The New Healthy Blood Pressure Rules - Chasing Life with Dr. Sanjay Gupta - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
00:00:03
Welcome to Paging Dr. Gupta. This is the place we get to tackle the questions that matter the most to you. And today, you're going to hear a great question from a loyal listener. But first, we wanted to start with some health news that affects millions of people out there. Kyra is back with us. Please tee us up.
Kyra Dahring
00:00:20
Hey, Sanjay. Okay, so our office was buzzing about these new recommendations on how to control blood pressure. And so I'm curious, what's different than before and what do we need to know now?
Dr. Sanjay Gupta
00:00:33
Yeah, so I've been thinking about this a lot. I've gotten a ton of questions about the blood pressure guidelines. So let's start with this, just a little bit of context. First of all, this is the first time the guidelines have been updated since 2017. Really important. And if you look at the United States as a whole, close to half, right around half the people have hypertension. Okay, so, I want you to have this context. These recommendations typically come from a collection of health organizations. Such as the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology. These groups meet and occasionally they will release an update if they agree that there's enough new evidence that demands it. So again, this is the first update since 2017 and they thought it was important enough to publish this report. I'm gonna tell you what it says right after the break.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta
00:01:29
'So one of the big things about these new blood pressure guidelines that a lot of people paid attention to is that they essentially recommend abstinence from alcohol, okay? So this is a surprise, I think, for a lot people because the conventional wisdom has been a drink a day or two drinks a day if you're a guy is okay. This is much clearer. And to be fair, there's been a lot back and forth on alcohol for a long time. Even going back to the 1800s. But more recently, you see increasing evidence about the association of alcohol with all sorts of things, heart disease, dementia, even. And in addition to that, there seemed to be this real trend toward not drinking in general, a sober curious movement. From 1997 to 2023, about 60% of Americans reported drinking alcohol. It's 54% today. So about half of people in the United States drink alcohol. Go back to the 70s and it was around 70%. So this is a really interesting trend, one that we should pay attention to. And in addition to that, a Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans, 53%, say drinking in moderation or one or two drinks a day is bad for one's health. Okay, so again, I start with the alcohol part of these guidelines because that got a lot of attention. Now, one of the other big changes when it came to blood pressure, treating hypertension earlier. Hypertension, stage one, is 130 to 139. That's the top number. Okay, so if you're below 120 over 80, that's considered normal. As you start to get above that, that's consider high. So especially 130 to 139, the recommendations are lifestyle changes first -- healthy weight, reduce salt, exercise. But then, if no changes, after three to six months of lifestyle changes, consider adding a medication. In the past, the recommendation was that anyone who had a blood pressure above 140 should be prescribed lifestyle changes and medication. Again, now it's 130. So that was a big headline. And in addition to all the lifestyle changes they talk about, they also say, when you get to that period of time when you're incorporating these lifestyle changes then alcohol abstinence could make a big difference. I do want to point out something else as well, something that I pay attention to, and that is, again, the association between high blood pressure and the risk of dementia. We've long suspected this, but there was a study that came out of rural China that I think really made the case that good blood pressure control could be helpful for dementia as well. So blood pressure control below 130 over 80 lowered the risk of dementia by 15 percent. So we think about blood pressure in terms of heart disease, but we really have to think about it in terms brain health as well. And I think that's in part why these guidelines are out, why they have been changed. If you're getting into a blood pressure of 130, top number 130, then it's time to implement some of these changes. I hope that helps you understand the new guidelines. If you do want to read more about this, we have a link to CNN's reporting in our show notes. But after a break, as I mentioned, a very astute listener has a follow-up question for me, right after the break.
Kyra Dahring
00:05:07
All right, we got time for another question. Kyra, what do we have?
Kyra Dahring
00:05:11
'Okay, Sanjay, here's the listener with the follow-up question from a previous episode. Take a listen.
Listener Mark
00:05:16
Hi, Dr. Gupta. My name is Mark. I live in New Jersey. I'm 69 years old. I know you've already pretty much exhausted the topic of sunscreen and how much sun is good for you, both in general and for your eyesight. But your podcast on the subject begged a couple of questions. You said that the ideal situation was a certain number of minutes of morning sunlight. Not every day starts off with beautiful golden rays of morning sunshine. How would your recommendation change in the following weather conditions? 1. cloudy all day. 2. Light rain or light snow all day. 3. cloudy or rain or snow in the morning and then sunlight starting at 1 p.m. 4. windy with clouds in the mornings so the sun is only out about 50% of the time. Sorry to get so granular, but just trying to be realistic in terms of actual weather conditions. Thank you!
