A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

And since we were on the subject of hypertension...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 8th, 2012, 06:43 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default And since we were on the subject of hypertension...


Just how effective are blood pressure medications?

http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/06/08/j...e-medications/

"Even if we extend these NNTs over time, they still are not
impressive. Taking the best numbers here (stroke prevention in men),
an NNT of 160 over one year equates to an NNT of 32 over 5 years. So,
of 32 men treated, one will avoid a stroke, but the other 31 will not.
Which means 97 per cent of men taking two medications over 5 years
will not benefit in terms of stroke prevention.

"Now, of course, these slim benefits need to be weighed against the
potential adverse effects of antihypertensives (of which there are
many, unfortunately)."

Here's some of those adverse effects:

Headache.
Dizziness.
Dry cough.
Feeling weak.
Low blood pressure (hypotension).
Awareness of your heartbeat (palpitations).
Disturbances of the gut such as diarrhoea, constipation, nausea,
vomiting or abdominal pain.
Dry mouth.
Inflammation of the lining of the nose (rhinitis).
Skin reactions such as rash, itching, hair loss or sweating.
Faster than normal heartbeat (tachycardia).
Irregular heartbeats (arrhythmias).
Chest pain (angina).
Shortness of breath.
Increased level of potassium in the blood (hyperkalaemia).
Severe swelling of lips, face, tongue or throat (angioedema - see
warning above).
Inflammation of the pancreas (pancreatitis).
Problems with kidney function.
Disturbances in the normal levels of blood cells in the blood
(tell you doctor if you get a sore throat, mouth ulcers, high
temperature (fever), or feel tired or generally unwell while taking
this medicine).
Problems with liver function, including jaundice or hepatitis
(consult your doctor promptly if you develop unexplained itching,
yellowing of the skin or eyes, unusually dark urine, nausea and
vomiting, abdominal pains, loss of appetite or flu-like symptoms while
taking this medicine).

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/heart-and...es/gopten.html

Now the point here isn't to convince you that you should avoid drugs
(or salt, etc.) at any cost, but to remind you that there are *always*
risks when taking any kind of drug (risks the doctor will rarely be
aware of), and that they should only be contemplated after considering
diet, nutritional, and lifestyle changes.

The comments make for an interesting read, too.

Low-carb diets (and subsequent weight loss) helped several commenters
get off BP meds entirely. Other diets can probably work, too, provided
substantial weight loss is achieved. And exercise obviously helps,
too.


--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman
  #2  
Old June 8th, 2012, 07:04 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
James Warren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 150
Default And since we were on the subject of hypertension...

On 6/8/2012 2:43 PM, Dogman wrote:

Just how effective are blood pressure medications?

http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/06/08/j...e-medications/

"Even if we extend these NNTs over time, they still are not
impressive. Taking the best numbers here (stroke prevention in men),
an NNT of 160 over one year equates to an NNT of 32 over 5 years. So,
of 32 men treated, one will avoid a stroke, but the other 31 will not.
Which means 97 per cent of men taking two medications over 5 years
will not benefit in terms of stroke prevention.

"Now, of course, these slim benefits need to be weighed against the
potential adverse effects of antihypertensives (of which there are
many, unfortunately)."

Here's some of those adverse effects:

Headache.
Dizziness.
Dry cough.
Feeling weak.
Low blood pressure (hypotension).
Awareness of your heartbeat (palpitations).
Disturbances of the gut such as diarrhoea, constipation, nausea,
vomiting or abdominal pain.
Dry mouth.
Inflammation of the lining of the nose (rhinitis).
Skin reactions such as rash, itching, hair loss or sweating.
Faster than normal heartbeat (tachycardia).
Irregular heartbeats (arrhythmias).
Chest pain (angina).
Shortness of breath.
Increased level of potassium in the blood (hyperkalaemia).
Severe swelling of lips, face, tongue or throat (angioedema - see
warning above).
Inflammation of the pancreas (pancreatitis).
Problems with kidney function.
Disturbances in the normal levels of blood cells in the blood
(tell you doctor if you get a sore throat, mouth ulcers, high
temperature (fever), or feel tired or generally unwell while taking
this medicine).
Problems with liver function, including jaundice or hepatitis
(consult your doctor promptly if you develop unexplained itching,
yellowing of the skin or eyes, unusually dark urine, nausea and
vomiting, abdominal pains, loss of appetite or flu-like symptoms while
taking this medicine).

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/heart-and...es/gopten.html

Now the point here isn't to convince you that you should avoid drugs
(or salt, etc.) at any cost, but to remind you that there are *always*
risks when taking any kind of drug (risks the doctor will rarely be
aware of), and that they should only be contemplated after considering
diet, nutritional, and lifestyle changes.

The comments make for an interesting read, too.

Low-carb diets (and subsequent weight loss) helped several commenters
get off BP meds entirely. Other diets can probably work, too, provided
substantial weight loss is achieved. And exercise obviously helps,
too.


LC diet and subsequent may be OK for mild hypertension but it will
be nowhere near sufficient for high BP. If you have a BP of 280/160
you will need a lot of drugs.


