Confused about readings.

Posted , 12 users are following.

Help needed! I thought I had got this bp thing sussed. Eat well, exercise daily, avoid bad things etc. Saw my GP yesterday for results of blood tests and she threw a spanner in the works. My bloods looked fine and as I suffer from white coat syndrome I took in my "little black book" of my regular readings of which I am quite proud. They show an average of mid-high 120's/mid-high80's which compared to where I was a year ago is in my book brilliant. My GP said they are TOO LOW as they should be nearer 150/90. She has said this before and I didn't understand it then either! Apparently if you are on medication for high bp your readings should be in the 150/90 range. Has anyone heard of this before? Help I am confused!!

0 likes, 48 replies

48 Replies

Next
  • Posted

    Definately not, my OH on meds for 18 years and just the other day his were 145/85 she said too high are you taking meds regularly, he is now has to do home one for a week, see another doctor and get there opinion

    your doing great I think, I'm no Dr though

    • Posted

      Also if your bp was in that range without meds they would put you on them instantly to get it down.
    • Posted

      Thanks for that. It is strange cos my GP appeared to imply that having higher bp proved that meds were needed! I thought the idea of any illness/complaint is to get off the meds?! I have googled it of course and it says that a guy of my age with family history like mine (dad died of a stroke) should be on meds if bp in range of 150/90. Mine was over that but now well down....but too low for my doc it seems!
  • Posted

     I have been on bp tablets for several years and first I was put on the cheaper tablet Ramipril as I have Type 2 diabetes and it was  not because I had high blood pressure, just to make sure it didn't rise too high.   After at least a year, with me taking my bp quite regularly I saw a doctor and he went through my readings and said "that's OK, that's OK, that's too low, that's too low, that's too low" as my readings were somewhere like 118/60.  He told me to stop taking the tablets and see how I got on and I was off them for several months (thankfully because they had given me a niggly cough which apparently is well known with that tablet).  I was certainly never told that it should be 150/90 as that sounds quite high to me.  (I have a talking blood pressure monitor and it sometimes tells me that 130 is mild hypertension)  When they take a reading in the surgery it can be 130 over something and they are quite happy with that.

    After about six months or so I went back and my blood pressure had risen to what they thought was a bit too high so I was put on some different tablets, amlodipine, and I seem to be fine now and haven't got the cough thank goodness.   I know they say that "the lower the better" and as long as you don't get any symptoms of it being low it's supposed to be OK but I was getting palpitations which wasn't pleasant.  Perhaps medical opinions have changed about what the pressure should be. 

    • Posted

      The more I hear about differing opinions within the medical profession the more unsure I am of the information being correct. My GP was adamant.....my readings are on the "low side". I will do what I think is good for me and maybe not get too hung up on readings.
  • Posted

    Fisherman,

    thanks, but now I am also confused. 

    I think a somewhat more relaxed approach may be needed, as doctors differ (and patients ..)

    I used to think less than  120/80 was what one should aim at if high bp is a problem.  Recently with meds mine was 119/84, so I was happy with this.

    • Posted

      I agree, I thought 120/80 was the one to aim for. You are doing really well, I think!!! Don't go to my doc tho or you may get a ticking off!!!
  • Posted

    Whaaat!!!  Never heard anything like this before. Your readings are nothing short of excellent - I wish I could be so lucky!  No wonder you're "confused" - I think I would be changing my GP!
    • Posted

      Thanks Mrs O. I intend to carry on as I have been doing. I also chatted to my doc about a really painful neck/shoulder prob that I have had for about 4/5weeks. Was told to give it six months and if still bad come back again. Not what I wanted to hear really.....thought she may have said "try this or try that". She didn't even examine me, just tapped her computer keyboard! I could do that for £120,000 pa!!! Have a good weekend!
    • Posted