Dr. Sanjay Gupta
00:06:10
'Wow, Mark, thank you very much. It is just gratifying for me to know that you're listening so closely that you actually have a really smart follow-up question for me. I'm impressed. Let's start with the advice that you referenced. That came from Dr. Raj Maturi. He's an ophthalmologist with 25 years of experience.
Dr. Raj Maturi
00:06:30
'Aim for 10 to 15 minutes of direct, unfiltered morning light. No windows, no sunglasses, as soon as practical after waking up. In fact, the best and safest time to do it is in the first 45 minutes after the sun rises. Early in the morning, the sun is coming at a pretty acute angle on the atmosphere. A lot of the bad stuff, the UVB light, the really short wavelength light that's bad for us, jumps off the atmosphere. So we don't get that, our skin doesn't get that, and therefore doesn't get red even if you're outside 10-15 minutes. That's a clear sign that it's still safe. And your sunburn risk is almost zero at that early point in the morning and it allows your vitamin D production to happen.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta
00:07:13
So let me establish a couple of things here. And I think this is clear, but first of all, skin cancer is typically caused by exposing the cells in the skin to UV radiation, ultraviolet radiation. Most of those harmful ultraviolets rays are coming down from about 10 a.m. To 4 p.m., that's six hour window. That's typically the hottest part of the day with the most sunshine. Now, that's why Dr. Maturi suggests getting those 10 to 15 minutes of direct sunlight In the morning, before most UV rays are beaming down from the sun. And again, that means taking the time without sunglasses on, and of course, being careful to avoid looking directly at the sun, but let me get to the specifics of your question. And I think it's how to achieve the benefits of that direct sunlight, even when it's a rainy day or the sun doesn't come out until the afternoon. First of all, keep in mind that even if it's cloudy, or even if there's a bit of a drizzle, there is sunlight still reaching the earth, and that means it's reaching your body and your eyes. So even if it's not a particularly bright day, that 10 to 15 minutes could still be beneficial. Now if the sun doesn't come out until 1 p.m., you should not consider this your opportunity to make up for the missed morning of sunlight. Why? It may be the first light of the day, but it's still within that higher period of UV rays. So you gotta exercise normal caution. One thing I want to point out, seasonal affective disorder, SAD, that's the acronym. That's a form of depression caused by a lack of sunlight, and about 10 million people in the United States suffer from it. I lived in the North for a long time in Michigan, and the percentage of people suffering from it was even higher up there. So you know, you got to take that into account. That's why a lot of people I think plan a vacation to somewhere warm and sunny during the winter months. And if you can't travel, you could consider getting a lightbox that's a specialized lamp that can at least approximate some of that early morning light. Now, it is important to remember that time outdoors, taking a walk, just spending time in nature, something that is referred to as forest bathing has been shown to benefit not just mood, but also your immune system. So even if it's cloudy outside, maybe even if its lightly snowing outside, consider putting on a coat, taking a walk. It can be a real boon to your eyes, to your immune system, and to your mood as well. I can almost guarantee you, you're gonna feel better. Sometimes when I'm having a tough day, just putting on my sneakers, getting outside, taking a walk, even for a few minutes, makes a huge difference! And Mark, I think it'll help you a lot as well.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta
00:09:59
'Thanks so much to everyone who sent in the questions. You know, I say this all the time, but it's true. This show would not exist without you, and I'm really glad you're a part of it. If there is anything health-related you've been wondering about, don't keep it to yourself. I've dedicated myself to this show, so share it with me. Record a voice memo, email it to asksanjay@cnn.com, or give us a call, 470-396-0832, and leave a message. Thanks for listening.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Cencora directors agree to $111M settlement over alleged opioid mismanagement
This story was originally published on Healthcare Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Healthcare Dive newsletter. Dive Brief: Cencora directors have agreed to pay upwards of $111 million to settle allegations that they failed to stop the drug distributor from perpetuating the U.S. opioid epidemic. The lawsuit brought by pension funds accused Cencora's leadership of ignoring red flags around how the company was dispensing the highly addictive painkillers for years — including dubiously large opioid shipments — and failing to properly monitor opioid sales. The settlement disclosed Friday in a filing with the Delaware Chauncery Court is Cencora's latest financial penalty over its role in the opioid crisis. Still, it amounts to a slap on the wrist compared to the billions of dollars that Cencora has already agreed to pay to settle opioid-related litigation brought by state and local governments. Dive Insight: In 2021, Lebanon County Employees' Retirement Fund and a health plan maintained by the Teamsters union sued Cencora's directors for breaching their duty to stockholders by failing to stop Cencora from improperly distributing opioids. Over 1 million Americans have died of overdoses related to opioids since 1999, but deaths spiked in between 2017 and 2023 as the potent painkillers became more readily available and easily misused, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. During the epidemic, Cencora failed to 'adopt, implement, or oversee reasonable policies and practices to prevent the unlawful distribution of opioids and failed to act when presented with evidence of widespread illegal opioid sales,' the pension funds argued in the Delaware suit. In 2022, a Delaware judge dismissed the case based on a decision from a West Virginia court in Cencora's favor in separate litigation, saying in a ruling it 'knock[ed] the stuffing out of the plaintiffs' claim[s].' However, the Delaware Supreme Court revived the case in 2023 after the plaintiffs appealed. Following mediation in June, both Cencora and the pension funds accepted an arbitor's proposal that Cencora pay $111.3 million to settle the case, according to court documents. The amount was solidified in the formal settlement disclosed on Friday. 'Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel have determined that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders,' the settlement reads. Meanwhile, 'Defendants have denied, and continue to expressly deny, each and all of the claims and contentions alleged by Plaintiffs ... Defendants are entering into this Stipulation and the Settlement solely to eliminate the burden, expense, disruption, and distraction inherent in further litigation.' When contacted for comment, a Cencora spokesperson stressed that the settlement is to avoid further litigation and contains no admission of liability or wrongdoing. The company, which rebranded from AmerisourceBergen in 2023, is already on the hook for billions of dollars over its alleged role in the opioid epidemic. The company agreed in 2022 to pay $6.4 billion over 18 years as part of a nationwide settlement resolving the lion's share of lawsuits filed against drug distributors by state and local governments. Scattershot lawsuits, such as this from the pension funds, have continued, resulting in smaller settlements. For example, last fall Cencora and two other major drug distributors agreed to pay $300 million to settle opioid-related litigation from a number of health insurers and benefits plans. Thousands of lawsuits have taken distributors, drugmakers, pharmacies and doctors to task for their role in flooding the country with opioids. Litigation has resulted in roughly $50 billion in settlements to date. Recommended Reading Drug distributors agree to $300M settlement for role in opioid epidemic Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
US pediatricians' new COVID-19 shot recommendations differ from CDC advice
NEW YORK — For the first time in 30 years, the American Academy of Pediatrics is substantially diverging from U.S. government vaccine recommendations. The group's new COVID-19 recommendations — released Tuesday — come amid a tumultuous year for public health, as vaccine skeptics have come into power in the new Trump administration and government guidance has become increasingly confusing. This isn't going to help, acknowledged Dr. James Campbell, vice chair of the AAP infectious diseases committee. 'It is going to be somewhat confusing. But our opinion is we need to make the right choices for children to protect them,' he added. The AAP is strongly recommending COVID-19 shots for children ages 6 months to 2 years. Shots also are advised for older children if parents want their kids vaccinated, the AAP said. That differs from guidance established under U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which doesn't recommend the shots for healthy children of any age but says kids may get the shots in consultation with physicians. Children ages 6 months to 2 years are at high risk for severe illness from COVID-19, and it was important that recommendations continue to emphasize the need for them to get vaccinated, said Campbell, a University of Maryland infectious diseases expert. Vaccinations also are recommended for older children who have chronic lung diseases or other conditions that put them at higher risk for severe disease, the AAP said. In a statement, Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon said 'the AAP is undermining national immunization policymaking with baseless political attacks.' He accused the group of putting commercial interests ahead of public health, noting that vaccine manufacturers have been donors to the AAP's Friends of Children Fund. The fund is currently paying for projects on a range of topics, including health equity and prevention of injuries and deaths from firearms. The 95-year-old Itasca, Illinois-based organization has issued vaccination recommendations for children since the 1930s. In 1995, it synced its advice with recommendations made by the federal government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There have been a few small differences between AAP and CDC recommendations since then. For example, the AAP has advised that children get HPV vaccinations starting at age 9; the CDC says that's OK but has emphasized vaccinations at ages 11 and 12. But in 30 years, this is the first time the recommendations have differed 'in a significant or substantial way,' Campbell said. Until recently, the CDC — following recommendations by infectious disease experts — has been urging annual COVID-19 boosters for all Americans ages 6 months and older. But in May, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that COVID-19 vaccines are no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women. A few days later, the CDC issued language that healthy children may get the shots, but that there was no longer a 'should' recommendation. The idea that healthy older kids may be able to skip COVID-19 boosters has been brewing for some time among public health experts. As the COVID-19 pandemic has waned, experts have increasingly discussed the possibility of focusing vaccination efforts on people 65 and older — who are among those most as risk for death and hospitalization. A CDC expert panel in June was set to make recommendations about the fall shots. Among the options the panel was considering was whether suggest shots for high-risk groups but still giving lower-risk people the choice to get vaccinated. But Kennedy bypassed the group, and also decided to dismiss the 17-member panel and appoint his own, smaller panel, that included vaccine skeptics. Kennedy also later excluded the AAP, the American Medical Association and other top medical organizations from working with the advisers to establish vaccination recommendations. Kennedy's new vaccine panel has yet to vote on COVID-19 shot recommendations. The panel did endorse continuing to recommend fall flu vaccinations, but also made a decision that led to another notable difference with the AAP. The new advisory panel voted that people should only get flu vaccines that are packaged as single doses and do not contain the preservative thimerosal. The AAP said there is no evidence of harm from the preservative, and recommended doctors use any licensed flu vaccine product that's appropriate for the patient.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
