|
No shock for me heart same age as me. I'm losing weight by having cut out certain things (sweets and crisps etc), 3 or 4 km a day when not working with the dogs, maybe more some days. Hauling boxes and notes two days a week (saves going to the gym). No medical conditions - last time I had my BP taken it was ok.
|
Same age as me but it had to fill in a few figures for me. No idea what my blood pressure or cholesterol is.
|
|
Had both taken as part of the NHS medical last year. Both were fine.
|
I hope the results do not make some folks panic.
It suggests I have an old heart.
It disagrees with what my senior cardiologist tells me at my regular ( private ) check ups.
The BMI figure was identical to the figure I have from a very recent independent test so the identical tables appear to have be used.
IMO my BMI is probably worse than they quote.
The only BMi calculations I have ever had any trust in were split into three tables and one was then selected based on wrist size.
I do not know my cholesterol reading so I understand an average reading us used.
I had better hurry up and crack on with my bucket list ( how I wish I could ) :-)
|
qrisk.org/three/
This is one of the risk estimating tools.
If you don't know your cholesterol I'd suggest stick in 5 for the ratio.
If you don't know your BP, perhaps 110+half your age would be a fair average.
If you play around with it you'll find age is the biggest risk factor... and one that can't be fixed!
ps. Unless you have a heart condition, why would you want regular cardiology check-ups?
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 4 Sep 18 at 21:58
|
Someone please explain the figures.
What does it mean, "Your heart's age is ..." ?
If my heart's age is 80 and my average expected age at death is 81, is that good (my heart's younger) or bad (my heart's going to peg out a year early) ?
Or does it mean, as it literally says, "my heart's age is already 80" !
|
|
It rather depends on how old you are now. If your heart age is older than your actual age then your life expectancy will be less than it would otherwise be.
|
Oh, right. Thanks. :)
That's what it appeared to be saying, but I was confused by the final page which displays two numbers, implying that they were there for comparison.
Playing about with the figures, it appears that the only really important one it uses is systolic blood pressure.
I've just been reading about this, and discovered that the emphasis on the higher (systolic) figure is misplaced. The important figure is in fact the Pulse Pressure, which is the difference between Systolic and Diastolic. That is the pressure that actually does the pumping, and is what overstrains organs if it is too high. It is supposed to be in the range 30 to 50, 40 being considered optimum. The most risky situation is a raised systolic but a low diastolic. Apparently it is normal for them both to rise or fall together depending on degree of exertion.
|
These tools are for determining risk of future disease in people who currently have none.
Odd blood pressures such as high systolic/low diastolic (eg 200/70) warrant further investigation to see if disease is already present, such as valve problems or disease of the heart muscle.
If silent disease is noted the calculators really have no role.
|
That’s a bit of a worry...my heart age is 66 and I’ve just turned 63. No idea of the specifics re my BP but whenever I’ve had it taken at the docs it’s ok. No matter how hard I try I cannot reduce my cholesterol, despite a reasonably healthy diet. Few biscuits, lots of fruit & salad. Also the odd curry, 12 pints a week (drunk over three nights, Sunday, Thursday, Saturday) the occasional monthly fish & chips.
I visit the gym 4 x a week, including circuit training twice a week. I walk 10/12 miles every Thursday and at least 3 miles a day. I’ve just backpacked 210 miles in 13 days ( that’s 16 miles a day with a 10Kg pack) despite an arthritic hip.
I’m very slightly overweight but my recent 17 day alcohol free annual detox meant I lost 6 lbs whilst scoffing kitkats, choc bars, biscuits, fish n chips at every opportunity on my recent backpack ( without a stove).
If I make it to 70 I’ll have no complaints.
|
Huh! - according to that i should have died 3 years ago! ;-)
|
3 years ago, a good friend of mine had a heart attack, followed hours later by a significant stroke just 2 weeks after a company medical had pronounced him fit and healthy. Active, normal cholesterol, normal BMI, non-smoker, enjoyed a tipple or two, but not every day. Just crap luck, basically, according to the doctors. They couldn't pin it on anything particular.
