Which BP Med Has the Least Side Effects
ken
most beneficial for the heart.
Any other opinions.
Ken
Juhana Harju
The DASH diet, salt reduction, exercise, weight reduction, pomegranate
juice, hibiscus tea and CoQ10 are all good and safe options. The DASH diet
alone has been found to reduce blood pressure as much as a single blood
pressure medication.
--
Juhana
Juhana Harju
> ken wrote:
>> My doc says benicar....ARB...has the least potential side effects and
>> is most beneficial for the heart.
>> Any other opinions.
>
> The DASH diet, salt reduction, exercise, weight reduction, pomegranate
> juice, hibiscus tea and CoQ10 are all good and safe options. The DASH
> diet alone has been found to reduce blood pressure as much as a
> single blood pressure medication.
(1) N Engl J Med. 1997 Apr 17;336(16):1117-24.
A clinical trial of the effects of dietary patterns on blood pressure. DASH
Collaborative Research Group.
Appel LJ, Moore TJ, Obarzanek E, Vollmer WM, Svetkey LP, Sacks FM, Bray GA,
Vogt TM, Cutler JA, Windhauser MM, Lin PH, Karanja N.
Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns
Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
BACKGROUND: It is known that obesity, sodium intake, and alcohol consumption
factors influence blood pressure. In this clinical trial, Dietary Approaches
to Stop Hypertension, we assessed the effects of dietary patterns on blood
pressure. METHODS: We enrolled 459 adults with systolic blood pressures of
less than 160 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressures of 80 to 95 mm Hg. For
three weeks, the subjects were fed a control diet that was low in fruits,
vegetables, and dairy products, with a fat content typical of the average
diet in the United States. They were then randomly assigned to receive for
eight weeks the control diet, a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, or a
"combination" diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy products
and with reduced saturated and total fat. Sodium intake and body weight were
maintained at constant levels. RESULTS: At base line, the mean (+/-SD)
systolic and diastolic blood pressures were 131.3+/-10.8 mm Hg and
84.7+/-4.7 mm Hg, respectively. The combination diet reduced systolic and
diastolic blood pressure by 5.5 and 3.0 mm Hg more, respectively, than the
control diet (P<0.001 for each); the fruits-and-vegetables diet reduced
systolic blood pressure by 2.8 mm Hg more (P<0.001) and diastolic blood
pressure by 1.1 mm Hg more than the control diet (P=0.07). Among the 133
subjects with hypertension (systolic pressure, > or =140 mm Hg; diastolic
pressure, > or =90 mm Hg; or both), the combination diet reduced systolic
and diastolic blood pressure by 11.4 and 5.5 mm Hg more, respectively, than
the control diet (P<0.001 for each); among the 326 subjects without
hypertension, the corresponding reductions were 3.5 mm Hg (P<0.001) and 2.1
mm Hg (P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: A diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and low-fat
dairy foods and with reduced saturated and total fat can substantially lower
blood pressure. This diet offers an additional nutritional approach to
preventing and treating hypertension. PMID: 9099655
(2) Clin Nutr. 2004 Jun;23(3):423-33.
Pomegranate juice consumption for 3 years by patients with carotid artery
stenosis reduces common carotid intima-media thickness, blood pressure and
LDL oxidation.
Aviram M, Rosenblat M, Gaitini D, Nitecki S, Hoffman A, Dornfeld L, Volkova
N, Presser D, Attias J, Liker H, Hayek T.
The Lipid Research Laboratory, Rappaport Family Institute for Research in
the Medical Sciences, Rambam Medical Center, Haifa 31096, Israel.
Dietary supplementation with polyphenolic antioxidants to animals was shown
to be associated with inhibition of LDL oxidation and macrophage foam cell
formation, and attenuation of atherosclerosis development. We investigated
the effects of pomegranate juice (PJ, which contains potent tannins and
anthocyanins) consumption by atherosclerotic patients with carotid artery
stenosis (CAS) on the progression of carotid lesions and changes in
oxidative stress and blood pressure. Ten patients were supplemented with PJ
for 1 year and five of them continued for up to 3 years. Blood samples were
collected before treatment and during PJ consumption. In the control group
that did not consume PJ, common carotid intima-media thickness (IMT)
increased by 9% during 1 year, whereas, PJ consumption resulted in a
significant IMT reduction, by up to 30%, after 1 year. The patients' serum
paraoxonase 1 (PON 1) activity was increased by 83%, whereas serum LDL basal
oxidative state and LDL susceptibility to copper ion-induced oxidation were
both significantly reduced, by 90% and 59%, respectively, after 12 months of
PJ consumption, compared to values obtained before PJ consumption.
Furthermore, serum levels of antibodies against oxidized LDL were decreased
by 19%, and in parallel serum total antioxidant status (TAS) was increased
by 130% after 1 year of PJ consumption. Systolic blood pressure was reduced
after 1 year of PJ consumption by 21% and was not further reduced along 3
years of PJ consumption. For all studied parameters, the maximal effects
were observed after 1 year of PJ consumption. Further consumption of PJ, for
up to 3 years, had no additional beneficial effects on IMT and serum PON1
activity, whereas serum lipid peroxidation was further reduced by up to 16%
after 3 years of PJ consumption. The results of the present study thus
suggest that PJ consumption by patients with CAS decreases carotid IMT and
systolic blood pressure and these effects could be related to the potent
antioxidant characteristics of PJ polyphenols. PMID: 15158307
(3) J Hum Hypertens. 2007 Apr;21(4):297-306. Epub 2007 Feb 8.
Coenzyme Q10 in the treatment of hypertension: a meta-analysis of the
clinical trials.
Rosenfeldt FL, Haas SJ, Krum H, Hadj A, Ng K, Leong JY, Watts GF.
Cardiac Surgical Research Unit, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Our objective was to review all published trials of coenzyme Q10 for
hypertension, assess overall efficacy and consistency of therapeutic action
and side effect incidence. Meta-analysis was performed in 12 clinical trials
(362 patients) comprising three randomized controlled trials, one crossover
study and eight open label studies. In the randomized controlled trials
(n=120), systolic blood pressure in the treatment group was 167.7 (95%
confidence interval, CI: 163.7-171.1) mm Hg before, and 151.1 (147.1-155.1)
mm Hg after treatment, a decrease of 16.6 (12.6-20.6, P<0.001) mm Hg, with
no significant change in the placebo group. Diastolic blood pressure in the
treatment group was 103 (101-105) mm Hg before, and 94.8 (92.8-96.8) mm Hg
after treatment, a decrease of 8.2 (6.2-10.2, P<0.001) mm Hg, with no
significant change in the placebo group. In the crossover study (n=18),
systolic blood pressure decreased by 11 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure
by 8 mm Hg (P<0.001) with no significant change with placebo. In the open
label studies (n=214), mean systolic blood pressure was 162 (158.4-165.7) mm
Hg before, and 148.6 (145-152.2) mm Hg after treatment, a decrease of 13.5
(9.8-17.1, P<0.001) mm Hg. Mean diastolic blood pressure was 97.1
(95.2-99.1) mm Hg before, and 86.8 (84.9-88.8) mm Hg after treatment, a
decrease of 10.3 (8.4-12.3, P<0.001) mm Hg. We conclude that coenzyme Q10
has the potential in hypertensive patients to lower systolic blood pressure
by up to 17 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure by up to 10 mm Hg without
significant side effects. PMID: 17287847
--
Juhana
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
It remains wiser to not second-guess the doctor who has actually take
your history and examined you.
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/PressRelease
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com
Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords.
bigvince
ARB are considered the drug with the least potential to do damage. If
possible the safest way to control BP is diet and exersize. The drug
with the no benefit and the most side effects is atenelol it is also
widely given by doctors .
Thanks Vince
bigvince
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
>
> It remains wiser to not second-guess the doctor who has actually take
> your history and examined you.
>
Would you say the same had his doctor had given atenolol. 50 million
did last year.
Thanks Vince
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >
> > It remains wiser to not second-guess the doctor who has actually taken
> > your history and examined you.
>
> Would you say the same had his doctor had given atenolol. 50 million
> did last year.
It remains my choice to continue to receive the guidance of the Holy
Spirit in everything I say, do, and write.
You would be wise to do the same. HE would have kept you from
erroneously writing that 50 million doctors prescribed atenolol last
year.
> Thanks Vince
Thanks be to GOD.
bigvince
Research favors other drugs to control hypertension
By Stephen Smith, Globe Staff | August 7, 2007
Doctors should stop routinely using beta-blockers to control high
blood pressure, said researchers who reviewed dozens of previously
published studies and found that other hypertension pills work better
and cause fewer side effects.
For decades, beta-blockers and diuretics, also known as water pills,
constituted the cornerstone of treatment for the 50 million Americans
with high blood pressure. But a growing body of medical evidence
shows
that diuretics and newer blood-pressure medications are superior to
beta-blockers at reducing high blood pressure, which can lead to
heart
attacks and strokes, said researchers whose report appeared yesterday
in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
"We in medicine like to say that we practice evidence-based
medicine,"
said Dr. Franz H. Messerli, an author of the study and a cardiologist
at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital in New York. "What's the evidence
here" for continued use of beta-blockers to treat hypertension,
Messerli asked. "Zero. To my way of thinking, this is pretty
alarming." .........
Data from IMS Health, a healthcare information company, show that
from
January through June of this year, more than 75 million prescriptions
were written for various beta-blockers, widely available in generic
form. The statistics do not indicate which conditions the doctors
were
treating. '
Actualy the number I gave was low the IMS data indicates over 100
million precciptions for beta blockers will be written this year. The
question again is when atenolol is given for hypertenson is it an
appropriate choice.
Thanks Vince
Jim Chinnis
>Actualy the number I gave was low the IMS data indicates over 100
>million precciptions for beta blockers will be written this year. The
>question again is when atenolol is given for hypertenson is it an
>appropriate choice.
Actually, what you wrote was that 50,000,000 doctors had prescribed atenolol
last year: "Would you say the same had his doctor had given atenolol. 50
million did last year."
The number of prescriptions is a silly measure, since some are written every
thirty days.
I am trying to discontinue atenolol, by the way. I am down to 7 mg /day from
50 mg/d. But I am having trouble now. Even after a couple of months, my
heart rate remains high and a bit volatile at the reduced dose. I am hoping
that it will adapt in time so that i can reduce the dose to zero, but at
this point, I would be more comfortable if I increased it to 12.5 mg/d.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> bigvince <Vince.M...@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>
> >Actualy the number I gave was low the IMS data indicates over 100
> >million precciptions for beta blockers will be written this year. The
> >question again is when atenolol is given for hypertenson is it an
> >appropriate choice.
>
> Actually, what you wrote was that 50,000,000 doctors had prescribed atenolol
> last year: "Would you say the same had his doctor had given atenolol. 50
> million did last year."
Yes, that is what he wrote and it was erroneous.
> The number of prescriptions is a silly measure, since some are written every
> thirty days.
Not to mention that a single doctor can write thousands of atenolol
prescriptions per year.
> I am trying to discontinue atenolol, by the way. I am down to 7 mg /day from
> 50 mg/d. But I am having trouble now. Even after a couple of months, my
> heart rate remains high and a bit volatile at the reduced dose. I am hoping
> that it will adapt in time so that i can reduce the dose to zero, but at
> this point, I would be more comfortable if I increased it to 12.5 mg/d.
Perhaps you still have VAT.
bigvince
> bigvince <Vince.Mirag...@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>
> >Actualy the number I gave was low the IMS data indicates over 100
> >million precciptions for beta blockers will be written this year. The
> >question again is when atenolol is given for hypertenson is it an
> >appropriate choice.
>
> Actually, what you wrote was that 50,000,000 doctors had prescribed atenolol
> last year: "Would you say the same had his doctor had given atenolol. 50
> million did last year."
>
> The number of prescriptions is a silly measure, since some are written every
> thirty days.
>
Actually the sentence I wrote was ambiguous '"Would you say the same
had his doctor had given atenolol. 50
million did last year."' The 50 million could be taken as referring
to either doctors or doctors had given .What I meant was that 50
million scripts last year had been written for atenolol most for
hypertension. Atenolol has no value in that regard, So the main
question which has so far been avoided was would Dr. Chung still say
" It remains wiser to not second-guess the doctor who has actually
take your history and examined you' had the doctor given atenolol a
dug that has shown no benefit for hypertension. That question remains
to be answered.
