And once again, high blood pressure is making headlines in the news: the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) have just released new guidelines about hypertension. Since this development is likely to cause confusion and concern for many, I'm writing this post to help you understand the debate and what this might mean for you and your family. By the way, if you've read any of my other blood pressure articles on this site, let me reassure you: I am not changing my clinical practice or what I recommend to others, based on the new AHA/ACC guidelines. The core principles of better blood pressure management for older adults remain the same: * Take care in how you and your doctors measure blood pressure (more on that here), * Start by aiming to get blood pressure less than 150/90 mm Hg, as recommended by these expert guidelines issued in 2017 and in 2014, * And then learn more about what are the likely benefits versus risks of aiming for more intensive BP control. Perhaps the most important thing to understand is this: treatment of high blood pressure in older adults offers "diminishing returns" as we treat BP to get lower and lower. Scientific evidence indicates that the greatest health benefit, when it comes to reducing the risk of strokes and heart attacks, is in getting systolic blood pressure from high (i.e. 160-180) down to moderate (140-150). From there, the famous SPRINT study, published in 2015, did show a further reduction in cardiovascular risk, when participants were treated to a lower systolic BP, such as a target of 120. However, this was in a carefully selected group of participants, it required taking three blood pressure medications on average, and the reduction in risk was small. As I note in my article explaining SPRINT Senior, in participants aged 75 or older, pushing to that lower goal was associated with an estimated 1-in-27 chance of avoiding a cardiovascular event. (The benefit was even smaller in adults aged 50-75.) Question: Why was this post written? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- To dispute the SPRINT study.
- To understand the debate about the new AHA guidelines.
- not enough information
- To manage people's blood pressure.

Answer: To understand the debate about the new AHA guidelines.

"That'll be $9.87." Rebecca Ranghorn flipped up the top of the box, pulled out a glazed donut, and took bite. The young secretary behind her looked on in disbelief. She was so ready for the weekend. But first she had to get to the office and put in her lousy eight hours. Why couldn't this woman just pay and get out of the way? Rebecca tossed the box at the clerk. A couple of donuts flew out and fell on the floor behind the counter. "Those are yesterday's donuts. I told you to give me the fresh ones." "But, ma'am, these are the fresh--." The look in her eyes stopped him cold. He dumped the box in the trash and picked out a fresher dozen. "Now, that'll be $9.87, please." "Keep your drawers on, Jack." She sampled the new batch. "That's more like it." She threw a ten dollar bill on the counter and walked out with her donuts and large bottle of orange juice. Her enormous black 1979 Lincoln Continental Town Car was four feet longer and twice the weight of the young secretary's Toyota Corolla parked next to it. It was costing her a fortune to drive her dad's old car. But it made her feel close to him--even though he had been dead for eleven years. She rarely had an occasion to drive out of town--and it was not a big town. Sherman, Texas has about 36,000 residents. She pulled into the old strip mall parking lot. Most of the stores and other businesses were barely hanging on. The place hadn't seen decent shopping traffic since the 1980s. But it was the perfect location for Rebecca and her partner. They didn't need shoppers. All they needed was cheap office space. Theirs was narrow, but deep, with a reception area, two offices and a bathroom. Question: Who said that the donuts were fresh? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- Rebecca
- not enough information
- The secretary
- The clerk

Answer: The clerk

I have no experience with a lazy 21 yr old. Both my older children have always been independent. My oldest moved out when she started college and never moved back in after she graduated. My other daughter wanted to move out as soon as she hit 21 but her dad and I gave her some rules or rather instructions she had to follow before she can pack her bags and move in with the boyfriend. 1st she had to show us that she had 3months rent saved up in her savings account. Not just her half of the rent but the whole rent. Which was about $3,600 dollars. You never know if something happens to her or she looses her part time job she can still pay her rent. Nobody wants an eviction on their record. 2nd since she was still going to school and we were paying for it we wanted to see proof every semester that she was enrolled. Education is a big deal to me. 3rd she had to get on BIRTH CONTROL. I don't want any ooops sorry Mom I am pregnant. Now I can't finish school because I have to work full time to pay for my baby.. I was a teen Mom and I didn't get to go to college so it is 100% important that my kids go and finish. She complied with all or requests and is doing remarkable. She has been out on her own for almost 2years . So I'm really don't have any advice to give but maybe if you show a little tough love and give your kid a kick in the pants and tell hi it's time to grow the hell up. Get a job and pay some rent, or go to school and get an education. No more freeloading around here. Sorry that's all I got. Question: Why did the mother tell her daughter to go on birth control? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- she was moving in to college
- she was getting married
- she was moving in with her boyfriend
- not enough information

Answer:
she was moving in with her boyfriend