  #3  
Old June 10th, 2012, 03:02 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default And since we were on the subject of hypertension...

On Jun 8, 1:43*pm, Dogman wrote:
Just how effective are blood pressure medications?

http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/06/08/j...re-blood-press...

"Even if we extend these NNTs over time, they still are not
impressive. Taking the best numbers here (stroke prevention in men),
an NNT of 160 over one year equates to an NNT of 32 over 5 years. So,
of 32 men treated, one will avoid a stroke, but the other 31 will not.
Which means 97 per cent of men taking two medications over 5 years
will not benefit in terms of stroke prevention.

"Now, of course, these slim benefits need to be weighed against the
potential adverse effects of antihypertensives (of which there are
many, unfortunately)."


That this doctor would call avoiding one stroke in 32 men in 5 years
a slim benefit pretty much tells you he's an idiot. One in 32 dead
or crippled for life doesn't seem slim to me.

As for the side effects of medication, there is a wide array of
blood pressure medication available today. Millions of people are
on them without suffering from side effects. If they can't tolerate
one, there are plenty of others to choose from. Just listing all
the possible side effects from any medication is nothing but
scare tactics. Look at the list of possible side effects of
even the safest drugs and it's scary.

And the probability of side effects probably corelates to the
benefit. Someone who's blood pressure is 140 is probably
going to find it very easy to find a medication that lowers it
with no side effects. Conversely, the person most likely to
have side effects because of the higher dosages required,
eg, someone at 200+, is also the person who is going to benefit the
most in terms of reducing the risk of heart attack, stroke, premature
death, etc.


  #4  
Old June 10th, 2012, 07:51 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default And since we were on the subject of hypertension...

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 07:02:13 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jun 8, 1:43*pm, Dogman wrote:
Just how effective are blood pressure medications?

http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/06/08/j...re-blood-press...

"Even if we extend these NNTs over time, they still are not
impressive. Taking the best numbers here (stroke prevention in men),
an NNT of 160 over one year equates to an NNT of 32 over 5 years. So,
of 32 men treated, one will avoid a stroke, but the other 31 will not.
Which means 97 per cent of men taking two medications over 5 years
will not benefit in terms of stroke prevention.

"Now, of course, these slim benefits need to be weighed against the
potential adverse effects of antihypertensives (of which there are
many, unfortunately)."


That this doctor would call avoiding one stroke in 32 men in 5 years
a slim benefit pretty much tells you he's an idiot.


Yes, of course he's an "idiot," he isn't pushing drugs for every
ailment known to man!

Gosh, but I'd love to see your credentials matched up against his:

http://www.drbriffa.com/about-2/

One in 32 dead
or crippled for life doesn't seem slim to me.


It also doesn't mean that any of another cohort of identically matched
32 men will have a stroke, either.

Statistics just aren't your thing, are they?

As for the side effects of medication, there is a wide array of
blood pressure medication available today.


Yes, of course there is, because it's a lucrative business, but they
all come with pretty much the same package of side effects, one of
which is DEATH.

Just listing all
the possible side effects from any medication is nothing but
scare tactics.


Actually, what it is, is being open and honest about taking drugs for
hypertension - they all come with a cost.

And what Dr. Briffa is saying, and what I am saying, is that you
should consider nutritional, diet, and lifestyle changes before
rushing out and taking a drug with known serious side-effects, because
there is beaucoup evidence out there that they can have a positive and
profound effect on one's hypertension.

And if that makes us "idiots," I'm happy to be one!

Someone who's blood pressure is 140 is probably
going to find it very easy to find a medication that lowers it
with no side effects. Conversely, the person most likely to
have side effects because of the higher dosages required,
eg, someone at 200+, is also the person who is going to benefit the
most in terms of reducing the risk of heart attack, stroke, premature
death, etc.


Not necessarily, because until one learns WHY he or she has BP that
high, simply taking a drug for it may not help solve the underlying
REASON(S) for it.

It would be like having the engine warning light in your car come on
and then just turning it off (which is something I can easily see you
doing, or just popping another pill!). Voila! No more engine problem,
right? Well, whatever it was that caused that light to come on in the
first place hasn't actually been dealt with, has it? And what may
happen next? Total engine failure, that's what.

Moron.

So for those non-morons out there, listen to the advice of Dr. Briffa,
and before you resort to drugs, give diet (especially low-carb),
nutrition, and lifestyle change a chance to rid yourself of
hypertension. Then if you still want to take drugs, take them. It's
your life.

PS: I also observed this in the Comments section of Dr. Briffa's
article:

Underlying this discussion is what is the cause the major of
hypertension cases in the first place – and why are we seeing so much
of it today? The 800-pound gorilla in the in the living room is our
modern high carb diet. As I explain in my newest (soon-to-be-published
book, Healing Your Hypertension):

While everyone has been focused on accusing obesity, stress, dietary
fat, and excess salt as the culprits responsible for today’s epidemic
of hypertension and other cardiovascular problems, the real
troublemaker has gone unnoticed by Big Medicine. This is truly
mind-boggling because researchers as far back as the 1860s had
identified this obvious risk factor and written it into the medical
literature. How and why it doesn’t appear on modern medicine’s radar
screen today is one of the most disturbing mysteries of the modern
era. But the evidence is very strong indeed pointing to this single
cause as being responsible for the 90 percent of hypertension which
doctors maintain “has no known cause.”