Thanks Vince
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> friend Jim Chinnis <jchin...@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > bigvince <Vince.Mirag...@gmail.com> wrote in part:
> >
> > >Actualy the number I gave was low the IMS data indicates over 100
> > >million precciptions for beta blockers will be written this year. The
> > >question again is when atenolol is given for hypertenson is it an
> > >appropriate choice.
> >
> > Actually, what you wrote was that 50,000,000 doctors had prescribed atenolol
> > last year: "Would you say the same had his doctor had given atenolol. 50
> > million did last year."
> >
> > The number of prescriptions is a silly measure, since some are written every
> > thirty days.
> >
>
> Actually the sentence I wrote was ambiguous
What you wrote was simply erroneous.
> '"Would you say the same
> had his doctor had given atenolol. 50
> million did last year."' The 50 million could be taken as referring
> to either doctors or doctors had given .
Not for the discerning.
> What I meant was that 50
> million scripts last year had been written for atenolol most for
> hypertension.
Your error is forgiven by me. May others forgive you as well.
> Atenolol has no value in that regard, So the main
> question which has so far been avoided was would Dr. Chung still say
> " It remains wiser to not second-guess the doctor who has actually
> take your history and examined you' had the doctor given atenolol a
> dug that has shown no benefit for hypertension. That question remains
> to be answered.
There is no error in what the Holy Spirit had guided me to write.
Would write it again as many times as is necessary for understanding.
Your false witness is forgiven by me.
> Thanks Vince
Thanks be to GOD.
Be hungry.... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
Jim Chinnis
>friend Jim Chinnis wrote:
>> bigvince <Vince.M...@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>>
>> >Actualy the number I gave was low the IMS data indicates over 100
>> >million precciptions for beta blockers will be written this year. The
>> >question again is when atenolol is given for hypertenson is it an
>> >appropriate choice.
>>
>> Actually, what you wrote was that 50,000,000 doctors had prescribed atenolol
>> last year: "Would you say the same had his doctor had given atenolol. 50
>> million did last year."
>
>Yes, that is what he wrote and it was erroneous.
>
>> The number of prescriptions is a silly measure, since some are written every
>> thirty days.
>
>Not to mention that a single doctor can write thousands of atenolol
>prescriptions per year.
>
>> I am trying to discontinue atenolol, by the way. I am down to 7 mg /day from
>> 50 mg/d. But I am having trouble now. Even after a couple of months, my
>> heart rate remains high and a bit volatile at the reduced dose. I am hoping
>> that it will adapt in time so that i can reduce the dose to zero, but at
>> this point, I would be more comfortable if I increased it to 12.5 mg/d.
>
>Perhaps you still have VAT.
It would seem I can't have much. I've lost what excess weight I had. My abs
are visible now at age 63. I'm 5'9" and weigh 146. Waist is 31" and Hips are
36." (WHR of approx 0.86).
And my sinus tachycardia appeared suddenly in connection with a mitral valve
repair in 1988.
>Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
>
>http://HeartMDPhD.com/PressRelease
>
>Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
>
>Andrew <><
--
Jim Chinnis
>x-no-archive: yes
>Jim, I know those are really tiny pills, but I seem to recall a friend
>who had to shave off tiny bits at a time to taper it down is the dose
>got really low. And take a long time between reductions, too.
I'm sticking with the reduction. But I'm doing heavy work putting in a stone
patio and paths (when my day job allows) and the rapid increase in pulse
when straining is uncomfortable.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> bigvince <Vince.M...@gmail.com> wrote in part:
> >>
> >> >Actualy the number I gave was low the IMS data indicates over 100
> >> >million precciptions for beta blockers will be written this year. The
> >> >question again is when atenolol is given for hypertenson is it an
> >> >appropriate choice.
> >>
> >> Actually, what you wrote was that 50,000,000 doctors had prescribed atenolol
> >> last year: "Would you say the same had his doctor had given atenolol. 50
> >> million did last year."
> >
> >Yes, that is what he wrote and it was erroneous.
> >
> >> The number of prescriptions is a silly measure, since some are written every
> >> thirty days.
> >
> >Not to mention that a single doctor can write thousands of atenolol
> >prescriptions per year.
> >
> >> I am trying to discontinue atenolol, by the way. I am down to 7 mg /day from
> >> 50 mg/d. But I am having trouble now. Even after a couple of months, my
> >> heart rate remains high and a bit volatile at the reduced dose. I am hoping
> >> that it will adapt in time so that i can reduce the dose to zero, but at
> >> this point, I would be more comfortable if I increased it to 12.5 mg/d.
> >
> >Perhaps you still have VAT.
>
> It would seem I can't have much. I've lost what excess weight I had. My abs
> are visible now at age 63. I'm 5'9" and weigh 146. Waist is 31" and Hips are
> 36." (WHR of approx 0.86).
You still have that harmful VAT.
> And my sinus tachycardia appeared suddenly in connection with a mitral valve
> repair in 1988.
That might have been when your body became more intolerant of the
adipocytokines coming from your VAT.
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/PressRelease
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew <><
--
Jim Chinnis
>Well, that's about has hard work as hard work gets,
Ya think? :-D
>so at least it's for
>a good reason.
>
>Still, if it's possible to reduce at smaller increments and to wait two
>months between them, it might go more comfortably.
That would mean increasing from my 6.5 mg dose to maybe 8 mg, and then
dropping a mg every month or so. I'd need an analytical balance! (Actually,
I'd love one if it weren't so expensive.)
Jim Chinnis
>friend Jim Chinnis wrote:
It's possible. Blood pressure has dropped, my HDL has risen and is higher
than my triglycerides and my LDL has never been high. I have a lot more
muscle than I did in high school, weigh the same now, and was considered
pretty skinny then!
But I agree that It can't be seen even if it's there...
>> And my sinus tachycardia appeared suddenly in connection with a mitral valve
>> repair in 1988.
>
>That might have been when your body became more intolerant of the
>adipocytokines coming from your VAT.
