but rather to expose the other side of the issue, that most of us may not be aware of. I am referring to a of better understanding of the science involved.



Exactly what is excessive, and according to who, and how did they reach that determination? Did you happen to read the well researched article from Science?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/281/5379/898?ijkey=c92629b2fdbfceb104812f52c8e065eb1088992a&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Or do u have a better one that we should read (with good references that we can look up)? I think we need to understand the facts and not take someone's word for it (or some organization's).



Moderation is a very vague word. What is it and who determines what it is? Do we go by the current consensus?



Yes we know what the nirvana of today's nutritionist is: whole grains, fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, and few meats (especially red meat). What is very questionable is how they came up with that formula. It happens to be very similar to the diet in ancient Egypt.

They followed such a diet, because that's all there was to eat. They had honey (in limited amounts), but no sugar. The staple was coarse stone ground whole wheat. The Nile provided a rich soil to grow all kinds of fruits and vegetables. Nothing artificial, no sodas, no preservatives, etc.

So did the Egyptians enjoy abundant health? Absolutely NOT. Their health was pretty miserable. Heart disease, high blood pressure, obesity--everything bad that we have today. I'm not making anything up. Check out this NY Times article on the CT scans of Queen Hatshepsut, a diabetic with bone cancer, from 3500 years ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/world/middleeast/27mummy.html

Interestingly, most mummies are one in the same (teeth are all jacked, and they have excess skin folds). If you look at the remains of Paleolithic man, who consumed a meat-based diet--you find nearly perfect teeth, and bones! Bad teeth are akin to CHO consumption. Brittle bones are too. Neolithic man shrunk in size by over a half foot (we are just barely regaining our stature today).




I know we hear this constantly: "carbohydrates are the body's preferred source of fuel." Not quite true. Our genes are virtually indistinguishable from Paleolithic man (before agriculture). The only thing that has changed is "gene expression."
If you had a time machine you could bring one of these "cavemen" babies and raise it to be an engineer or a medical doctor. Likewise one of today's babies could be raised back then and learn to be a highly skilled hunter (where it's all about survival). Look at the "Man of CroMagnon." A Homo sapiens hunter-gatherer dating back only 40,000 years. Perfect teeth, averaged over 6' tall, excellent bones (no signs of chronic debilitating illnesses). Neolithic man was shorter and more sickly, and this is no secret--look it up. Anthropologists look at bone remains and basically skeletal remains speak for themselves.
Our liver is able to produce carbohydrates necessary for all the carbohydrate-dependent tissue (thanks to the need for survival presented by our ancestors mentioned above). The energy to do this comes from fat, and the carbohydrates are produced from protein. This is called gluconeogenesis, and it is started by the opposite hormone of insulin called glucagon. Glucagon is produced in the alpha cells of the pancreas (insulin is made in the beta cells). We need about 200 grams per day, for part of our brain, kidneys, retinas and other tissues. No problem. guess what? The liver is like a precision instrument that when allowed to, does a perfect job of regulating blood sugar. The pancreas is more of a 50 lb sledgehammer and is likely there for emergencies such as when our good Paleolithic ancestor found a honey tree.
There are essential fats (heard of EFAs? omega-3 and omega-6), essential protein, but wait a minute--what are the essential carbohydrates? Can you name a few? No you can't--because they do not exist.

Complex CHOs, begin to get digested by enzymes in saliva, then they become unfolded into simple CHOs in the stomach with the help of more enzymes and HCl acid. That means that the complex CHOs in a baked potato actually become 1/2 cup of sugar in our digestive tract.
Guess what a normal blood sugar (glucose) is for an individual? It is equivalent to 0.8 teaspoons of sugar dissolved in all their blood. yes that's it. So what's that compared to a diabetic's blood sugar? 1.2 teaspoons! The difference is ~0.4 teaspoons of sugar dissolved in the blood! Where does the half cup of sugar go, when u eat the potato? You guessed it--into the bloodstream. What hormone is called into action in order to prevent the individual from going into a sugar coma? Insulin. Insulin opens up the cells to receive this surplus sugar... packs them full of it. Day in and day out if you have such a diet. Over time the process becomes less and less efficient at clearing sugar from the bloodstream, until it no longer works to clear the system (insulin resistance/metabolic syndrome). Think of queen Hatshepsut and her diabetes.
I agree, that there are "good carbs" but they are most likely not the ones you would suggest. They come from exponentially more nutrient-dense things than whole grains. For example: nuts, berries, and some non-starchy vegetables such as spinach, broccoli, cauliflower, green beans, brussel sprouts, cabbage, and many more.




There you go again with Moderation... what was that again? Calorie reduction? hmmm... When u cut out calories, you slow your metabolism down (and u become hungry as heck). This has been proven in numerous ward studies throughout the XXth century.

