Blood Pressure for a 67y old Male

Posted , 5 users are following.

Normal blood pressure is taken as 120/80. But blood pressure often rises with age.

What do you think is acceptable blood pressure for a 67y old male. That is, the pressures whereby treatment is not needed.

0 likes, 18 replies

Report / Delete

18 Replies

Next
  • Posted

    First we must define "normal".. My opinion is the old method of 100 + age NOT 120/80.. The latter was changed in 1977 by various organizations who had affiliations to drug companies.. Think about it .. do you really believe 120/80 is "normal" for someone your age?   This is one of the biggest hoaxs going....

    Report / Delete Reply
    • Posted

      Well yes, it could be. We're all different. But the fact you asked the question in the first place does seem to suggest that your BP is higher than that and you're concerned as to whether or not you need medication.

      Report / Delete Reply
    • Posted

      You have misunderstood the question. The question relates to normal blood pressure.

      Perhaps I am doing research. The question may not relate to my blood pressure at all.

      Remember what is says at the foot of the page: 'you should not rely on opinions or advice given by other users'

       

      Report / Delete Reply
  • Posted

    I asked my GP the same question and she just said that perceived wisdom these days is that 120/80 is standard for all ages.  Given that advancing years alters virtually everything else I'm inclined to go along with Ann's comments.  How can a normal BP for a 20 year old be considered optimum for a 67 year old. Or in my case 75 yr old. 

    I'm guessing that like the statin scam is it is all driven by big pharma.

    On the other hand the GP also said that these days death from heart attack/stroke is vastly less than it was 30/40 years ago. She didn't have the answer to that one except that at the time she was offering me a statin - I refused!  I do have to admit that I take meds for BP as I was told I was a walking candidate for a heart attack with BP of 160/93 at 70 years old,

    Report / Delete Reply
  • Posted

    I agree with Ann for the most part. However, it does depend on various other factors too. Sadly, one of these may be who your doctor is and which country you live in.

    For a start, no one ever has just one figure for their BP. It goes up and down all day, depending on your emotions, what you're doing etc. It will inevitably spike when you're in your doctor's office, particularly if you're worried about it. That's why it's useful to have your own BP monitor at home.

    Mine goes all over the place. I sometimes get this old-age thing (I'm 73) where the systolic goes high but the diastolic falls. I once recorded 160/50 in my doctor's office. However, it's usually around 140/90 when he takes it, occasionally going to 150/90. Last time, two months ago, it was 110/80 and my pulse was irregular, with "missed" beats, but he said that was because it was a very hot, humid day.

    My doctor prefers to take everything else into account. He puts a lot of importance on renal function, as he says that any damage from raised BP will show up here first. As my renal function - as evidenced by blood tests for urea, creatinine etc. - is always very good, he takes that into consideration. All my cholesterol levels are above the upper limit, but the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL is very low, so I don't need statins. This partly depends where you are in the world. In the UK, for example, they don't break out HDL and LDL but only measure total cholesterol, so anyone above the total limit has to take statins, without their doctor even knowing what their ratio is.

    Finally, because I have a reasonably healthy lifestyle - lifelong non-smoker though I do drink a bit too much wine, regular exercise, good diet etc. - my doctor judges that I don't need BP medication, even though I'm above the hypothetical limit Ann refers to. He does, however, like to see me every six months, as he feels my BP may in future rise to levels where a low dose of medication would be advisable.

    So... the answer is that there isn't an answer! It depends on too many variables. If you're in a country where you're allowed to choose your doctor, I'd advise shopping around till you find one who takes a holistic view rather than applying a fixed (and largely obsolete) set of rules about BP, cholesterol etc.

    Report / Delete Reply
    • Posted

      Thank you henpen, that's very kind of you. I'm not opposed to medical interventions at all. I just think it's very important that we all inform ourselves - very easy in this internet era - and take some responsibility for our own health, rather than allowing doctors to bully us into accepting treatments that sometimes make things worse.

      Report / Delete Reply
    • Posted

      I'll see if this reply gets sent to the moderator, my betting is that like the other two it will do! 

      Just to say Lily that it's not quite right to say that in the UK they measure just total cholesterol. If it is done at the surgery [and I've never had it done elsewhere] they always give you a breakdown of the numbers. Total; HDL; non HDL and ratio. My dr at any rate considers the ratio the most important no. 

      Until about 5 or 6 years ago the test was always a fasting one and then they would give you Total; HDL; LDL; triglycerides and ratio. I had stupidly asked for a cholesterol test not even knowing what it was testing for [!!] but there had been something in the press about how important it was to know.  At 5.9 it was considered  too high although the ratio was well within the limit of safety, yet I was recalled and given an NHS health check.  That revealed hypertension.  I felt at the time that cholesterol was the important issue but since then have become a lot more sceptical.  The trouble is they keep moving the goal posts and I think the guide lines for TC is below 4.0? Just to keep big pharma in business perhaps!!

      Report / Delete Reply
    • Posted

      I said they would send my reply to the moderator and sure enough they have. Amazing! How dare they.  That is 3  replies I have written and all have been sent to the chief - what a complete waste of time.
      Report / Delete Reply
    • Posted

      Hi Jane,

      Yes, it is frustrating isn't it? A lot of mine get held up but seldom deleted, or even edited. I suspect that, like me, you're falling foul of the electronic moder8or rather than the human one. The electronic one holds your post immediately, the human one takes longer to get round to it.

      I'll send you a private message with a few tips I've picked up on how to avoid this - though they don't work every time for me either! PMs via this site don't reveal the email address of either party or carry viruses.

      Report / Delete Reply
  • Posted

    I really wonder why I bother to reply when the powers that be at Patient .co.uk don't print it. Such a complete waste of time.  Thank you Patient  sadsad

    Report / Delete Reply
  • Posted

    I am no longer following this discussion
    Report / Delete Reply

Join this discussion or start a new one?

New discussion Reply

Report or request deletion

Thanks for your help!

We want the forums to be a useful resource for our users but it is important to remember that the forums are not moderated or reviewed by doctors and so you should not rely on opinions or advice given by other users in respect of any healthcare matters. Always speak to your doctor before acting and in cases of emergency seek appropriate medical assistance immediately. Use of the forums is subject to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy and steps will be taken to remove posts identified as being in breach of those terms.

newnav-down newnav-up