I'm not sure how that would have happened. Perhaps the flood of stress
hormones induced a change and now, nearly 20 years later, I'm trying to wean
myself off the betablocker used to address the change. Maybe.
>Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
>
>http://HeartMDPhD.com/PressRelease
>
>Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
>
>Andrew <><
--
Joe Doe
Jim Chinnis <jchi...@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:
> I'm sticking with the reduction. But I'm doing heavy work putting in a stone
> patio and paths (when my day job allows) and the rapid increase in pulse
> when straining is uncomfortable.
> --
> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
I read somewhere that arm exercise raises blood pressure
disproportionately. This is one reason cited for sedentary snow
shovelers getting an MI. Combined with increase in BP with resistance
exercise in general (you might be holding your breath etc when doing
heavy stone work) you may be putting a lot of stress on your heart. So
if you approached it more mindfully - say be conscious of breathing etc.
you might be able to handle it with less distress.
Roland
Jim Chinnis
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>
>> Ya think? :-D
>
>Well, YUH! And, just for nuthin, the years that my DH spent doing
>masonry were the glory years for rock hard muscles. HOT HOT HOT.
>
>Just some motivation for your home improvements... JPEGS expected.
>
>I put in a bare root Nandina "Gulfstream" today, and a Cimicifuga
>"Brunette." Any bigger than that, and I sip iced tea while someone else
>plants 'em. :-)
>
>> That would mean increasing from my 6.5 mg dose to maybe 8 mg, and then
>> dropping a mg every month or so. I'd need an analytical balance! (Actually,
>> I'd love one if it weren't so expensive.)
>
>Maybe you could get a mirror and a razor blade, and divide it into
>little piles to snort, er, take, daily?
You're on a roll!
Jim Chinnis
Thanks, Roland. I'm nowhere in the vicinity of "sedentary," though. I doubt
that I could find it with a map. While doing the digging and stone work,
though, I've stopped going to the gym every day.
I put on an exercise heart rate monitor while working today. Digging in this
heavy clay soil keeps me around 100-110. Pushing the heavy loaded
wheelbarrow up the hill that is my backyard can bump it all the way to 145.
Trying to keep the barrow from tipping over in the wrong place on the hill
sent me very briefly to 162 (and I failed)... If I push myself and keep at
it without breaks, my heart rate stays elevated 10-15 bps or so for quite a
while (an hour or so) after I stop.
None of that sort of thing happens with 25 mg/d of atenolol. Now that I've
cut the dose to 6.5 mg, it does, and it feels strange after having my pulse
kept steady with 50 mg/d of atenolol.
These internet interludes are my breaks, BTW. Tomorrow my day job will take
me away from my stone, unfortunately.
Joe Doe
Jim Chinnis <jchi...@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:
> Joe Doe <No...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in part:
>
> >In article <ti6ch3pl20t22qctj...@4ax.com>,
> > Jim Chinnis <jchi...@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I'm sticking with the reduction. But I'm doing heavy work putting in a
> >> stone
> >> patio and paths (when my day job allows) and the rapid increase in pulse
> >> when straining is uncomfortable.
> >> --
> >> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
> >
> >I read somewhere that arm exercise raises blood pressure
> >disproportionately. This is one reason cited for sedentary snow
> >shovelers getting an MI. Combined with increase in BP with resistance
> >exercise in general (you might be holding your breath etc when doing
> >heavy stone work) you may be putting a lot of stress on your heart. So
> >if you approached it more mindfully - say be conscious of breathing etc.
> >you might be able to handle it with less distress.
> >
> >Roland
>
> Thanks, Roland. I'm nowhere in the vicinity of "sedentary," though. I doubt
> that I could find it with a map. While doing the digging and stone work,
> though, I've stopped going to the gym every day.
>
I knew you were a regular exerciser and well conditioned aerobically and
otherwise. Lifting heavy stuff just introduces a different kind of
stress (acute rise in blood pressure) which I was reminding you about.
On another note you mentioned you could see your abdominal muscles- you
have to be very lean for this to be true (bodyfat in the 8-10% range for
a male slightly more for a female). By most peoples standards at that
bodyfat % the probability of having pathologically active VAT is very
low. In many studies the "lean" control group is in the 14% range.
Roland
William Wagner
Joe Doe <No...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
: Eur J Endocrinol. 2007 Aug;157 Suppl 1:S39-45.
Links
Fat distribution and storage: how much, where, and how?
Weiss R.
The Diabetes Center and the Department of Pediatrics, Hadassah Hebrew
University School of Medicine, PO Box 12000, Jerusalem 91120, Israel.
wei...@hadassah.org.il
Obesity does not necessarily imply disease and similarly obese
individuals may manifest obesity-related morbidity or seemingly be in
reasonably good health. Recent studies have shown that patterns of lipid
partitioning are a major determinant of the metabolic profile and not
just obesity per se. The underlying mechanisms and clinical relevance of
lipid deposition in the visceral compartment and in insulin-sensitive
tissues are described. Increased intramyocellular lipid deposition
impairs the insulin signal transduction pathway and is associated with
insulin resistance. Increased hepatic lipid deposition is similarly
associated with the majority of the components of the insulin resistance
syndrome. The roles of increased circulating fatty acids in conditions
of insulin resistance and the typical pro-inflammatory milieu of
specific obesity patterns are provided. Insights into the patterns of
lipid storage within the cell are provided along with their relation to
changes in insulin sensitivity and weight loss.
PMID: 17785696 [PubMed - in process]
--
S Jersey USA Zone 5 Shade
This article is posted under fair use rules in accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and is strictly for the educational
and informative purposes. This material is distributed without profit.
http://www.ocutech.com/ High tech Vison aid
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
The WHR...
... the tale of the tape :-)
Truly, it is only when we are hungry (stomachs singing and laughing
loudly) that our bodies get rid of the VAT and then the WHR comes
down.
> >> And my sinus tachycardia appeared suddenly in connection with a mitral valve
> >> repair in 1988.
> >
> >That might have been when your body became more intolerant of the
> >adipocytokines coming from your VAT.