I'm not blaming you for repeating all the stuff we hear from nutritionists like a parokeet. There's just no sound science in what your'e repeating. Look at the George McGovern Senate Committee on Nutrition video I posted a few posts back. That's the sort of way this whole hogwash about grains and low fat started. It's simply NOT in our genes! Try eating some wheat without milling or grounding it. That's NOT food we were intended to eat.


You're exactly right in that I'm droning on with the nutritionist's mantra... unfortunately you're not talking to a parakeet, you're talking to the horse's mouth.

You can cite all of the little articles you like, but I didn't spend part of my four years at college on a bachelors in dietetics to be told I'm full of it. I may have pursued other fields afterwards, but I still received the same formal training as any RD.

Whether you like it or not, the things that come out of the nutritionist's camp are based on years of research founded in real science. Of course there will always be a few sources here and there that like to contradict mainstream thinking, but the fact remains the consensus is just that - a consensus.

You have your opinions on the matter, but unfortunately the merits of an opinion aren't weighed by how loud they are. I stand by everything I've said thus far... not just because it's what I think, but because a whole lot of people, myself included, spent a lot more time studying this area and have found the same to be true - and not just from reading articles online either.

If you have some actual credentials in this area, by all means - let's hear them... otherwise it's nothing but opinion and background noise.

Nonetheless... when I have some more time, I'll very much enjoy debating each one of your little points.

mtflight
02-19-08, 01:38 PM
You're exactly right in that I'm droning on with the nutritionist's mantra... unfortunately you're not talking to a parakeet, you're talking to the horse's mouth.

You can cite all of the little articles you like, but I didn't spend part of my four years at college on a bachelors in dietetics to be told I'm full of it. I may have pursued other fields afterwards, but I still received the same formal training as any RD.

Whether you like it or not, the things that come out of the nutritionist's camp are based on years of research founded in real science. Of course there will always be a few sources here and there that like to contradict mainstream thinking, but the fact remains the consensus is just that - a consensus.

You have your opinions on the matter, but unfortunately the merits of an opinion aren't weighed by how loud they are. I stand by everything I've said thus far... not just because it's what I think, but because a whole lot of people, myself included, spent a lot more time studying this area and have found the same to be true - and not just from reading articles online either.

If you have some actual credentials in this area, by all means - let's hear them... otherwise it's nothing but opinion and background noise.

Nonetheless... when I have some more time, I'll very much enjoy debating each one of your little points.

Lol. From reading your post I guessed you were a nutritionist, and as such your response is anything but surprising. However let it be known that I was not out to insult you or offend you.

I took a few nutrition courses in college, to see if that's what I wanted to do. Unfortunately I was very dissapointed. The most dissapointing course was one taught by someone with your degree and a member of the American Dietetic Association (a Registered Dietitian). She made fun of doctor's because supposedly some thoght that avocados have high cholesterol (no vegetable has any cholesterol). So that shows her biases right there off the bat. The next one was taught by a PhD in Public Health--it was a bit better.

I still have my nutrition textbook, and it's filled with plenty of good information about the discovery of vitamins, and digestion, and protein, and carbohydrates. But iff there's a textbook with an opinion--it's the nutrition text book. The stuff on there about sugar is almost funny.

The articles that you claim "I like" are actually compilations of dozens if not over a hundred references.

Rather than closing your mind off to reading about the other set of studies where the data does not agree with what you've been taught, you should give them a read... or just watch the UC Berkeley School of Public Health podcast I posted above. You should have a strong enough mind so as to not be brainwashed, right? You have the credentials.

And sorry but NOT all things that come out of the nutritionist camp are founded in science. If they are, some are very are short-sighted. For instance--which hormone converts a vascular smooth muscle cell to an osteogenic cell (calcium phosphate secreting) in the vascular media? (aka causes heart disease) Insulin.



The good and the bad in the link between insulin resistance and vascular calcification.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17606264?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Padova, Medical School, Padova, Italy. gianpaolofadini@hotmail.com

Medial arterial calcification is a common finding in subjects with diabetes mellitus. In vitro, glucose or insulin supplementations promote a phenotypic shift of smooth muscle cells into osteogenic cells, but the mechanisms driving this conversion are poorly understood. The binomial hyperglycaemia/hyperinsulinemia is typical of insulin resistance states, in which the metabolic and vasomotor ("good") actions of insulin are selectively impaired, whereas its mitogenic ("bad") signals are potently enhanced. Under these conditions, insulin can exert pro-atherosclerotic effects and promote vascular calcification. In this setting, the metabolic and mitogenic pathways may be not entirely antagonist, because they interact to traduce the normal insulin signal into inhibition of calcification. Emerging data suggest that the two pathways may converge on the regulation of phosphate transport and extracellular inorganic phosphate (Pi) concentrations. Two antagonist enzymes governing Pi metabolism are alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and the ectonucleotide pyrophosphatase/phosphodiesterase-1 (also known as PC-1): while ALP is up-regulated in calcified diabetic arteries, PC-1 is also implicated in the genesis of insulin resistance. Therefore, we suggest that the functional interactions between ALP and PC-1 may link insulin resistance to vascular calcification.