Much recognition and gratitude is due author Gary Taubes for tracking
it down and bringing it to the public’s attention in his book, Good
Calories, Bad Calories. His account reads like a spellbinding
detective novel, and as such, it follows the evidence and takes care
to question every unsubstantiated assumption. His research is thorough
and convincing, making it all but impossible for any open-minded
reader or investigator to doubt his ultimate conclusion: That
something in modern diet other than fat or sodium is responsible for
today’s high rates of hypertension and cardiovascular disease. And
that something is the refined carbohydrate.

In his book, Taubes points to early scientific evidence that
carbohydrate-rich diets raise blood pressure by causing the body to
retain water, just as salt consumption is supposed to do. This was
first noted by the German chemist Carl von Voit in 1860. It was
corroborated in 1919 by Francis Benedict, director of the Nutrition
Laboratory of the Carnegie Institute of Washington, who described the
phenomenon this way: “With diets predominantly carbohydrate, there is
a strong tendency for the body to retain water, while with diets
predominantly fat there is a distinct tendency for the body to lose
water.”

Benedict was referring to the weight loss which occurs in the first
few weeks of any diet that restricts either calories or carbohydrates
(especially the latter). This initial weight is mostly water, not body
fat, as many veteran dieters know. What is less well-known is that a
corresponding effect of this water loss is a lowering of blood
pressure.

Consuming a carbohydrate-rich diet causes the kidneys to hold on to
salt that is already in the body, rather than to excrete it. In
reaction to this, the body retains water to maintain the sodium
concentration of the blood. This is the same result (water retention)
that occurs when we consume more sodium. “Removing carbohydrates from
the diet works, in effect, just like the antihypertensive drugs known
as diuretics, which cause the kidneys to excrete sodium, and water
along with it,” early researchers noted. In fact, this drop in blood
pressure is so considerable that it led critics of low-carbohydrate
diets to worry publicly about the “low blood pressure resulting from …
losses of … fluid, sodium, and other minerals.”

By the early 1970s, researchers concluded that this water-retaining
effect of carbohydrates was due to the insulin that they stimulated
the pancreas to secrete. This in turn forced the kidneys to re-absorb
sodium rather than excrete it. (This made sense because insulin levels
are generally higher in people with hypertension than in normal
individuals.) So widely accepted was this notion that by the
mid-1900s, diabetes textbooks were discussing the likelihood that
chronically-elevated levels of insulin were causing hypertension in
Type 2 patients. Unfortunately, no one considered this might also be
true for non-diabetics.

Today, it is a well-demonstrated phenomenon that a low-carbohydrate
diet causes the excretion of water (causing a reduction in blood
pressure), and conversely, that carbohydrate consumption leads to
retention of both salt and water (which elevates blood pressure).
Therefore, it is ironic that doctors advise overweight hypertensives
to lose weight in order to reduce their blood pressure by adopting the
standard low-fat, high-carb diet. This is self-defeating, not only
because low-fat diets have been shown to be effective ways to lose
weight, but also because consuming more carbohydrates will cause water
retention and an elevation of blood pressure.

Carbohydrate-rich diets also stimulate chronically high insulin levels
(because insulin is needed to clear the bloodstream of the glucose
that carbohydrates break down to in the digestion process; so the more
carbohydrates that are consumed, the more insulin is required) — and
insulin has a very direct influence on raising blood pressure. Harvard
researchers found that it stimulates the nervous system with the same
“flight-or-fight” response triggered by adrenaline, thus increasing
the heart rate and constricting blood vessels, resulting in an
increase in blood pressure. “The higher the insulin level, the greater
the stimulation of the nervous system,” the researchers discovered.
“And if insulin levels remain high, the result would be constantly
elevated blood pressure.”

This is one reason hypertension appears so frequently with diabetes.
But it should be remembered that high-carb diets (which featured
consumption of sugar and refined carbohydrate foods, such as bread,
baked goods, snack foods, and sodas) also stimulate elevated levels of
insulin even in people without diabetes. Furthermore, these early
researchers found that elevated insulin levels cause hypertension,
independent of any of the risk factors.

How effectively your body uses insulin is directly related to your
risk of developing high blood pressure, reported researchers from Wake
Forest University Baptist Medical Center. “We found you can predict
who’s at higher risk for developing high blood pressure based on their
insulin resistance,” said David Goff Jr., Ph.D., M.D., the lead
researcher for the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study (IRAS)
conducted in 2000. Numerous other studies, before and since IRAS, have
confirmed this connection.
When Dr. Goff’s study began, all 809 middle-age adults had normal
blood pressure and varying levels of resistance to insulin. Five years
later, researchers found that participants who were most resistant to
insulin had a higher incidence of high blood pressure. “The one-third
of participants with the highest levels of insulin resistance had
rates of hypertension that were 35 percent higher than the one-third
with the least resistance,” said Dr. Goff. “These findings point out
that reducing the body’s resistance to insulin may help prevent
hypertension and cardiovascular disease.”