>
> I'm not sure how that would have happened. Perhaps the flood of stress
> hormones induced a change and now, nearly 20 years later, I'm trying to wean
> myself off the betablocker used to address the change. Maybe.
Your SA node may simply had become "sensitized" to pro-inflammatory
adipocytokines 20 years ago. It is known that the anti-inflammatory
effect of antagonizing the pro-inflammatory effects of angiotensin II
(AngII) with ACE-inhibitors has a negative chronotropic (slowing)
effect on the SA node. For this reason, it may be possible that a
switch from atenolol to an ACE-inhibitor may be a good transition for
you in terms of tolerability.
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/PressRelease
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew <><
--
Don Kirkman
article <1192619897.7...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>:
>friend Jim Chinnis wrote:
>> bigvince <Vince.M...@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>> >Actualy the number I gave was low the IMS data indicates over 100
>> >million precciptions for beta blockers will be written this year. The
>> >question again is when atenolol is given for hypertenson is it an
>> >appropriate choice.
>> Actually, what you wrote was that 50,000,000 doctors had prescribed atenolol
>> last year: "Would you say the same had his doctor had given atenolol. 50
>> million did last year."
>Yes, that is what he wrote and it was erroneous.
>> The number of prescriptions is a silly measure, since some are written every
thirty days.
>
>Not to mention that a single doctor can write thousands of atenolol
>prescriptions per year.
ISTM that the appropriate measure is neither prescription numbers or
medicos head counts but the number of patients taking the stuff (a
number which I doubt we will ever get reported accurately).
>> I am trying to discontinue atenolol, by the way. I am down to 7 mg /day from
>> 50 mg/d. But I am having trouble now. Even after a couple of months, my
>> heart rate remains high and a bit volatile at the reduced dose. I am hoping
>> that it will adapt in time so that i can reduce the dose to zero, but at
>> this point, I would be more comfortable if I increased it to 12.5 mg/d.
Jim, for whatever it's worth I started at 25mg/d for a while but have
been at 12.5mg for several years now. I've hinted that I'd like to get
off it, but no positive feedback yet from my cardiologist (who is
otherwise very nice).
--
Don Kirkman
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
The WHR...
... the tale of the tape :-)
Truly, it is only when we are hungry (stomachs singing and laughing
loudly) that our bodies get rid of the VAT and then the WHR comes
down.
> >> And my sinus tachycardia appeared suddenly in connection with a mitral valve
> >> repair in 1988.
> >
> >That might have been when your body became more intolerant of the
> >adipocytokines coming from your VAT.
>
> I'm not sure how that would have happened. Perhaps the flood of stress
> hormones induced a change and now, nearly 20 years later, I'm trying to wean
> myself off the betablocker used to address the change. Maybe.
Your SA node may simply had become "sensitized" to pro-inflammatory
adipocytokines 20 years ago. It is known that the anti-inflammatory
effect of antagonizing the pro-inflammatory effects of angiotensin II
with ACE-inhibitors have a negative chronotropic effect on the SA
node. For this reason, it may be possible that a switch from atenolol
to an ACE-inhibitor may be a good transition for you in terms of
tolerability.
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/PressRelease
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew <><
--
Jim Chinnis
>friend Jim Chinnis wrote:
I'm not sure that I can get much thinner, but time will tell. I'm still
working at it.
>> >> And my sinus tachycardia appeared suddenly in connection with a mitral valve
>> >> repair in 1988.
>> >
>> >That might have been when your body became more intolerant of the
>> >adipocytokines coming from your VAT.
>>
>> I'm not sure how that would have happened. Perhaps the flood of stress
>> hormones induced a change and now, nearly 20 years later, I'm trying to wean
>> myself off the betablocker used to address the change. Maybe.
>
>Your SA node may simply had become "sensitized" to pro-inflammatory
>adipocytokines 20 years ago. It is known that the anti-inflammatory
>effect of antagonizing the pro-inflammatory effects of angiotensin II
>with ACE-inhibitors have a negative chronotropic effect on the SA
>node. For this reason, it may be possible that a switch from atenolol
>to an ACE-inhibitor may be a good transition for you in terms of
>tolerability.
I am on 40 mg of Benicar. I actually may need to *reduce* the dose of the
ARB, as my blood pressure may be getting too low, even after tapering the
atenolol. I am thinking of asking my internist about switching to cardevilol
from the atenolol and then trying to taper off that very slowly.
I noticed today that my heart rate behaves very differently depending on how
long it has been since my last dose of atenolol, even at 6.5 mg. Heavy
physical work that sends my pulse to about 150 bpm just before the atenolol
will send it only to about 120 an hour after taking the 6.5 mg. I'm thinking
also of dividing the dose into two equal doses every 12 hours. I need an
analytical balance!
>Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
>
>http://HeartMDPhD.com/PressRelease
>
>Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
>
>Andrew <><
--
Jim Chinnis
>> Thanks, Roland. I'm nowhere in the vicinity of "sedentary," though. I doubt
>> that I could find it with a map. While doing the digging and stone work,
>> though, I've stopped going to the gym every day.
>>
>
>I knew you were a regular exerciser and well conditioned aerobically and
>otherwise.
Well...I *think* I am. The difficulty is that I developed sinus tachycardia
with a mitral valve repair 20 years ago and have been on atenolol ever since
to control the heart rate. So it's hard to interpret my heart rate when
exercising.
> Lifting heavy stuff just introduces a different kind of
>stress (acute rise in blood pressure) which I was reminding you about.
Good point. Though I do regular resistance training.
>On another note you mentioned you could see your abdominal muscles- you
>have to be very lean for this to be true (bodyfat in the 8-10% range for
>a male slightly more for a female). By most peoples standards at that
>bodyfat % the probability of having pathologically active VAT is very
>low. In many studies the "lean" control group is in the 14% range.
*I* am beginning to see my abs. No one else would say so as yet. So I'm
probably not as lean as I implied.
The effect of even tiny amounts of atenolol on my heart rate seems crazy. A
quarter of the smallest tablet sold produces a profound effect within an
hour. But it wears off after 12-16 hours. As I was on 50 mg for almost 20
years, I'm amazed that I get most of the effect from one-eighth of the dose.
I tried going off altogether but felt awful. My resting pulse rose to around
85. Slight activity boosted it above 100. Resuming just 6.5 mg makes my
pulse almost normal. At 50 mg, I learned to take my daily dose after going
to the gym, since I otherwise would be almost unable to get my pulse above
100-110. At 6.5 mg (still taken after my afternoon gym session), I can push
my heart rate to about 160 on the cardio machines and feel fine. My heart is
a little slow to return to resting rate, but taking the tiny 6.5 mg dose of
atenolol drops it like a stone.
Jim Chinnis
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Roland. I'm nowhere in the vicinity of "sedentary," though. I doubt
>> that I could find it with a map. While doing the digging and stone work,
>> though, I've stopped going to the gym every day.
>>
>> I put on an exercise heart rate monitor while working today. Digging in this
>> heavy clay soil keeps me around 100-110. Pushing the heavy loaded
>> wheelbarrow up the hill that is my backyard can bump it all the way to 145.
>> Trying to keep the barrow from tipping over in the wrong place on the hill
>> sent me very briefly to 162 (and I failed)... If I push myself and keep at
>> it without breaks, my heart rate stays elevated 10-15 bps or so for quite a
>> while (an hour or so) after I stop.
>>
>> None of that sort of thing happens with 25 mg/d of atenolol. Now that I've
>> cut the dose to 6.5 mg, it does, and it feels strange after having my pulse
>> kept steady with 50 mg/d of atenolol.
>
>But at least those numbers are something like what you'd want during
>aerobic exercise, if not the slow return to resting rate.
>
>Tom always worked in a squat, never on his knees as a mason;
>unbelievably strong legs, back, arms...
>
>I have to stop thinking about this now and go take a shower... ;-D
Why not just go find Tom?
Juhana Harju
> Well...I *think* I am. The difficulty is that I developed sinus
> tachycardia with a mitral valve repair 20 years ago and have been on
> atenolol ever since to control the heart rate. So it's hard to
> interpret my heart rate when exercising.
I wonder if hawthorn (/Crataegus/) could help in your case. For a friend it
did slow down her heart rate. It should be noticed that hawthorn can not be
combined with atenonol.
http://thorne.com/media/hawthorne_monograph.pdf
--
Juhana
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
When you lose the VAT, you will neither look nor be thinner.
> >> >> And my sinus tachycardia appeared suddenly in connection with a mitral valve
> >> >> repair in 1988.
> >> >
> >> >That might have been when your body became more intolerant of the
> >> >adipocytokines coming from your VAT.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure how that would have happened. Perhaps the flood of stress
> >> hormones induced a change and now, nearly 20 years later, I'm trying to wean
> >> myself off the betablocker used to address the change. Maybe.
> >
> >Your SA node may simply had become "sensitized" to pro-inflammatory
> >adipocytokines 20 years ago. It is known that the anti-inflammatory
> >effect of antagonizing the pro-inflammatory effects of angiotensin II
> >with ACE-inhibitors have a negative chronotropic effect on the SA
> >node. For this reason, it may be possible that a switch from atenolol
> >to an ACE-inhibitor may be a good transition for you in terms of
> >tolerability.
>
> I am on 40 mg of Benicar. I actually may need to *reduce* the dose of the
> ARB, as my blood pressure may be getting too low, even after tapering the
> atenolol. I am thinking of asking my internist about switching to cardevilol
> from the atenolol and then trying to taper off that very slowly.
Metoprolol succinate would be another alternative especially now that
it is available as a generic and allows once daily dosing.
> I noticed today that my heart rate behaves very differently depending on how
> long it has been since my last dose of atenolol, even at 6.5 mg. Heavy
> physical work that sends my pulse to about 150 bpm just before the atenolol
> will send it only to about 120 an hour after taking the 6.5 mg. I'm thinking
> also of dividing the dose into two equal doses every 12 hours. I need an
> analytical balance!
Or a change to a beta blocker with a longer half-life such as
metoprolol succinate.
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/PressRelease
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew <><
--
bigvince
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in
>
>
>
> >friend Jim Chinnis wrote:
> >> bigvince <Vince.Mirag...@gmail.com> wrote in part:
Is this at all relevent to you
ß-Blockers
ß-Blockers comprise a relatively heterogeneous class of
antihypertensive drugs with differing effects on resistance vessels
and on cardiac conduction and contractility. ß-Blocker administration
remains a standard of care in patients with angina pectoris, those who
have had an MI, and those who have LV dysfunction with or without HF
symptoms, unless contraindicated.63 The ß-blockers carvedilol,
metoprolol, and bisoprolol have been shown to improve outcomes in
patients with HF. However, in patients who do not have symptomatic
CAD, have not had an MI, or do not have HF, the evidence for ß-blocker
cardioprotection is weak, especially in the elderly,72 and there are
other studies that suggest a relative lack of benefit on
cerebrovascular73 and renal74 disease end points. In the Controlled-
ONset Verapamil IN Cardiovascular Endpoints (CONVINCE) trial75 and the
INVEST study,55 outcomes with verapamil-based therapy were similar to
those with ß-blocker-based therapy. The large Anglo-Scandinavian
Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT) was stopped prematurely because
atenolol-based therapy was inferior to amlodipine-based therapy in
reducing cardiovascular events,76 and in the Conduit Artery Function
Evaluation (CAFÉ) substudy of ASCOT, atenolol was found to be less
effective than amlodipine in reducing central SBP and cardiac
afterload, which perhaps explains the lesser benefits of ß-blockers.
77 source
AHA Scientific Statement http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/short/115/21/2761
Treatment of Hypertension in the Prevention and Management of Ischemic
Heart Disease
A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Council for
High Blood Pressure Research and the Councils on Clinical Cardiology
and Epidemiology and Prevention
Don Kirkman
<1192714884....@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>On Oct 17, 7:44 pm, Don Kirkman <dons...@wavecable.com> wrote:
>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in
>> article <1192619897.798222.125...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>:
>> >friend Jim Chinnis wrote:
>> >> The number of prescriptions is a silly measure, since some are written every
>> thirty days.
>> >Not to mention that a single doctor can write thousands of atenolol
>> >prescriptions per year.
