> Hypertension was defined as a systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or higher, a diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or higher, or the utilization of blood pressure-lowering medications.
Whoever defined this, thank you for having common sense!
This stood out to me because there are so many lunatics defining it as 121/80 or even 121/70 with the backwards idea that the systolic is more important. Worse still is when they insist that something as low as 100/65 is optimal despite complaints of dizziness. All the while hammering home that you should chug a million gallons of water and deprive yourself of sodium. It's like they're trying to make people miserable.
The blood pressure-lowering medications was a kick in the crotch. I've had primary hypertension (i.e., doctors have no explanation for why) since I was a teenager playing fifteen hours of tennis a week with a low body fat percentage and healthy eating habits.
Nothing I've ever tried has fixed this, including scratch-cooking everything for months, no meat, no salt, for months. Distance running. Weightlifting. Lots of sleep. I literally don't even have to work the rest of my life and am in my 40s, so no stress, either. I guess I'm just screwed!
The 120/80 benchmark isn't lunacy. Most people in the west have issues with hypertension because that's the direction it goes due to the common risk factors.
If you're at 135/85, and you're middle aged / younger, and your diet and lifestyle aren't already optimized, it's something you should probably care about, not look for the next highest rung on the ladder so that you can celebrate for being below it.