Sugar and hypertension. Excess sugar consumption in hypertension go
hand-in-hand, and the number one culprit is sodas and sweetened
beverages. Researchers tracked the diets of nearly 2,700 people and
found that those who drank sugar-sweetened beverages had higher blood
pressures—both systolic and diastolic numbers. The highest blood
pressure levels occurred in those who consumed the most fructose and
glucose, which are both found in HFCS.

Another study examined the nutritional data of 4,500 people, none of
whom had hypertension. But after consuming 74 grams of HFCS a day (the
equivalent of two and a half cans of soda), they had a 77 percent
greater risk of having blood pressure level of 160/100 or higher. And
the negative affect that sweets have on blood pressure happens rather
quickly. One study found that men eating a high-fructose diet began to
see their blood pressure numbers rise after just two weeks.

Since the average annual soda consumption in the US is about two cans
per person per day, according to the National Soft Drink Association,
this means that vast majority of hypertension in a country could be
eliminated if people simply swore off soda (and beer).

HFCS and hypertension. Studies conducted by Dr. Richard Johnson,
professor of medicine at the University of Colorado, where he runs the
kidney division and is charge of blood pressure research reveals that
HFCS (and all sugars, in general) breaks down into uric acid, a
harmful waste product, immediately after ingestion. Elevated levels of
uric acid are usually associated with gout, but it also is recorded in
people with hypertension and kidney disease. Uric acid drives up blood
pressure by inhibiting nitric oxide in your blood vessels. Nitric
oxide helps blood vessels maintain their elasticity and facilitates
their expansion (dilation). Thus, suppression of nitric oxide by HFCS
consumption leads to increases in blood pressure. This is confirmed by
17 studies which demonstrate that elevated uric acid levels lead to
hypertension. Too much uric acid is also is a factor in kidney
disease, insulin resistance and diabetes, obesity, fatty liver
disease, elevated triglycerides and LDL, and cardiovascular disease.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman
  #5  
Old June 12th, 2012, 03:58 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default And since we were on the subject of hypertension...

On Jun 10, 2:51*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 07:02:13 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Jun 8, 1:43*pm, Dogman wrote:
Just how effective are blood pressure medications?


http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/06/08/j...re-blood-press....


"Even if we extend these NNTs over time, they still are not
impressive. Taking the best numbers here (stroke prevention in men),
an NNT of 160 over one year equates to an NNT of 32 over 5 years. So,
of 32 men treated, one will avoid a stroke, but the other 31 will not.
Which means 97 per cent of men taking two medications over 5 years
will not benefit in terms of stroke prevention.


"Now, of course, these slim benefits need to be weighed against the
potential adverse effects of antihypertensives (of which there are
many, unfortunately)."


That this doctor would call avoiding one stroke in 32 men in 5 years
a slim benefit pretty much tells you he's an idiot.


Yes, of course he's an "idiot," he isn't pushing drugs for every
ailment known to man!


No. What I clearly stated was that I consider him to be an
idiot because he says that avoiding one stroke in 32 men
in 5 years is a "slim benefit". I think most reasonable
people would say avoiding one stroke in 32 men in 5 years
is a huge benefit. Especially if you happen to be the one
in 32.




One in 32 dead
or crippled for life doesn't seem slim to me.


It also doesn't mean that any of another cohort of identically matched
32 men will have a stroke, either.

Statistics just aren't your thing, are they?


You and perhaps the doctor are the ones confused.
I just used HIS statistics. As to another cohort, there isn't
one. There isn't even a cohort of 32. If you read the
article he used a meta study to come up with his statistics.
Then he concluded that by treating 32 men with hypertension
you would prevent one stroke in 5 years. He called that
slim, which is bizarre.



As for the side effects of medication, there is a wide array of
blood pressure medication available today.


Yes, of course there is, because it's a lucrative business, but they
all come with pretty much the same package of side effects, one of
which is DEATH.


Oh please. More scare tactic nonsense.



Just listing all
the possible side effects from any medication is nothing but
scare tactics.


Actually, what it is, is being open and honest about taking drugs for
hypertension - they all come with a cost.

And what Dr. Briffa is saying, and what I am saying, is that you
should consider nutritional, diet, and lifestyle changes before
rushing out and taking a drug with known serious side-effects, because
there is beaucoup evidence out there that they can have a positive and
profound effect on one's hypertension.

And if that makes us "idiots," I'm happy to be one!

Someone who's blood pressure is 140 is probably
going to find it very easy to find a medication that lowers it
with no side effects. *Conversely, the person most likely to
have side effects because of the higher dosages required,
eg, someone at 200+, is also the person who is going to benefit the
most in terms of reducing the risk of heart attack, stroke, premature
death, etc.