NIH plans heat up animal testing debate
WASHINGTON WATCH NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya elaborated on his strategic priorities for the National Institutes of Health on Friday — and drew criticism from some animal rights advocates. His strategy focuses on plans Bhattacharya and his boss, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have previously touted, like prioritizing nutrition research, advancing artificial intelligence, focusing on research reproducibility and shifting to solutions-based health disparities research. 'Taxpayer dollars are a finite resource, entrusted to NIH officials to invest in the nation's future,' Bhattacharya wrote in a statement published on NIH's website. 'By transparently establishing priorities and aligning our goals, we aim to demonstrate to the American public that we take this commitment seriously — and that we are doing all we can to honor their trust.' Falling short: But one priority area — moving away from animal testing in favor of alternative models and establishing an office to develop, validate and deploy those methods — was a sore point for animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. From PETA's vantage point, Bhattacharya's plan didn't go far enough. 'Dramatic change is essential, as we've seen how 'enhancing oversight' is a laugh-into-your-sleeve exercise, and 'considering non-animal methods' is a check box,' Kathy Guillermo, PETA's senior vice president of laboratory investigations, said in a statement. 'PETA urges him to remember that at the highest levels of the Trump administration, there are well-placed people rooting for NIH to break with career animal experimenters.' Animal testing state of play: In Congress, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has been a persistent critic of animal testing at the health agencies and co-sponsored 2022 legislation with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to permit drugmakers to use alternative methods to test their products. The health agencies have not shied away from the issue or from animal rights groups. Among the first policies that the NIH and the Food and Drug Administration announced this spring was a move away from animal testing for research and drug development. According to public calendar disclosures, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary met with PETA in July. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. The Pete & Bobby Challenge. HHS Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Defense Sec. Pete Hegseth are challenging Americans to complete 50 pull-ups and 100 push-ups in under 10 minutes. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Carmen Paun at cpaun@ Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: CarmenP.82, RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. EXAM ROOM Health insurance companies pay vastly different prices for health services from one another— even when they're performed at the same hospital. Aetna and UnitedHealthcare, two of the largest health insurers in the U.S., negotiated rates for six inpatient procedures that varied by an average ratio of 9.1 nationwide, according to a report by health data analytics firm Trilliant Health. Sticker shock: The median rate for a coronary bypass — with no catheterization or major complications — is $68,194. However, negotiated rates ranged from $27,683 to $247,902. Rates even varied within the same health system. For example, Aetna pays $166,288 for a patient with diabetes to have major heart bypass surgery using a minimally invasive technique at Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia, while UnitedHealthcare pays about half that rate. The report also found no correlation between aggregate measures of cost and quality within a sample of 10 top-tier hospitals. Health systems that have similar quality in care might have wildly different negotiated rates for the same health services, according to the report. High-quality care? The data raises questions about whether insurers deliver the best value for patient care. 'It actually creates a fiduciary duty for the employers to be using this sort of information to make sure they're providing high-value health benefits to their employees,' said Allison Oakes, chief research officer at Trilliant Health, who worked on the report. She believes that this data could help reduce some price disparity. 'The hope is we start to see some of this variation in prices shrink, which, without changing quality or access, could actually reduce spending by quite a bit,' she said. Unintended effect: Ben Handel, professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, agrees that this kind of price transparency could lead to negotiated rates homogenizing. However, it might not necessarily bring down prices, he said. 'The other potential scenario is it raises prices,' he said. He notes that insurers' incentives vary by context. For example, when administrating a self-insured plan — where employers directly pay health costs and insurers provide only the network — they earn a percentage of each claim. 'Raising costs makes you more money,' said Handel.