The stroke was life changing. 3 years on, he can still barely walk unaided, and has no use of one arm.
Do the right things to minimise your risk where you can, and just enjoy life. It's really not worth worrying about this stuff.
Last edited by: DP on Wed 5 Sep 18 at 12:15
|
The stroke may well have been caused by 'clot busting' treatment for the initial heart attack.
But that's the gamble of any intervention.
|
>>according to that i should have died 3 years ago!
Maybe you are in heaven but simply don't realise it yet. I was in heaven recently, but it was only heaven when I took the damn things orf!
www.amazon.co.uk/Scholl-Heaven-Unisex-Adults-Sandals/dp/B07F25XDX1
|
>> Maybe you are...
Oh ho. Welcome back Dog-like one.
|
>>Welcome back Dog-like one.
Dogs like trees: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8MQcrR4OSc
|
>> Dogs like trees
Dogs have excellent taste.
|
>>Dogs have excellent taste.
Thought you'd like it Cc. I like the wind instruments playing in the background, probably oboe and clarinet (you'll know)
What a tragedy though: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Drake
|
Well, Dog, the driven rarely choose their destination.
Reminds me of Clifford T Ward as well.
|
>>the driven rarely choose their destination
How very true.
:-(
|
Cholesterol levels are largely genetically programmed, diet has a minor effect and excessive alcohol exerts a moderate effect.
The purpose of qrisk scores are to find people who do not currently have heart disease, but who are at a relatively high risk of developing it so they can look at lifestyle and risk factor management (and to decide if statins may be appropriate).
Statins reduce the risk of a heart attack by around 25% no matter what the initial cholesterol is - if your initial risk is very low, of course, you have little to gain by reducing it by a small portion.
|
>>Cholesterol levels are largely genetically programmed,
I rarely see that sort of statement.
One of my GPs suggested that levels should be taken at an early age and thus maybe register a proper base level.
A relative who is many stones overweight and has limited mobility due to knee ops that went wrong can and does indulge in the "wrong" food has a very low count.
>>Statins reduce the risk of a heart attack by around 25%
I have tried many different Statins over many years but am not prepared to tolerate the side effects.
I had to resort to crawling up the stairs but a day after stopping things reverted back to "normal".
My GP has tried hard to find a Statin for me. I must ask again if there are any newer versions.
I read that " My side effects are anecdotal !!" which I understand means that no approved trials have been undertaken :-(
|
Statins are the most effective medications for reducing cardiovascular risk, and it's not all about lowering blood cholesterol - it appears they also stabilise deposits already present in coronary arteries making them less likely to rupture and lead to a blockage (aka heart attack).
Some other medicines reduce cholesterol (such as ezetimibe) but evidence is lacking with respect to an actual reduction in cardiovascular events.
Currently the statins available are:
Pravastatin
Simvastatin
Atorvastatin
Rosuvastatin
Fluvastatin (never prescribed that one)
If someone is intolerant of one I would usually suggest trying the lowest dose of a different one. In theory simvastatin and atorvastatin are biochemically more similar than prava/rosuvastatin (to do with solubility in water and fat) so I would normally do something like this:
Start: Atorvastatin 20mg (if no disease but high risk of developing) or 80mg (if known heart disease)
If not tolerated try 5mg rosuvastatin
If not tolerated try 10mg pravastatin
If not tolerated try 10mg simvastatin
Give up (or refer cardiology if known heart disease)
Always depends on the individual patient of course and his/her wishes - some people really don't want to take medicines, others very much don't want a(nother) heart attack and will tolerate a bit of side effect.
|
Lygonos
Thanks for that detailed response. I will call in on my GPs and see what I have already tried and hopefully start once again.
The last attempt was with the latest most expensive option that was still on patent.
|
Thanks for that info Lygonos. Appreciated.
A few months ago I saw my GP and he suggested I try statins. I think I was pretty much borderline with the cholesterol levels, so I declined.
|
Before making any long term plans..... - R.P.
