High Blood Sugar, Hypertension Is Protective In The Very Old Fat Diabetic People?

Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,501
Dr. Peat is right again.

The metabolic syndrome is associated with decelerated cognitive decline in the oldest old

The metabolic syndrome was associated with a decelerated cognitive decline from age 85 to 90 on the Mini-Mental State Examination (additional annual effect 0.18 [0.07], p = 0.01), the Stroop Test (−1.49 [0.59], p = 0.01), and the Letter Digit Coding Test (0.26 [0.09], p = 0.005). This effect was mainly attributable to glucose, body mass index, and, to a lesser extent, blood pressure.

Conclusion: The association between the metabolic syndrome and accelerated cognitive decline, which has been reported in persons up to age 75, is not evident in a population of the oldest old. The concept of the metabolic syndrome may be less valid in this age group.

The study conclusion is PC bullpucky. The study shows clearly that those who are fatter, higher blood sugar, have LESS cognitive decline as they get very old. The other biomarkers are probably better as well.
 

Peatful

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
3,582
Interesting.
Where does Peat say -or write -this agreed conclusion?
 
OP
ecstatichamster
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,501
Dr. Peat has said higher blood pressure is protective for old people and that higher blood sugar than "normal" can be protective.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Dr. Peat has said higher blood pressure is protective for old people and that higher blood sugar than "normal" can be protective.
I remember the part about higher heart rate. I don't recall the higher blood pressure or the higher blood sugar though. Although his reasoning for higher heart rate could very well apply to higher blood pressure.

I also think that having higher blood pressure and not "just taking drugs to have the semblance of normality in bp" is better than the common course of action. Maybe the peeps with lower blood pressure aka "normal" aren't as healthy because of the cumulative damage from the side-effects of the drugs.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Last edited:

Beastmode

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
1,258
It was higher pressure in old people. Not young people.

We've been able to get my 94 year old grandma's bp up to 110/70 range from 80's/40's range.

Her cognition has improved quite a bit. Thanks to ole T3 and now progesterone/dhea mix :)

Doctors are f#$%$ clueless.
 
OP
ecstatichamster
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,501
I believe that Dr. Zajicek explained this. He suggests high blood pressure is protective by forcing blood into stiffer and more clogged blood vessels to oxygenate tissue that otherwise would become hypoxic.

Blood pressure and glucose are related and the "normal" should naturally increase as we age.



2019-03-14_09-23-20.png
 

schultz

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
2,653
I am very sceptical of the idea that high amounts of sugar in the blood really cause problems directly. I e-mailed Ray about this a while back and his answer suggests that glucose is increased adaptively (well, he says that so I guess he is not just "suggesting" lol).

I essentially asked him if he thinks it is the sugar itself causing the damage or if it is something else.

He said this to me...

Re: Hyperglycemia
"In tissue culture experiments, very high glucose has harmful effects, but those conditions don’t reflect what happens in the whole organism. Glucose in the blood is increased adaptively to protect against something that’s damaging the tissues, and that’s usually a hormone imbalance that is interfering with the ability to oxidize glucose. The “glycation” that’s usually blamed on high glucose is mostly caused by lipid peroxidation from polyunsaturated fats, and the glycerol that’s liberated by lipolysis, and metabolized to methylglyoxal. The fats block glucose metabolism for energy, and more glucose is produced to overcome that."


He has talked about a few of these ideas before, like PUFA and glycation, the Randle cycle, peroxidation, but it somehow his answer summed it up nicely. The glycerol point is something I never thought of before. I have not looked deeply into that so maybe I will do some research and see what I find.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
I believe that Dr. Zajicek explained this. He suggests high blood pressure is protective by forcing blood into stiffer and more clogged blood vessels to oxygenate tissue that otherwise would become hypoxic.

Blood pressure and glucose are related and the "normal" should naturally increase as we age.