>> ISTM that the appropriate measure is neither prescription numbers or
>> medicos head counts but the number of patients taking the stuff (a
>> number which I doubt we will ever get reported accurately).
>> >> I am trying to discontinue atenolol, by the way. I am down to 7 mg /day from
>> >> 50 mg/d. But I am having trouble now. Even after a couple of months, my
>> >> heart rate remains high and a bit volatile at the reduced dose. I am hoping
>> >> that it will adapt in time so that i can reduce the dose to zero, but at
>> >> this point, I would be more comfortable if I increased it to 12.5 mg/d.
>> Jim, for whatever it's worth I started at 25mg/d for a while but have
>> been at 12.5mg for several years now. I've hinted that I'd like to get
>> off it, but no positive feedback yet from my cardiologist (who is
>> otherwise very nice).
>Is this at all relevent to you
>ß-Blockers
>ß-Blockers comprise a relatively heterogeneous class of
>antihypertensive drugs with differing effects on resistance vessels
>and on cardiac conduction and contractility. ß-Blocker administration
>remains a standard of care in patients with angina pectoris, those who
>have had an MI, and those who have LV dysfunction with or without HF
>symptoms, unless contraindicated.63 The ß-blockers carvedilol,
>metoprolol, and bisoprolol have been shown to improve outcomes in
>patients with HF.
No, I don't see its relevance. I have had a MI (1998) and have been at
lower than average cardiac risk ever since. Exercise is my primary
therapy, with Lipitor controlling the lipids. IMO I'm not hypertensive,
but haven't been able to persuade the current cardio to reduce or drop
the atenolol. My resting heart rate ranges from around 35bpm to the low
forties, depending on stress level, and the rate is normally in the
fifties when I'm alert but not active. Therefore I'm not persuaded that
I need any help from atenolol or other beta blockers. Since atenolol's
doing no harm I don't push my doctor, and cost is not a problem, but
it's just one more nuisance in life.
Blood pressure is within normal limits; diastolics 70ish to mid-80s,
systolics 120ish to 140 max.
--
Don Kirkman
Joe Doe
Don Kirkman <don...@wavecable.com> wrote:
. IMO I'm not hypertensive,
> but haven't been able to persuade the current cardio to reduce or drop
> the atenolol. My resting heart rate ranges from around 35bpm to the low
> forties, depending on stress level, and the rate is normally in the
> fifties when I'm alert but not active. Therefore I'm not persuaded that
> I need any help from atenolol or other beta blockers. Since atenolol's
> doing no harm I don't push my doctor, and cost is not a problem, but
> it's just one more nuisance in life.
>
> Blood pressure is within normal limits; diastolics 70ish to mid-80s,
> systolics 120ish to 140 max.
I think the Beta blockers are prescribed as primarily as antiarryhthmics
for an MI survivor rather than as BP controlling agents. From this
point of view the evidence for their utility post MI is good.
Roland
Ron Peterson
> My doc says benicar....ARB...has the least potential side effects and is
> most beneficial for the heart.
> Any other opinions.
http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/119/2/660 indicates that
ace inhibitors are better in preventing pneumonia.
--
Ron
Don Kirkman
<None-816336.1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>:
Thanks for this input, Roland. I don't really think this is a problem
in my case, either, but it may explain the doctor's reluctance to
change.
--
Don Kirkman
Joe Doe
Don Kirkman <don...@wavecable.com> wrote:
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Joe Doe wrote in article
> <None-816336.1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>:
> >I think the Beta blockers are prescribed as primarily as antiarryhthmics
> >for an MI survivor rather than as BP controlling agents. From this
> >point of view the evidence for their utility post MI is good.
>
> Thanks for this input, Roland. I don't really think this is a problem
> in my case, either, but it may explain the doctor's reluctance to
> change.
You need not have current arrhythmias for it to be useful- it is just
that your coronary arteries have shown shown they are capable of
rupture. Should there be a subsequent rupture not going into
fibrillation is important . A beta blocker will help prevent this from
happening.
Roland
Jim Chinnis
>In article <ivofh3hdgjn21eb2v...@4ax.com>,
I appreciate everyone's contributions to this discussion. My own case seems
odd, as I have never had an MI or any evidence of plaque rupture or
ischemia, and my heart rate was quite normal up until my mitral valve "tore"
in 1988 (while I was bicycling on the beach). A few years earlier, I had
been found to have mitral valve prolapse during a checkup related to an
insurance application. Prior to the surgery (it took a few days to get me in
the hospital) my pulse was rapid, but that can be explained by the
incompetent mitral valve and the resulting pumping efficiency. After the
repair, all seemed great (no trouble breathing, rapid return to normal
activities, and near normal heart function) but the sinus tachycardia
remained. My cardiologist was puzzled but didn't seem terribly concerned. He
suggested my internist try atenolol. That was almost 20 years ago. Since
then I've been very active and healthy. But I still can't seem to get off
the beta blocker completely.
I wonder if I still have any metabolic effects (e.g., elevated blood
glucose) from just 6.5 mg of atenolol daily?
Jim Chinnis
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Jim Chinnis wrote:
> That was almost 20 years ago. Since
>> then I've been very active and healthy. But I still can't seem to get off
>> the beta blocker completely.
>>
>> I wonder if I still have any metabolic effects (e.g., elevated blood
>> glucose) from just 6.5 mg of atenolol daily?
>> --
>
>I think there are two possibilities to consider here; one is that it may
>turn out not to be in your long term best interests to get off of it
>completely, but to just find your lowest possible dose with benefits and
>lessened side effects.
>
>The second is a point I'll keep harping on; as you reduce the amount of
>any adrenally/hormonally active drug you've been on for any length of
>time, much less decades, you have to go extremely slowly with each dose
>reduction at some point, making smaller and smaller reductions, and
>waiting more months in between reductions.
>
>I think you've been rushing it lately. Health maintenance is a
>marathon, not a sprint. :-)
Well, I'm now on 3.25 atenolol mg twice a day and my resting heart rate and
rate changes in response to exercise feel right to me. And I don't notice
any swings between doses. The doses are really 3.25 +-1.5 mg, though... It
helps a bit to break off roughly a quarter of a tablet each morning, split
that as best I can, and save the second fragment for 12 hours later. I
figure that helps even out the daily dose a bit.
