High blood pressure and peri menopause

I can't publish the link here but look up:  The Salt Fix by Dr James DiNicolantonio, to be published by Piatkus Books on June 6.

You need salt and a low salt diet is bad for you.

Dear Lily

thanks for the reply, I am 50 yrs old, I weigh 70 kg, 5ft4 inch, my GP says I should lose about 5 kg, I have been this weight for around 6yrs, before I was 60 kgs.

i have also been under a lot of stress lately as I'm managing a small tourist resort. A new challenge for me, I am also in peri menopause, start to miss a period every other month. I don't know if this is giving me headaches? It's only this week that my blood pressure have shot up, I do have an omron blood pressure monitor and have been checking it for the last 3 months and it was 110/70 and I was shock to see this week my BP have risen so much and also accompany headaches which is not something I normally get, I also have a sort of sore throat after a common cold. I am going to my GP this morning to have a full blood tests, as my mum and dad have high blood pressure and cholesterole, ever since I can remember, mum also have diabetes. So I want to get checked out for other problems as I have been relatively healthy all my life until this week. As the hospital doctor says I need to take the BP tablets for the rest of my life....

thanks for the support and advise.

I read an article by this guy on the salt subject and was most interested as my 86 yr old husband piles salt on his plate every meal [he likes the crunch factor ...!] and has low to normal blood pressure and always has had. Meanwhile I used to eat plenty of salt but due to high BP I cut it down drastically as per NHS guidelines and  now never add it to my plate. It hasn't made the slightest scap of difference to my BP!

I gather some scientist did some experiments on gm rats and published it. I couldn't help but draw parallels with the dodgy data regarding cholesterol. ie. force feeding rabbits with a high fat diet and wondering why they all died.

If you are a scientist it seems you can stand up and say whatever you like and be believed however dodgy the evidence.

I do agree with you up to a point Jane, but individual differences have to be taken into account too.

For example, my father smoked 50 cigarettes a day from the age of 15 and died a "textbook" death from lung cancer at age 67. My great-aunt Edie (other side of the family so different genes) smoked 60+ per day all her adult life and lived to 91, dying of old age and vascular dementia. My mother too was a lifelong heavy smoker - though not at the same heroic level as her aunt - and died at 89, also of old age and vascular dementia.

However, one cannot infer from the above that smoking doesn't cause cancer. One might even infer that it contributed to the vascular dementia suffered by both my mother and her aunt, since smoking negatively affects the peripheral circulation.

It's also worth remarking that three of my father's four siblings, his father and his father's twin brother all died prematurely of different cancers - some only in their 40s. All were heavy smokers. My father's eldest brother - the only one to bear no physical resemblance to their father - also smoked like a chimney and died peacefully at around 90 with no sign of either cancer or dementia. This incidentally opens up yet another can of worms - the question of the generalised "oncogene", which most scientists still dismiss.

It's my understanding that hypertension isn't just one condition, but that there are several different causes. This means that not everyone's BP can be brought down by reducing salt. There is, however, a lot of evidence that it works in some cases, so it's always worth a try.

The cholesterol/st@tin question (I'm trying to avoid being taken down!) doesn't really have much to do with this argument. It's a different kettle of fish, being a peculiarly anglo-saxon scandal. I left the UK 40-odd years ago, having worked there as a nurse, and one of my former nursing colleagues tells me that UK doctors still routinely test only for total cholesterol, without breaking out HDL (the good guys) and LDL. Now, it's been known for a long time - well, outside of the English-speaking world anyway - that the important factor is the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL. The lower this is, the better - regardless of the actual figures. My total cholesterol is about 50% over the limit, and my LDL is high too, but my HDL even more so. If I lived in the UK or the US, my doctors would be pushing maximum doses of potentially harmful drugs. Since I live in continental Europe, it's my very satisfactory ratio of <3:1 that's taken into account, and my GP never suggests cholesterol medication.

Hi Jane, As my earlier post got taken down, I sent it to you by private message. It's quite safe to open it. PMs via this site don't carry viruses and don't expose the email address of either party.

Hello Lily,

Your story about smoking was really interesting :-)

I'm a student nurse too, and I want to know, why doctor wouldn't prescribe cholesterol medication?

Well Noni, as I said in my post, modern thinking is that it's not the overall cholesterol level that's important, but the relationship between "good" HDL and "bad" LDL. As you've probably heard in your studies, it's LDL that clogs up the arteries and HDL that clears away the plaque. Of course, it's more complicated than that, but I'm simplifying it. Look up "atherosclerotic index". It's a fairly new concept, and one that seems to have been adopted in some countries but not others.

My question would be rather why doctors would prescribe cholesterol medication in cases where the atherosclerotic index is satisfactory, regardless of actual levels. Statins reduce HDL and LDL equally, so don't change the index, which is the more important factor.

Noni, rather more to the point is Why would they prescribe cholesterol medication. Everyone needs cholesterol for the functioning of every cell in our bodies.

 As a student nurse you are probably indoctrinated by the NHS guidelines regarding cholesterol? It's a dirty word and I believe the attitude of the medics in this country is totally out of date. NICE lowered the QRisk threshold from 20% to 10% overnight without justifying the reason. 

As Lily says it's the cholesterol ratio that matters most not the total amount.

I know I get on my high horse about this but as a healthy 74 yr old [albeit with controlled hypertension] I have been offered the cholesterol lowering tablets and refused them, my dr when I asked said if she were me she wouldn't take them either. Why would I risk muscle problems thanks to them? What good would they do?

My GP probably in his 50's has a family disposition for high cholesterol and takes a statin. Unlike me they have not caused him muscle pain and he is still an active runner.