PMID: 17606264 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


So why recommend a diet that stimulates insulin production? (60/25/15).

Fat doesnt' raise insulin, protein raises it very little (and also raises glucagon levels), CHOs raise it as with the example of the cup of sugar.

The stuff I am talking about is not my opinion. Most of it can be found in biochemistry textbooks, and backed up by PubMed in actual in vivo studies. It's just not mainstream because it's recently that we've realised this lower fat intake has resulted in more obesity and diabetes.


"the merits of an opinion aren't weighed by how loudly they are" Talk about cheap shots.



Nonetheless... when I have some more time, I'll very much enjoy debating each one of your little points.

What are you trying to do here? more cheapshots??!

I'd very much enjoy listening to your refutal, absolutely. Let's keep it civil, and devoid of cheap shots, like the ones above.

Premed here, no credentials to speak of.

dkozloski
02-19-08, 03:19 PM
I'm not a learned nutritionist but I remember an article I read that was put out by Merck Pharmaceuticals. In it they stated that most of the vitamins, minerals and nutritional elements the body requires are very hard to avoid. Studies of deficiencies of certain vitamins required the subjects to be placed on very tightly controlled diets for periods as long as several years before they exhibited signs of what might be called a deficiency.

The nutritionists like to be able to point at a fit individual and tout how their guidance and direction produced the demonstrated results. The truth is much more likely to be that the human body is a very efficient and versatile machine that is able to adapt to a whole range of diets that are diametrically opposite. One group will thrive on a diet that will kill another and if they swap diets they both get sickly. A committed drunk can live to be a hundred and a health food nut can die at an early age from stomach ulcers. This is just another area where there are such a wealth of variables that experimentation can produce almost any desired results. If any viewpoint was clearly superior to another there would only be the one and the others would disappear. All this argument cycles around every few years while the symbolic nutritional bumblebee that can't fly goes merrily on his way.

Rolex
02-19-08, 07:04 PM
Is it fair that due to a select few that may indeed be truly sensitive to sodium, that we are all told to follow the dietary mandate to reduce sodium?

LOL absolutely not. I'm neither salt sensitive nor hypertensive. Pass me the salt shaker my friend. :D I imagine if I was diagnosed with hypertension by a physician, a low NaCl diet would be first thing I would try. If you're not salt sensitive it's unlikely you'd see any benefit from the diet or change in blood pressure.


Those hypertensives were likely not screened for metabolic syndrome or for Lp(a). Most people with hypertension I know are diabetic or overweight. Only 1 is not, but his father and grandfather died of massive MIs at relatively young age.

I don't recall screening for metabolic syndrome in this particular study. A group of hypertensive patients were randomized into 2 groups: a 1-3 gms NaCl per day diet and I don't recall what the other group's intake was....maybe 10gms per day. Of the low sodium group 50% responded to the low sodium diet with a significant drop (10% or greater IIRC) in mean arterial blood pressure readings. So the other 50% of the low sodium diet group either had no change or a negligible change in their pressure.

Stoneage_Caddy
02-20-08, 12:22 AM
I had high blood pressure ....then i had a aftermarket adjustable fuel pressure regualtor with a accumulator installed in an arterie ...a quick flip of the dial and i can keep going as if i had never set foot into a mcdonalds

saving up to have all my arties replaced with braided steel lines with teflon coating inside , then not only can i crank the pressure up when i need some extra oomph but the blood level in my colestorol wont be an issue

now to figure out how to keep my brain from shorting out against the plate in my head

mtflight
02-20-08, 12:52 AM
saving up to have all my arties replaced with braided steel lines with teflon coating inside , then not only can i crank the pressure up when i need some extra oomph but the blood level in my colestorol wont be an issue

Stents aren't recommended because it means your coronary arteries will not be able to be "scored" with Electron Beam Computer Tomography (CT Heart Scans).

This means you won't be able to see changes in calcium scoring (coronary plaque).

Dont' forget the increased blood pressure is an issue to your kidneys too. Now if you need a social life, dialysis may be a good place to meet people. (joking) :hide:

mtflight
02-20-08, 01:00 AM
I don't recall screening for metabolic syndrome in this particular study. A group of hypertensive patients were randomized into 2 groups: a 1-3 gms NaCl per day diet and I don't recall what the other group's intake was....maybe 10gms per day. Of the low sodium group 50% responded to the low sodium diet with a significant drop (10% or greater IIRC) in mean arterial blood pressure readings. So the other 50% of the low sodium diet group either had no change or a negligible change in their pressure.

