Martha, I'm seeing everything, but swamped for a couple days, and, more importantly, want to think more before replying about a lot of things. One thing now: thank you for posting the results of your experiments! And I know what you mean about the sore fingers.marthaNH wrote:Also -- Gilgamesh, if you see this [...]
Without time to go through my still badly organized notes, and relying on my swiss cheese memory, two things come to mind: 1) I've seen some studies that suggested that lowered BP via meds -- even more so than lowered "naturally"!! -- is correlated with better cognitive outcomes. But -- important -- double-check quality of studies. 2) Some studies indicate really low BP is correlated with worse outcomes in older age. But check A) cut-off for "really low", B) cut-off for "older age", and C) possibility of entirely non-causal relation.marthaNH wrote:I'm taking such a small dose of such a widely-prescribed and considered safe drug (enalapril) that I'm actually thinking of increasing my dose a tad (to 3.75 mg a day from 2.5) to see if I can keep systolic under 100 all the time. Why not? I went through some chaos when I probably did myself some damage. I can't undo it, but maybe lower will be better.
That's a serious "why not?" by the way. If anybody thinks "not!" feel free to share!
And check whether enalapril was used in studies mentioned in my #1.
All the above by way of trying to offer something useful towards an answer to the non-rhetorical "why not?" question (though concluding tentatively: can't think of any reason -- on the contrary!). The matter is relevant to me, as well (mostly because of others in my family, though if I go further off CR...).
Back to work,
GB