Not necessarily, because until one learns WHY he or she has BP that
high, simply taking a drug for it may not help solve the underlying
REASON(S) for it.


With most cases of hypertension, there is no known underlying
reason. In some cases it's secondary to another disease. We
do know there are some steps that can be taken by people with
hypertension that can help, eg keep their weight under control,
excercise. I'm not suggesting that isn't a good idea. It is.
Virtually all the doctors out there are telling patients to lose
weight, exercise, etc. But when they come back 6 months,
a year later and they haven't lost weight, then what?

You seem to think anything can be treated without drugs. That
simply isn't the case. There are plenty of people out there that
have hypertension that are not overweight. And to suggest that
preventing one stroke among 32 men every 5 years is a slim
benefit, is just nuts.

  #6  
Old June 12th, 2012, 05:19 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default And since we were on the subject of hypertension...

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:58:25 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
That this doctor would call avoiding one stroke in 32 men in 5 years
a slim benefit pretty much tells you he's an idiot.


Yes, of course he's an "idiot," he isn't pushing drugs for every
ailment known to man!


No. What I clearly stated was that I consider him to be an
idiot because he says that avoiding one stroke in 32 men
in 5 years is a "slim benefit". I think most reasonable
people would say avoiding one stroke in 32 men in 5 years
is a huge benefit. Especially if you happen to be the one
in 32.


There's no guarantee that any other cohort of 32 men would even
experience that "slim benefit," and you're totally ignoring the many
risk factors from taking these drugs, which include DEATH.

By all means, if you think these are good odds, then just
automatically take the drugs. Don't try anything else first.

See: Darwin.

One in 32 dead
or crippled for life doesn't seem slim to me.


It also doesn't mean that any of another cohort of identically matched
32 men will have a stroke, either.

Statistics just aren't your thing, are they?


You and perhaps the doctor are the ones confused.
I just used HIS statistics. As to another cohort, there isn't
one.


Exactly!

Not to mention:

"I suppose it should be borne in mind that the authors of the
meta-analysis are Professors Malcolm Law and Nicholas Wald, who own
patents for a multi-medication pill (the ‘polypill’) that includes
(perhaps predictably) antihypertensives."

What a coincidence!

As for the side effects of medication, there is a wide array of
blood pressure medication available today.


Yes, of course there is, because it's a lucrative business, but they
all come with pretty much the same package of side effects, one of
which is DEATH.


Oh please. More scare tactic nonsense.


To mention the many risk factors from taking these drugs is
"nonsense"?

What a bozo you are.

Just listing all
the possible side effects from any medication is nothing but
scare tactics.


Actually, what it is, is being open and honest about taking drugs for
hypertension - they all come with a cost.

And what Dr. Briffa is saying, and what I am saying, is that you
should consider nutritional, diet, and lifestyle changes before
rushing out and taking a drug with known serious side-effects, because
there is beaucoup evidence out there that they can have a positive and
profound effect on one's hypertension.

And if that makes us "idiots," I'm happy to be one!

Someone who's blood pressure is 140 is probably
going to find it very easy to find a medication that lowers it
with no side effects. *Conversely, the person most likely to
have side effects because of the higher dosages required,
eg, someone at 200+, is also the person who is going to benefit the
most in terms of reducing the risk of heart attack, stroke, premature
death, etc.


Not necessarily, because until one learns WHY he or she has BP that
high, simply taking a drug for it may not help solve the underlying
REASON(S) for it.


With most cases of hypertension, there is no known underlying
reason. In some cases it's secondary to another disease. We
do know there are some steps that can be taken by people with
hypertension that can help, eg keep their weight under control,
excercise. I'm not suggesting that isn't a good idea.


That's exactly what you're doing, because that's all I'm saying!
That's all that Dr. Briffa is saying!

Try diet, try nutrition, try lifestyle changes, before getting on the
drug train!

Turning out the blinking engine light isn't a very good idea. First,
find out what's causing it to blink.

It is.
Virtually all the doctors out there are telling patients to lose
weight, exercise, etc. But when they come back 6 months,
a year later and they haven't lost weight, then what?


Then they can make up their own minds, just like I said!

Just like Dr. Briffa said.

You seem to think anything can be treated without drugs.


I don't know where you get that impression. Besides the fact that
you're just a stupid man, I mean. I said to try other things first,
then make up your mind, after considering the risk factors, etc.

On the other hand, you seem to think that drugs are always the answer!

Which drug company do you work for? Pfizer? AstraZeneca? What?

Moron.


--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman
  #7  
Old June 12th, 2012, 06:22 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default And since we were on the subject of hypertension...

On Jun 12, 12:19*pm, Dogman wrote:

There's no guarantee that any other cohort of 32 men would even
experience that "slim benefit," and you're totally ignoring the many
risk factors from taking these drugs, which include DEATH.