"Possibly the most damning evidence against a strong relationship between salt consumption and high blood pressure comes from the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) study, published in April 1997 in The New England Journal of Medicine. In DASH, people ate a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy products. As Taubes reports, "In 3 weeks, the diet reduced blood pressure by 5.5/3.0 mmHg in subjects with mild hypertension and 11.4/5.5 mmHg in hypertensives--a benefit surpassing what could be achieved by medication. Yet salt content was kept constant in the DASH diets, which meant salt had nothing to do with the blood pressure reductions.""

--from Reason
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34805.html

One possible explanation there, is the increase of nitric oxide, from the revised diet. The endothelium (lining) of arteries use nitric oxide to signal the arterie's smooth muscle to relax, resulting in vasodilation (dilating the arteries) and lowering blood pressure.

L-Arginine is an important source of nitric oxide. The dilation of the arteries results in lower blood pressure. You may get a woodie out of it too.

Rolex
02-20-08, 09:28 AM
One possible explanation there, is the increase of nitric oxide, from the revised diet. The endothelium (lining) of arteries use nitric oxide to signal the arterie's smooth muscle to relax, resulting in vasodilation (dilating the arteries) and lowering blood pressure.

L-Arginine is an important source of nitric oxide. The dilation of the arteries results in lower blood pressure. You may get a woodie out of it too.

Thanks for the physiology lesson. :rolleyes: The reference you provided is authored by a news correspondent. :hmm: Salt sensitivity can't be damned by any body of literature. Certainly not by medical literature where it's documented and studied. I don't intend to debate a guy that has a computer database of med literature at his fingertips. I'm smarter then that, and unwilling to do the research on my end the old fashioned way (thumbing through med journals). :D

I don't know the methodology of the study you quote or it's limitations. For that matter I'm not an expert on the DASH diet either. But I've disclosed that already admitting I have a diet and exercise program that works for me. That doesn't qualify me as an expert and you won't see me writing any books on the matter and visiting with Oprah. But if the DASH diet had been condemned by your study or any other, it wouldn't be part of the guidelines of the National institutes of Health. YMMV

mtflight
02-20-08, 11:05 AM
Thanks for the physiology lesson. :rolleyes: The reference you provided is authored by a news correspondent. :hmm:

It's paraphrasing Taubes' article from Science (which I realised I could only access from the university once I got home and it said to subscribe). So I found an article about the original article.


Salt sensitivity can't be damned by any body of literature. Certainly not by medical literature where it's documented and studied. I don't intend to debate a guy that has a computer database of med literature at his fingertips. I'm smarter then that, and unwilling to do the research on my end the old fashioned way (thumbing through med journals). :D

Yeah, there must be truly salt-sensitive people out there. I don't know it for a fact, but I agree with what you say. This whole "lower your sodium intake" started somehow.


I don't know the methodology of the study you quote or it's limitations. For that matter I'm not an expert on the DASH diet either. But I've disclosed that already admitting I have a diet and exercise program that works for me. That doesn't qualify me as an expert and you won't see me writing any books on the matter and visiting with Oprah. But if the DASH diet had been condemned by your study or any other, it wouldn't be part of the guidelines of the National institutes of Health. YMMV

The research article said that DASH works (the quote is from the article about the article, lol sorry). It just doesn't work by reducing sodium intake.

AMGoff
02-20-08, 11:18 AM
No cheap shots at all... but I'm with Rolex here... I have neither the time nor the energy to debate a determined pre-med student with a vast electronic database, nor do I necessarily feel like thumbing through all of my ADA references.

RDs have to deal with the same thing as doctors these days, that is - having patients who use the web and other various resources to research a subject to death and then go in thinking they know more than the professional does.

I'm sorry if you feel the area of nutritional science is chock full of vagaries. Beyond that, there's nothing wrong with questioning... but... to be dismissive of an entire field of work such as the ADA is absurd as me being dismissive to say, the AMA.

Frankly, you can have this bone... I learned a long time ago never to fight a rabid dog! Personally... I'm sticking with what I know works.

Rolex
02-20-08, 11:22 AM
The discussion is all in good spirit. I'm not sure any of it helped poor Spyder though. :histeric:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v305/rolex/thread.jpg

mtflight
02-20-08, 11:45 AM
No cheap shots at all... but I'm with Rolex here... I have neither the time nor the energy to debate a determined pre-med student with a vast electronic database, nor do I necessarily feel like thumbing through all of my ADA references.

RDs have to deal with the same thing as doctors these days, that is - having patients who use the web and other various resources to research a subject to death and then go in thinking they know more than the professional does.

I'm sorry if you feel the area of nutritional science is chock full of vagaries. Beyond that, there's nothing wrong with questioning... but... to be dismissive of an entire field of work such as the ADA is absurd as me being dismissive to say, the AMA.

Frankly, you can have this bone... I learned a long time ago never to fight a rabid dog! Personally... I'm sticking with what I know works.

Lol, well thanks. I actually took out my Nutrition text book last night, and it is really a good book. There is a lot to learn from it that is good, solid science.

Honestly there's just a few minor sentences here and there that I have major issues with. I didn't have major issues with them a while back.

I should have been clear that I'm not dismissing all of the ADA at all. Just its views on what our diet should be. I can't blame them, that's the same diet the government recommends... It's based on a hypothesis that has been wrong more than once (time to throw out the hypothesis, IMO, if it doesn't pass the tests).



I was reading through the book and it says the average American consumes about 50% calories from carbohydrates which is short of the 60% they recommend. On a 2000 kcal diet, 300 grams of carbs a day is roughly equivalent to 10 baked potatoes, or 25 slices of bread, and it gets converted to 5 cups of sugar. When u put it into context, that means your pancreas is going to get busy churning out insulin. And we now know that a low fat diet, high in CHOs, causes small, dense LDL-Cholesterol (think lethal).

According to them it doesn't matter if you eat too much fat, or too much protein, or too many carbs... calories in, calories out. That does not take into account the hormones insulin and glucagon and how they work. It ignores human physiology.

mtflight
02-20-08, 11:51 AM
The discussion is all in good spirit. I'm not sure any of it helped poor Spyder though. :histeric:



Oops!

Spyder
02-20-08, 01:39 PM
Definitely an interesting read though!

So here's my basic, in a nutshell, short term plan. Boneless skinless chicken. Spinach. Tomatos. Mushrooms. Lots of bananas. Very little steak and no extra sodium on anything until after the test. NO fried foods (damned difficult working in a restaurant!). Broccoli and hummus and cauliflower and lots and lots of water. Haven't had coffee since this thread started (usually have five or six cups a day). I don't smoke and don't drink NEARLY as much as I used to, but I figure I can go a week without a beer to best the test. Lots of green tea. I'm not going to bother starting with running and extra exercise until after the test, but am definitely going to get my ass back in shape starting Monday afternoon. The test is Monday morning. That morning I'll take a little bit of the herbals recommended and hope for the best.
Yesterday morning I used the free blood pressure checker thing at Albertson's and its already reading -7/-7 from before. I know that this is the sort of thing that fluctuates from one ten minutes to the next, but its a promising sign so far. I'll check it again today and see how I'm doing.

Hell, this is probably the best thing to happen to my health in quite a while, actually. A bit of a wake-up call to not be a dumbass while not really having any ill-effects. I just sure do miss coffee and steak every day!

dkozloski
02-20-08, 01:58 PM
I'm not a medical student or professional but I have read some interesting studies that claim that the most deficient and neglected area of a medical doctors education is nutrition. Unfortunately the largest share of material on the subject that the general public encounters comes from somebody with a financial stake in the game whether it's weight control diets, vitamin pills, or homeopathic remedies. It rapidly takes on all the characteristics of an argument about religion because hard and fast truths are hard to come by. The followers of a particular guru are about as likely to jump ship and follow another as a Baptist is to adopt Catholicism. It's no help when the leader of a particular fad turns out to be a doctor of chemistry rather than medicine and is more famous for campaigning against atom bombs.

mtflight
02-20-08, 02:06 PM
Unfortunately the largest share of material on the subject that the general public encounters comes from somebody with a financial stake in the game whether it's weight control diets, vitamin pills, or homeopathic remedies. It rapidly takes on all the characteristics of an argument about religion because hard and fast truths are hard to come by.


Sad and true. And yes I also agree many doctors have no idea that diet changes cholesterol particle size, Lp(a) is a hidden killer, that fat in itself is not bad, and that it's the high insulin levels that are so common and responsible for a lot of western illnesses. That boils it down to nutrition (with the exception of the argument above, which nutrition does not really adress either, other than 1 paragraph titled "Metabolic Syndrome" hidden in a 400 page textbook).

dkozloski
02-20-08, 02:22 PM
I read a while back that the British journal of medicine, The Lancet, has declared that all the stuff you hear and read about antioxidants is humbug and imagination. The idea that you need to consume foods high in antioxydants cannot be substantiated by science. In fact the pertinent statement was that it might happen in a test tube but nobody can demonstrate or prove it happens in the human body. So many people have their careers invested in the theory that it's unlikely that the dogma is going to change anytime soon.