Anyone know where I can buy a used analytical balance cheap?
Jim Chinnis
>Same place you look for everything else: Craig's list.
I see a lot of New Balance sneakers.
Joe Doe
Jim Chinnis <jchi...@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> Anyone know where I can buy a used analytical balance cheap?
Two workarounds:
Grind up a pill in a mortar and pestle. Bulk this up with any bulking
agent you want (say sugar if you are not diabetic or oat bran or....).
Mix thoroughly and now you can weigh out the bulked material into doses
you can measure with something cruder than an analytical balance.
Alternatively dissolve a dose in water and make aliquots. For example
you could simply use a pill container as a measure and measure out 10
volumes of water and dissolve the pill in this. Pour out the equivalent
of your original pill measure and you have split the pill by a tenth
etc. You could even make ice cubes of tinier doses like this. This
will only work with water soluble drugs.
Obviously you cannot do this for time released medications or enteric
coated medications and the like.
Roland
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> convicted neighbor Susan <neve...@nomail.com> wrote in part:
If you were to get an analytical balance, you would discover that your
25 mg atenolol tablet does not weigh 25 mg.
Moreover, the quarter tablet (6.25 mg) would also not be 6.25 mg and
you would start wondering about the tablet coating too.
In short, your 3.125 mg of atenolol twice a day is a problematic dose
that would not be solved with an analytical balance.
So much work to weigh your medication (atenolol) and you are not
weighing your food, which also has an optimal amount (dose).
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier.. be blessed:
Jim Chinnis
>In article <odinh39bk82dq81eo...@4ax.com>,
I'd thought about your first suggestion, but am worried about uneven mixing.
The idea of dissolving the pill hadn't occurred to me I just checked its
physical properties and see that it is not soluble in water but is readily
soluble in alcohol... :-D
Jim Chinnis
Correction: It is sparingly soluble in water and it looks like a 25 mg
tablet would dissolve (if pure atenolol, which it isn't) in less than 2 ml
of water. I'll have to see how well it works.
Pramesh Rutaji
I once took a pill that was very small. I was experimenting with 1/7 to 1/16
dosages. I crushed it between two spoons to a fine powder, put it on a plate
and divided it up with a knife and scraped each pile into an empty capsule.
Pramesh
Jim Chinnis
>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heart...@emorycardiology.com> wrote in part:
>
>>friend Jim Chinnis wrote:
>>> bigvince <Vince.M...@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>>>
>>> >Actualy the number I gave was low the IMS data indicates over 100
>>> >million precciptions for beta blockers will be written this year. The
>>> >question again is when atenolol is given for hypertenson is it an
>>> >appropriate choice.
>>>
>>> Actually, what you wrote was that 50,000,000 doctors had prescribed atenolol
>>> last year: "Would you say the same had his doctor had given atenolol. 50
>>> million did last year."
>>
>>Yes, that is what he wrote and it was erroneous.
>>
>>> The number of prescriptions is a silly measure, since some are written every
>>> thirty days.
>>
>>Not to mention that a single doctor can write thousands of atenolol
>>prescriptions per year.
>>
>>> I am trying to discontinue atenolol, by the way. I am down to 7 mg /day from
>>> 50 mg/d. But I am having trouble now. Even after a couple of months, my
>>> heart rate remains high and a bit volatile at the reduced dose. I am hoping
>>> that it will adapt in time so that i can reduce the dose to zero, but at
>>> this point, I would be more comfortable if I increased it to 12.5 mg/d.
>>
>>Perhaps you still have VAT.
>
>It would seem I can't have much. I've lost what excess weight I had. My abs
>are visible now at age 63. I'm 5'9" and weigh 146. Waist is 31" and Hips are
>36." (WHR of approx 0.86).
Incredibly to me, I am now at 140 lb. I think that is what I weighed at age
16 or 17. I seem fine on the 7 mg/d atenolol now. Waist is 30.5 and hips are
35.5 so WHR is still above 0.85 (0.859) but 0.85 is within my measurement
error.
As my triglycerides and HDL (and all lipid measures) have been fine for a
long time (on Lipitor 10 mg/d), it's hard to conclude that I have any VAT to
lose now. BP averages around 108/65, though I am still on Benicar 40 mg/d.
(Will try to reduce both drugs at next medical evaluation.)
I am a bit afraid to lose more weight, because of possible muscle loss. I am
tracking myself at the gym, though, and have lost only a little strength
during weight loss from about 170 down to 140 lb.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> friend Jim Chinnis <jchi...@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote in part:
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
As long as you are hungrier, eating the optimal amount (32 oz) per
day, you will not be losing muscle.
Been at this for more that 10 years now. Waist is 28 and hips are 35
so that WHR is 0.80. Had 32 ounces of delicious food (turkey,
stuffing, yams, green bean casserole, bread, gravy, chocolate cake,
etc) yesterday. Hungrier :-) Looking forward to the leftovers over
the next few days. Did 120 push-ups this morning just before coming
out to our cardiology practice here in Atlanta. Laus Deo ! Just had
my favorite kind of food for lunch (fish) so am 10 times hungrier (10
times stronger :-).
Know someone who has befriended hunger for more than 60 yrs and he
remains strong as a 95 year old still volunteering in the community
and taking no medications:
http://TruthRUS.org/DreadNought
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthy
tr...@is-best.com
"As long as you are hungrier, eating the optimal amount (32 oz) per day,
you will not be losing muscle."
Btw, jim to whom you reply has lost weight the old fashion way, reducing
calories, exercise and attention to nutritional intake in his diet.
Nary a two pound diet,aka 2 pd etc., in sight.
This is a lie, calorie requirement intake varies by height and activity
level for a given weight level.
If one does not intake calories/protein enough muscle will be used as an
energy source.
snip
"Did 120 push-ups this morning just before coming out to our cardiology
practice here in Atlanta."
Ah, you have learned to reduce belly fat,ie vat, because exercise has a
selective effect in reducing it, very good. I'm happy to have
contributed to your education on this point.
"I me myself" times 2 for both realities is indeed plural, but use of
"our" is a bit of an overstatement don't you think?