As usual, you're wandering of course here and
trying to confuse the issue.
Of course there is no guarantee that any particular
group of 32 men is going to experience the benefit,
ie avoiding a stroke. It's statistically expected, but
there is no guarantee for a particular group of 32.
One sample of 32 could have
no reduction in strokes, another sample of 32 could
have two less strokes. Together it averages out to
one less in 32. If we have a group of 32,000
we'd expect 1,000 less strokes. So, what's your
point?

The issue is the doctor says that 1 less stroke in
32 men over 5 years is slim. You apparently agree
with that. I say it's a huge benefit. That was the issue.




By all means, if you think these are good odds, then just
automatically take the drugs. Don't try anything else first.


There you go again. I never said anything about not trying
anything else first. It's always better to avoid drugs if
possible.



Yes, of course there is, because it's a lucrative business, but

they
all come with pretty much the same package of side effects, one of
which is DEATH.


Oh please. *More scare tactic nonsense.


To mention the many risk factors from taking these drugs is
"nonsense"?


It is when you blow them all out of proportion and
capitalize the word DEATH. BP medications are widely
used and well tolerated.




Not necessarily, because until one learns WHY he or she has BP that
high, simply taking a drug for it may not help solve the underlying
REASON(S) for it.


With most cases of hypertension, there is no known underlying
reason. *In some cases it's secondary to another disease. *We
do know there are some steps that can be taken by people with
hypertension that can help, eg keep their weight under control,
excercise. *I'm not suggesting that isn't a good idea.


That's exactly what you're doing, because that's all I'm saying!
That's all that Dr. Briffa is saying!


Again, you seem to have a problem here. This
has happened many times now. I take issue with
one specific part of something that some "expert"
has said. You then somehow try to twist that into
something totally different. In this case, I specifically
stated that IMO, Dr. Briffa is an idiot because he
thinks avoiding one stroke in 32 men over 5 years
is a slim benefit. I think that's a huge benefit.

Now, instead of staying on the point, you claim I'm
advocating people not try to lower their blood pressure
first by losing weight, exercise, etc.



Try diet, try nutrition, try lifestyle changes, before getting on the
drug train!


Great idea and everyone agrees it's good advice.
How well is that working in practice?




On the other hand, you seem to think that drugs are always the answer!

Which drug company do you work for? *Pfizer? *AstraZeneca? What?

Moron.



Yes, very typical. Anyone who has information that doesn't
jive with your little world must be working for someone,
getting paid, a shill, etc.
On the other hand, you and your sources
could never have any such motives, right?
Let's start with Dr. Briffa. Speaking of lucrative
businesses, does he not get paid for the books
he writes?
  #8  
Old June 12th, 2012, 07:23 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default And since we were on the subject of hypertension...

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:22:39 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jun 12, 12:19*pm, Dogman wrote:

There's no guarantee that any other cohort of 32 men would even
experience that "slim benefit," and you're totally ignoring the many
risk factors from taking these drugs, which include DEATH.


As usual, you're wandering of course here and
trying to confuse the issue.


Actually, I'm just trying to illustrate all the facts that you're
trying to suppress, or minimize.

By all means, if you think these are good odds, then just
automatically take the drugs. Don't try anything else first.


There you go again. I never said anything about not trying
anything else first.


Then why are you gnawing on my ankles again???

Because that's all I'm saying here, and that's all Dr. Briffa is
saying! Along with many other doctors and scientists.

Yes, of course there is, because it's a lucrative business, but

they
all come with pretty much the same package of side effects, one of
which is DEATH.


Oh please. *More scare tactic nonsense.


To mention the many risk factors from taking these drugs is
"nonsense"?


It is when you blow them all out of proportion and
capitalize the word DEATH.


I'm not blowing them out of proportion, I'm just restoring them to
their rightful place. Only morons ignore side effects of drugs (and
all drugs have them!).

And the word DEATH should get even your attention.

Nah, probably not.

Not necessarily, because until one learns WHY he or she has BP that
high, simply taking a drug for it may not help solve the underlying
REASON(S) for it.


With most cases of hypertension, there is no known underlying
reason. *In some cases it's secondary to another disease. *We
do know there are some steps that can be taken by people with
hypertension that can help, eg keep their weight under control,
excercise. *I'm not suggesting that isn't a good idea.


That's exactly what you're doing, because that's all I'm saying!
That's all that Dr. Briffa is saying!


Again, you seem to have a problem here. This
has happened many times now. I take issue with
one specific part of something that some "expert"
has said. You then somehow try to twist that into
something totally different. In this case, I specifically
stated that IMO, Dr. Briffa is an idiot because he
thinks avoiding one stroke in 32 men over 5 years
is a slim benefit. I think that's a huge benefit.


Most people wouldn't think it's a "huge benefit" if the side effects
of taking the drugs can also result in DEATH, among a long list of
life-long, debilitating effects.

And only some moron like you would call them "idiots."

Now, instead of staying on the point, you claim I'm
advocating people not try to lower their blood pressure
first by losing weight, exercise, etc.


That's pretty much what you were doing, otherwise there would have
been no need to reply.

QED.

Try diet, try nutrition, try lifestyle changes, before getting on the
drug train!


Great idea and everyone agrees it's good advice.


Good! That's progress!

How well is that working in practice?


How well does anyone know without trying it?

But I think it works well for the vast majority of people who try it,
and then stick to it.

Hypertension can also run in families, and may be absolutely nothing
to worry about. If everyone in a family has elevated BP, but live
average lives, don't have strokes or heart attacks, why would you
necessarily want to lower it in the first place, especially after
considering that artificailly doing so may cause DEATH and other
life-long debilitating effects?

Some families have abnormally high (or extremely low) levels of
cholesterol, too, but most of them lead normal lives, with normal
life-spans.

On the other hand, you seem to think that drugs are always the answer!

Which drug company do you work for? *Pfizer? *AstraZeneca? What?

Moron.


On the other hand, you and your sources
could never have any such motives, right?


Of course they can!

That's why The Scientific Method is so important!

Let's start with Dr. Briffa. Speaking of lucrative
businesses, does he not get paid for the books
he writes?


Presumably, but he doesn't have a book regarding hypertension.

And his opinions are supported by The Scientific Method.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman
  #9  
Old June 13th, 2012, 03:49 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default And since we were on the subject of hypertension...

On Jun 12, 2:23*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:22:39 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Jun 12, 12:19*pm, Dogman wrote:


There's no guarantee that any other cohort of 32 men would even
experience that "slim benefit," and you're totally ignoring the many
risk factors from taking these drugs, which include DEATH.


As usual, you're wandering of course here and
trying to confuse the issue.


Actually, I'm just trying to illustrate all the facts that you're
trying to suppress, or minimize.

By all means, if you think these are good odds, then just
automatically take the drugs. Don't try anything else first.


There you go again. *I never said anything about not trying
anything else first.


Then why are you gnawing on my ankles again???

Because that's all I'm saying here, and that's all Dr. Briffa is
saying!


One more time. Dr. Briffa did an analysis where he
claimed that you have to treat 32 men in order to avoid
one stroke in 5 years. He then called the benefit of
avoiding one stroke in 5 years a "slim benefit".

I think anyone that says avoiding one stroke in 32
men over a 5 year period is a "slim benefit",
is shockingly off target. So. I think anyone evaluating
what else this guy has to say should take that into
consideration. Ask yourself this simple question:

Do I want to be listening to a doctor that says
avoiding one stroke among 32 men in 5 years is
a slim benefit?

I sure wouldn't take anything else he says seriously,
because the above is a very, very strange viewpoint.



Along with many other doctors and scientists.

Yes, of course there is, because it's a lucrative business, but

they
all come with pretty much the same package of side effects, one of
which is DEATH.


Oh please. *More scare tactic nonsense.


To mention the many risk factors from taking these drugs is
"nonsense"?


It is when you blow them all out of proportion and
capitalize the word DEATH.


I'm not blowing them out of proportion, I'm just restoring them to
their rightful place. Only morons ignore side effects of drugs (and
all drugs have them!).

And the word DEATH should get even your attention.

Nah, probably not.


It's rather amazing. Using the doctors own numbers,
avoiding one stroke among 32 men in 5 years is a
slim benefit. But we're supposed to get all worked
up over DEATH as a possible side effect of a
blood pressure medication? What do you think the
death rate among those 32 men from that stroke is?
I guarantee you it's orders of magnitude higher than
the risk of death from a blood pressure medication.
BP medications are among the most widely used,
well tolerated medicines out there. And they have
been proven to work very well.

They've even been proven to work by the doctor's
own data. Yet he calls avoiding one stroke in 32
men in 5 years a "slim benefit".

And the BP medicines that are going to have the
most side effects are also likely the ones that are
needed by patients with very high blood pressure.
That is when your BP is 200+, you may need the
ones with more serious side effects, but at the
same time, your risk of stroke, heart attack, death,
etc from the high BP is still orders of magnitude
greater.




Not necessarily, because until one learns WHY he or she has BP that
high, simply taking a drug for it may not help solve the underlying
REASON(S) for it.


With most cases of hypertension, there is no known underlying
reason. *In some cases it's secondary to another disease. *We
do know there are some steps that can be taken by people with
hypertension that can help, eg keep their weight under control,
excercise. *I'm not suggesting that isn't a good idea.


That's exactly what you're doing, because that's all I'm saying!
That's all that Dr. Briffa is saying!


Again, you seem to have a problem here. *This
has happened many times now. *I take issue with
one specific part of something that some "expert"
has said. * You then somehow try to twist that into
something totally different. *In this case, I specifically
stated that IMO, Dr. Briffa is an idiot because he
thinks avoiding one stroke in 32 men over 5 years
is a slim benefit. *I think that's a huge benefit.


Most people wouldn't think it's a "huge benefit" if the side effects
of taking the drugs can also result in DEATH, among a long list of
life-long, debilitating effects.


The side effect of most drugs includes possible death.
So what? It occurs in such a tiny percentage that
compared to the benefit, the benefit is worth it.
Except of course to those that think avoiding one
stroke in 32 men over 5 years is a "slim benefit".



And only some moron like you would call them "idiots."