Rolex
02-20-08, 02:45 PM
We're all pulling for you James. Give it hell and let us know how the physical goes. :thumbsup:

dkozloski
02-22-08, 12:25 AM
The very best way to lower your blood pressure by actual research is to have a really nice little puppy on your lap and pet their head. Your blood pressure drops instantly.

mtflight
02-28-08, 04:15 PM
Here is the very study (The Journal of the American Medical Association Vol. 297 No. 9, March 7, 2007) that led the American Diabetes Association to declare their latest recommendation that low-carb dieting are acceptable therapy.

Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN Diets for Change in Weight and Related Risk Factors Among Overweight Premenopausal Women http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/9/969


Under "Insulin, Glucose, and Blood Pressure Outcomes:"

"Parallel to the group changes in weight, the decrease in mean blood pressure levels was largest in the Atkins group at all time points. At 12 months, the decrease in systolic blood pressure was significantly greater for the Atkins group than for any other group. For diastolic pressure, the only significant pairwise difference at 12 months favored the Atkins over the Ornish group. "

Conclusions: In this study, premenopausal overweight and obese women assigned to follow the Atkins diet, which had the lowest carbohydrate intake, lost more weight and experienced more favorable overall metabolic effects at 12 months than women assigned to follow the Zone, Ornish, or LEARN diets. While questions remain about long-term effects and mechanisms, a low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diet may be considered a feasible alternative recommendation for weight loss.

Conclusion for Spyder: put the steak back in your diet as well as the skin on the chicken, skip the starch. Lol.

RunningOnEMT
02-28-08, 04:21 PM
So...On Monday I've got a physical and drug test for a probable new job. One of the things I have to do on the physical is have blood pressure lower than 140/90. My 25 year old semi-active but horrible diet ass has been hovering right around there for the last two weeks I've been checking it to see if I'm going to pass.

Question is...what are some recommendations to lower it short-term, before the test. I'm thinking huge diet change for the week. Way less sodium, very little red meat, bacon, greasy food or sugary food. Lots more veggies.

Will a big increase in exercise help me by Monday, hurt because I'm out of shape or not make a difference?

Long term plans are a definite diet change and more jogging/biking because I've been wanting to for a while and this is a good reason to kick my rear into gear, but I need to pass this test to get the job and I'm worried about the fact that its only a week away.

Aspirin an hour before to thin the blood...good idea, bad idea?

aspirin isnt gonna do it my friend, aspirin functions as a blood thinner, nothing more....

you need something thats going to be a vasodialator nothing in that category is going to be safe to take before a stress test physical.

In the short term up your cardio 3x and each much less salt. Your body compensates extremely quickly with those changes. You don't want to medicate yourself into lower blood pressure unless prescribed, you can decompensate from hypovolemia very quickly if you use vasodialators not as prescribed.

dkozloski
02-28-08, 04:24 PM
I find it interesting that the newer guys on the block claiming to have all the nutrition answers are the chiropractors. As a sideline to bone crunching they are now hawking vitamin pills, supplements, dietary advice, and even exercise equipment. Even more interesting is the information that the CEO's and executives behind the companies selling automotive motor oil additives are most likely to have backgrounds in multilevel marketing of vitamin pills and nutritional supplements. Let the buyer beware.

NOT ON MY WATCH
02-28-08, 04:47 PM
I find it interesting that the newer guys on the block claiming to have all the nutrition answers are the chiropractors. As a sideline to bone crunching they are now hawking vitamin pills, supplements, dietary advice, and even exercise equipment. Even more interesting is the information that the CEO's and executives behind the companies selling automotive motor oil additives are most likely to have backgrounds in multilevel marketing of vitamin pills and nutritional supplements. Let the buyer beware.

A relative of mine is studying to become a chiropractor and she acts similar to how you describe. She is now the self-proclaimed "doctor" in the family and offers physical therapy advice, nutritional advice, and advice on supplements/vitamins - all unsolicited, of course.

What's really scary is she believes most problems can be solved through chiropractic treatment alone - depression, high blood pressure, alcoholism (???!) - you name it. The world should fear this new generation of chiropractors (as if the old ones generally speaking weren't scary enough).

dkozloski
02-28-08, 05:21 PM
A relative of mine is studying to become a chiropractor and she acts similar to how you describe. She is now the self-proclaimed "doctor" in the family and offers physical therapy advice, nutritional advice, and advice on supplements/vitamins - all unsolicited, of course.

What's really scary is she believes most problems can be solved through chiropractic treatment alone - depression, high blood pressure, alcoholism (???!) - you name it. The world should fear this new generation of chiropractors (as if the old ones generally speaking weren't scary enough).
I don't think I ever met a chiropractor that wasn't a drunk. I think it has something to do with guilt.

mtflight
03-20-08, 01:18 PM
When it comes down to it, your body needs three basic sources of calories - carbs, protein, and fat... and as a general rule, they should be broken down to 60/25/15...

