Vitamin C Forum

I got to wondering whether if a person had consistent text-book blood pressure (or better), it could be assumed that they were clear of any blockages.

(I should add that this is not me, at the present time - I'm far from text-book (although hopefully it has started to improve, and I have high hopes that will continue to with PT).

I'm actually thinking about a family member who does have consistently low (but not too low) BP (and also no cardiac symptoms).

Montmorency wrote:I got to wondering whether if a person had consistent text-book blood pressure (or better), it could be assumed that they were clear of any blockages.

I've got consistently 110/71 - and have a 80% blockage at my abdominal aorta bifurcation. But also got strong intermittent claudication almost since 7 years now. Symptoms Improved greatly on Pauling's Therapy, and this year they are mostly gone. Blockage remained unchanged.

pamojja wrote:

Montmorency wrote:I got to wondering whether if a person had consistent text-book blood pressure (or better), it could be assumed that they were clear of any blockages.

I've got consistently 110/71 - and have a 80% blockage at my abdominal aorta bifurcation. But also got strong intermittent claudication almost since 7 years now. Symptoms Improved greatly on Pauling's Therapy, and this year they are mostly gone. Blockage remained unchanged.

Interesting. Thanks @pamojja .

So not quite as simple as I perhaps had been thinking.

And perhaps my next question on blood pressure doesn't make sense in that case, but I will risk it anyway:

My recent BP measurements indicated only just a bit above "normal" diastolic, but 30 points above "normal" systolic.
Is there any distinction to be drawn between systolic and diastolic in terms of indicating possible blockage?

I suppose there are many factors affecting blood pressure, and blockage is just one possible one.

May have found my own answer, on the AHA website:

Typically more attention is given to the top number (the systolic blood pressure) as a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease for people over 50 years old. In most people, systolic blood pressure rises steadily with age due to increasing stiffness of large arteries, long-term build-up of plaque, and increased incidence of cardiac and vascular disease.

Well my systolic has been lower in the last few months (140), but that's still not great.
PT will hopefully make a difference.

Oops, quoted when I meant to edit earlier post. This may be deleted by admin, if I don't manage to.

ofonorow wrote:per many earlier posts - college class taught that blood pressure is a strong indicator of arterial narrowing (exponential rise in blood pressure with small narrowing). (Arteries are supposed to "narrow" during the contraction caused by the "fight or flight" response. Only blood pressure that doesn't come back down to normal (say after the visit to the "high stress" doctor's office is problematic.)

Over the course of the 20 years or so doing this forum, it appears that calcification (arterial stiffness) is more likely to lead to higher blood pressures (even without blockages)

So it is a good sign to have normal blood pressures.

Thanks Owen. That is certainly my aim. Not only for my own peace of mind, but to keep my G.P. quiet!
(And if I can demonstrate that it was done via PT, so much the better).