Blood Pressure for a 67y old Male

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....

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,

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.

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