That's why I loathe the thought of nonsense like the "atkins" diet... it's hogwash. Complex carbohydrates are your body's preferred source of fuel, it's that simple. You can't just up and decide to arbitrarily cut something out of your diet.

Unfortunately a low fat/high complex carbohydrate diet (anything under 25% fat) causes Pattern B LDL-Cholesterol in too many people, according to Dr. RL Krauss. Pattern B is the most dangerous type--most heart attack and stroke victims have Pattern B, regardless of the level of cholesterol they had (some even had low cholesterol, in the wrong pattern of course). Most people with triglycerides under 100 have predominantly more Pattern A than Pattern B. Unfortunately carbohydrates raise triglycerides almost immediately because they are produced by the liver in direct response to carbohydrate clearance.




Because of certain inherited genetic traits, an extreme low-fat/ high-carbohydrate diet can, for some individuals, actually increase the risk of heart disease, says a Berkeley Lab scientist who is a leading authority on the subject.
Speaking at an international workshop on diet and gene interactions sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Dr. Ronald Krauss, head of the Department of Molecular Medicine in Berkeley Lab’s Life Sciences Division, reported on the recent findings of his research group, which showed that in genetically susceptible individuals, an extreme low-fat/high-carbohydrate diet can produce metabolic reactions that cause a change in the cholesterol profile of their blood. An extreme low fat diet was defined as one in which fat comprised less than 25 percent of the total daily calorie intake.

In a patten A profile, low-density lipoproteins (LDLs or the "bad" cholesterol) in the blood are predominantly made up of relatively large and buoyant particles. In a pattern B profile, the LDL are smaller and more densely packed. Earlier studies by Krauss and others have already established that the pattern B profile poses a much greater risk of heart disease than the pattern A.

"Tests for these genetically susceptible traits are not widely available," says Krauss. "There are, however, clues, such as elevated levels of triglycerides (another type of blood fat linked to heart disease) and lowered levels of high-density lipoproteins (HDLs or the "good" cholesterol) when a patient goes on a very low-fat/ high-carbohydrate diet."

Heart disease remains the number one cause of death and disability in the United States, and increasing numbers of Americans, especially those over 50, have turned to diets aimed at lowering LDL cholesterol levels as a means of reducing the risk. While the effects of such dietary changes are beneficial to the population at large, these effects can vary widely among individuals, according to Krauss.

"Studies of dietary effects on LDL cholesterol must take into consideration that LDL is comprised of distinct subclasses that differ in particle size and density, and that there is variation in the distribution of these subclasses among individuals," he says. "Small LDL particles appear to have a greater atherogenic potential than large LDL particles by virtue of reduced receptor-mediated clearance, and higher arterial transport, proteoglycan binding, and oxidative susceptibility."

The interaction between diet and genes and how this interaction affects the two LDL subclass patterns may help explain why there can be so much variability in the effects of low-fat diets on the risk of heart disease. For patients who started out with the pattern B cholesterol profile, the study by Krauss and his research group showed that an extreme low-fat/high-carbohydrate diet can reduce the number of circulating small LDL particles, which in turn reduces the risk of heart disease. LDL particles carry cholesterol through the bloodstream and deposit it along arterial walls, creating a waxy buildup that can eventually restrict the flow of blood to the heart.
For patients who started out with the pattern A cholesterol profile, however, Krauss and his research group found that an extreme-low fat/ high-carbohydrate diet worked to reduce the cholesterol content of the LDL particles circulating in the blood. This depletion in the composition of the LDL particles resulted in a downsizing that in turn led to a conversion from the pattern A to the pattern B profile.
"Studies in families have indicated that LDL subclass patterns are influenced by major genes, and linkage of LDL particle size phenotypes to several candidate genes have been reported," says Krauss.
"However, overall heritability of LDL particle sizes is less than 50 percent, consistent with the strong influence of modifying factors on the expression of LDL subclass patterns."
Previously, these modifying factors were listed as age and gender, plus certain metabolic conditions that affect triglyceride levels such as abdominal adiposity and resistance to insulin. To these factors can now be added diet, says Krauss.
Results of the study by Krauss and his collaborators were originally reported in the June 2000 edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Krauss’ coauthors on that paper were Darlene Dreon, Harriet Fernstrom, and Paul Williams.

TSS
03-20-08, 01:27 PM
make sure you rub one out before you go in for it.

That will work.

Spyder
03-20-08, 01:32 PM
Got the job...passed the blood pressure test...which has been slowly going down, probably due to diet change and a little bit of exercise on my part. Still kinda wondering why a 25 year old guy who eats halfway decent and is not a total lazy ass has such high numbers...could it be height related? That's been hypothesized by a friend in the medical industry, that it takes higher energy and therefore higher pressure to keep my brain full of blood?

mtflight
03-20-08, 01:38 PM
Got the job...passed the blood pressure test...which has been slowly going down, probably due to diet change and a little bit of exercise on my part. Still kinda wondering why a 25 year old guy who eats halfway decent and is not a total lazy ass has such high numbers...could it be height related? That's been hypothesized by a friend in the medical industry, that it takes higher energy and therefore higher pressure to keep my brain full of blood?