Now, instead of staying on the point, you claim I'm
advocating people not try to lower their blood pressure
first by losing weight, exercise, etc.


That's pretty much what you were doing, otherwise there would have
been no need to reply.

QED.


You clearly have a problem with anyone who makes
any kind of comment regarding even a part of the
stuff you post. All I pointed out was that the doctor
considers preventing one stroke among a group of 32
patients a slim benefit.




Try diet, try nutrition, try lifestyle changes, before getting on the
drug train!


Great idea and everyone agrees it's good advice.


Good! *That's progress!

How well is that working in practice?


How well does anyone know without trying it?


Lame. It's being tried all the time.



But I think it works well for the vast majority of people who try it,
and then stick to it.


That's a big help. And how about the fact that it's been
shown that the vast majority of people can't stick with
any diet or significant lifestyle changes?





Hypertension can also run in families, and may be absolutely nothing
to worry about.


I'm sure we'd all like to see the study that supports
that conclusion.


If everyone in a family has elevated BP, but live
average lives, don't have strokes or heart attacks, why would you
necessarily want to lower it in the first place,


Study please to show that this pure speculation
exists. Otherwise, it's just a strawman.





especially after
considering that artificailly doing so may cause DEATH and other
life-long debilitating effects?


Do you realize that if you have a headache and take some
aspirin there is a risk of DEATH?





Some families have abnormally high (or extremely low) levels of
cholesterol, too, but most of them lead normal lives, with normal
life-spans.


Study please.




  #10  
Old June 13th, 2012, 05:33 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default And since we were on the subject of hypertension...

On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:49:09 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


There you go again. *I never said anything about not trying
anything else first.


Then why are you gnawing on my ankles again???

Because that's all I'm saying here, and that's all Dr. Briffa is
saying!


One more time. Dr. Briffa did an analysis where he
claimed that you have to treat 32 men in order to avoid
one stroke in 5 years. He then called the benefit of
avoiding one stroke in 5 years a "slim benefit".


And that's what it is, for the very reasons I've already explained.

And we can keep doing this as many times as you want.

I'm game bred.

I'm not blowing them out of proportion, I'm just restoring them to
their rightful place. Only morons ignore side effects of drugs (and
all drugs have them!).

And the word DEATH should get even your attention.

Nah, probably not.


It's rather amazing. Using the doctors own numbers,
avoiding one stroke among 32 men in 5 years is a
slim benefit. But we're supposed to get all worked
up over DEATH as a possible side effect of a
blood pressure medication?


Considering that the benefits of taking the pills are statistically
"slim," you should be concerned, yes.

Only morons get "all worked up."

Most people wouldn't think it's a "huge benefit" if the side effects
of taking the drugs can also result in DEATH, among a long list of
life-long, debilitating effects.


The side effect of most drugs includes possible death.


Exactly. And that's why they should always be the last resort.

But even the other side effects from taking BP meds are nothing to
sniff at, e.g., impotence, dizziness, low blood sugar, muscle cramps,
constipation, headaches, bleeding gums, etc. - for essentially the
rest of one's life.

And only some moron like you would call them "idiots."

Now, instead of staying on the point, you claim I'm
advocating people not try to lower their blood pressure
first by losing weight, exercise, etc.


That's pretty much what you were doing, otherwise there would have
been no need to reply.

QED.


You clearly have a problem with anyone who makes
any kind of comment regarding even a part of the
stuff you post.


The only reason you're even commenting on this post is because we
despise each other. And you see it as your job to harass me about
anything I post here.

Well, good luck with that, asshole!

Hypertension can also run in families, and may be absolutely nothing
to worry about.


I'm sure we'd all like to see the study that supports
that conclusion.


You can look it up. Well, maybe you can't, but anyone else can.

If everyone in a family has elevated BP, but live
average lives, don't have strokes or heart attacks, why would you
necessarily want to lower it in the first place,


Study please to show that this pure speculation
exists. Otherwise, it's just a strawman.


You can look it up.

You probably should look up the term "straw man" too, because you
obviously don't know what that means.

especially after
considering that artificailly doing so may cause DEATH and other
life-long debilitating effects?


Do you realize that if you have a headache and take some
aspirin there is a risk of DEATH?


I'm not aware of it ever happening, but I suppose it's possible.

Anything is possible.

Some families have abnormally high (or extremely low) levels of
cholesterol, too, but most of them lead normal lives, with normal
life-spans.


Study please.


Oh please.

Look it up for yourself. It's easy to do.

Asshole.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
no subject admin General Discussion 0 October 25th, 2005 12:53 PM
On the subject of pedometers Dan Low Carbohydrate Diets 1 February 1st, 2005 12:08 AM
Nasty Subject - read with care Rachael Reynolds General Discussion 4 November 21st, 2004 04:23 AM
Hmmm--Subject?? Not really new here but should be... Jennifer Foth Low Carbohydrate Diets 16 July 7th, 2004 08:00 PM
Off subject. For Lesanne Coq Weightwatchers 1 December 14th, 2003 05:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.