      Fisherman, I'm sure you will seeing another GP in the practice for a second opinion BEFORE a whole SIX months is up!!!  The neck/shoulder pain could just be a pulled muscle in which case a heated electric pad can give relief (available from Argos) or a TENS machine.  On the other hand, shoulder pain can be a sign of rotator cuff injury and in the case of an actual tear would need your GP to refer you for physio.  On rare occasions in the past when suffering from an auto-immune condition affecting my muscles, I had a collar which I could don for a few hours to give relief.  These days if I have any neck pain, I wrap a silk scarf around it and it's better in a couple of days. I'm sure your wife won't mind you raiding her scarf drawer!  Hope it gets better soon.
    • Posted

      Crikey, she doesn't sound professional at all!! Neck/shoulder pain can have several causes, and she should have examined you for sure!! Change your gp immediately!!
  • Posted

    You do not state your age, weight, what other conditions you have or what your lifestyle is.

    Having said this, 150/90 does look a little bit on the high side and 120/80 does look on the low side.

    • Posted

      Hi. 63 year old male. 5'11" and 11st 11lbs. Non smoker.....always. Exercise daily. Eat lots veg and avoid processed foods. Hardly touch alcohol and limit tea/coffee. No other conditions apart from diverticulitis. Take 10mg ramipril and 10mg statin.
    • Posted

      That being the case, then 150/90 does sound a bit on the high side, but then again your doctor has said your readings should be NEARER TO, and NOT that they should be EXACTLY 150/90.

      Anyway our blood pressure can vary from minute to minute and from day to day so it's all about trends and not about specifics.

      I would just go with the flow for the moment Fisherman and not worry about it.

    • Posted

      I am diabetic with arterial hypertension, and every time that I go in for my well-being old fart checkups they keep telling me that my BP needs to be in the region of 140/70, and I have to do this or that do reduce it.

      I have to remind the very nice young practice nurse that before I retired I was in the medical profession myself, and therefore I am only too aware of what the recommendations are in an ideal situation.

      The reality is that there is no such thing as a standard for everybody, and that by giving this misleading information to patients there is the risk of causing them unnecessary anxiety.

      I have to say that I am also very critical of all the medical information available on Google, as it is the very nature of human beings to find rational answers and if they don't understand something, to go looking for it and the nearest most convenient place is, yes you guessed Google. 

    • Posted

      I so agree.  There is a load of rubbish on many of the Google sites, and just a very few reliable sources.  You need to know which are the reliable sources in the first place, the Mayo Clinic is one, the NHS website and, of course this one.
    • Posted

      I find that as the years go bye the goal posts keep moving on advice for diabetics. I am now told diastiolic should be under 120.
    • Posted

      This hypertension paranoia is really driving me to despair.

      It's no wonder that our bretheren in the clinical psychiatry profession are worked off their feet.

    • Posted

      Surely that must be total rubbish.

      I would have though that it would depend very much on an individuals age, physical attributes, disposition, medical history and other prescribed medications.

      If I had any left I would be tearing my hair out now.

    • Posted

      I so agree with you archemedes (great name by the way) about "googling" stuff until you find what you want to find that agrees with your ideas. For example, my wife and I have this typical British thing about the weather. We check it daily, but if we are doing a walk one day and a particular site says cloudy and 80% chance of rain, we will keep trying different sites until we find a cloudy with only a 50% chance of rain!!! Childish I know, but we still giggle about it. The thing is we all have this desire for good news and the internet offers a host of alternative views which may coincide with our own.
    • Posted

      It's the old story, if you want a 'doughnut' you will go and find one, and google is the largest (mostly free) shop in the world. You might have thought you wanted a small jam doughnut, but when you read an opinion that says 'jam ones are bad for you', but you can have a giant caramel one with four times the calories in it, sadly it is human nature to go for the one that someone has advised you to have - ie. Caramel.

      We read what we want to read, and we believe what we want to believe. 

Report or request deletion

Thanks for your help!

We want the community to be a useful resource for our users but it is important to remember that the community 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 community 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.