Spyder, if you are at your optimal weight (no spare tire around the middle) then I'd guess you have genetic expression of Lp(a). (It is pronounced L P little A). Your doctor can test for this. It is a very strong risk factor for early heart disease and usually you inherit it from either your father or grandfather (who had heart attacks early).


Luckily you can bring the number down with niacin therapy.

If you have a gut, you probably are developing insulin-resistance or what Dr. Gerald Raven calls "Metabolic Syndrome." When your insulin levels are high (carbohydrate enjoyment), your kidneys retain more sodium, and your blood pressure is high. Losing weight will help this (by cutting back on the carbs), unless it's Lp(a) (skinny with high blood pressure).

Read more about it at http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com Dr. Davis' blog.

TSS
03-20-08, 01:39 PM
Congrats. But don't just forget about it now. Try to mange it and track your BP everyday. Better to catch it now when you are young, feel good, and are not severely overweight, Good luck!

Spyder
03-20-08, 01:56 PM
Yea, about once a week I check it...whenever I go make deposits at the ATM in Albertsons, where the BP machine is next to the door. :)

mtflight
03-20-08, 01:59 PM
Yea, about once a week I check it...whenever I go make deposits at the ATM in Albertsons, where the BP machine is next to the door. :)

So are you skinny or not? Heart disease run in the family or not? Height has nothing to do with it. The kidneys are the regulator of blood pressure, and there are very tall folks with 110/60 bp.

ShadowLvr400
03-20-08, 03:19 PM
I'm another one who had high blood pressure. A lot of fried foods and red meat had me in the 140/95 range at age 21. At 6'0 215 I'm not exactly fat, just a little bit of padding over my stomach (large frame anyways). Active job, figure I borderline powerwalk about 10 miles a day in 85. Over time, I've brought it down to 120/75. The changes? I still work in an active job, but I've changed my meals from burgers to more balanced sandwiches, and instead of snacking on bacon during my shifts, it's fruit. I miss some of the junk food, but I seem to be healthier. So, I'll keep to my healthier regimen.

Spyder
03-20-08, 03:53 PM
Not fat at all. 7'0" 260 or so. Family history has been good actually with no heart problems that I know of. My aunt on my mothers side has diabetes, both parents had poor eyes at a young age (mine are still very good), but other than that no major disease or health problems have been known in my family.

mtflight
03-20-08, 04:54 PM
Not fat at all. 7'0" 260 or so. Family history has been good actually with no heart problems that I know of. My aunt on my mothers side has diabetes, both parents had poor eyes at a young age (mine are still very good), but other than that no major disease or health problems have been known in my family.


Well without knowing anything else, and the exclusion of something like polycystic kidney disease, a kidney disorder, or a similar anomaly, I'd lean toward insulin resistance (watch your carbs or watch yourself become diabetic). To test this, lower your carbs to only those from veggies (no potatoes--no pastas) don't drink any fruit juice or sugary drinks, ice cream, fruit, for a week, then check your blood pressure again. It will plummet a dozen points. Make sure to eat plenty of protein and nothing low-fat during this time. Don't pass on the salt either.

What would happen is your insulin levels would drop along with your sugar intake, and the kidneys would no longer cling to sodium. You'd be thirsty for a few days--drink plenty of water.

In response to ShadowLvr, As far as I know there is no causal link between red meat and blood pressure. There may be a link in terms of your essential fatty acid balance (omega 6:3 ratio), but that would be from foods fried in vegetable oil, and other things like mayonnaise (soybean or cottonseed oils--junk indeed). Include more fish in your diet, reduce/eliminate all vegetable oils and shortenings (replace with butter if necessary--won't hurt your bp!!).

One of the first signs of insulin resistance? padding along the waist. That means you could become a type-II in your lifetime, if you don't watch what you eat. Exercise reduces insulin resistance too, so the extra work you do will help some. High carbs = high insulin. Some experts speculate that only about 75% of the population can develop insulin resistance. I'm in the category but my blood pressure hovers around 110/66.

I eat sirloin or strip steak (NY) a few times a week, some veggies like broccoli cauliflower spinach, brussel sprouts, avocado (ok that's a fruit) and berries, almonds, walnuts, tomatoes, tuna, chicken, etc. I also eat burgers (hold the bun), no fries. Ribs, BBQ, etc. Bacon and eggs for breakfast with some nice fresh salsa. Yum, life is good.