2019-03-14_09-23-20.png

This is good info. Listening to this, I felt a sense that the years (12+) years of steadily increasing blood pressure, culminating at a high of 240/140, were not a waste, as I resisted the urge to capitulate and go the medication route. For various fears that I could equate to old wives' tales (which aren't even so off), such as blood vessels bursting and kidneys failing. I wouldn't know if a person in such a state would survive longer, allowing the body's adaptive mechanism to take over, than someone in a similar state allowing for the various interventionist mechanisms (drugs and surgery) called health care.

I only wonder, because I've since been able to lower my blood pressure significantly, to around 180/120. Recently, I'm getting more promising results with the use of fasting, which I would liken to a "total elimination diet." I was able to get 155/101, with a jump in heart rate from 59 to 94, but I need more time and data to claim victory. I suspect some substances I'm taking (considered Peaty) that gets in the way of this healing, and I would have to temporarily stop the intake of these substances to bring back homeostatic conditions at a lower blood pressure state.

It comes down to being able to fully understand one's own context, being observant, and not to be given to a dogmatic interpretation of even the best studies, as it's an all too common tendency for us to try to fit the data into pre-ordained conclusions. And with making sense of inconsistencies that one experience along the way, which happens more often than not, as our collective experience would attest to. When healing does come along, I see it as a culmination of tying in loose threads into a coherent whole, and in this I find the influence of Peat and Ling to be strong. We don't run into fictitious rationalization in the form of pumps and membranes to make our analysis attain an air of coherence.
 

Doc Sandoz

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
821
When I was a youngster back in the '60s, doctors said normal systolic pressure was 100 plus your age. With each passing decade, new - ahem - studies drove new recommendations until now you are about to die any minute if your systolic exceeds 115 whatever age you are. "Coincidentally" during this period many new anti-hypertensive drugs were being discovered and patented - big bucks for the pharma racket which only had to sell the docs on prescribing them en masse.

Dr. Peat has warned not to take drugs that haven't had at least a 30 year road test. Given all the official disinformation over COVID and MRNA vaccines, I no longer trust anything mainstream doctors that didn't die 50 years ago have to say. By the old standard, an average BP of 150 over 90 is low for my age. I haven't been able to tolerate any of the several anti-hypertensive drugs I've been prescribed over the years so, as Ray is in line with the old docs and says HBP is in fact protective in oldsters, I'll just quit worrying and let the home monitor continue to gather dust.
 

Ulysses

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2018
Messages
340
Dr. Peat is right again.

The metabolic syndrome is associated with decelerated cognitive decline in the oldest old

The metabolic syndrome was associated with a decelerated cognitive decline from age 85 to 90 on the Mini-Mental State Examination (additional annual effect 0.18 [0.07], p = 0.01), the Stroop Test (−1.49 [0.59], p = 0.01), and the Letter Digit Coding Test (0.26 [0.09], p = 0.005). This effect was mainly attributable to glucose, body mass index, and, to a lesser extent, blood pressure.

Conclusion:
The association between the metabolic syndrome and accelerated cognitive decline, which has been reported in persons up to age 75, is not evident in a population of the oldest old. The concept of the metabolic syndrome may be less valid in this age group.

The study conclusion is PC bullpucky. The study shows clearly that those who are fatter, higher blood sugar, have LESS cognitive decline as they get very old. The other biomarkers are probably better as well.
Just speaking anecdotally, it seems like the people who don't get fat as they age are *generally* the people who could never put any weight on in the first place. All the people I know like that, especially men, have had lots of problems because of it even in their youth. So perhaps it is not the fatness or the blood glucose levels themselves, but rather some basic metabolic mechanism that was working all along in people who gain weight with age, and was always failing in people who don't.

I only wonder, because I've since been able to lower my blood pressure significantly, to around 180/120. Recently, I'm getting more promising results with the use of fasting, which I would liken to a "total elimination diet." I was able to get 155/101, with a jump in heart rate from 59 to 94, but I need more time and data to claim victory. I suspect some substances I'm taking (considered Peaty) that gets in the way of this healing, and I would have to temporarily stop the intake of these substances to bring back homeostatic conditions at a lower blood pressure state.

It sounds like you were able to fix the underlying cause of your increasing blood pressure. Do you attribute this to any specific thing you did, or just a general Peaty approach?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom