Recent Blog Articles
Corneal transplants becoming more common
An emerging treatment option for men on active surveillance
Gun violence: A long-lasting toll on children and teens
Adult female acne: Why it happens and the emotional toll
Talking to your doctor about your LGBTQ+ sex life
Untangling grief: Living beyond a great loss
Thunderstorm asthma: Bad weather, allergies, and asthma attacks
Heart problems and the heat: What to know and do
I’m too young to have Alzheimer’s disease or dementia, right?
Period equity: What it is and why it matters
Could white-coat hypertension harm your heart?
About the Author
Julie Corliss, Executive Editor, Harvard Heart Letter
As a service to our readers, Harvard Health Publishing provides access to our library of archived content. Please note the date of last review or update on all articles.
No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct medical advice from your doctor or other qualified clinician.
Notice the picture of the woman getting her blood pressure taken…her back is not supported and her arm is down. Looks like she is on an exam.table which means her legs are dangling.
The problem is people are quickly seated on an exam table, talking or answering questions, feet need to ge on the ground and back supported and don’t take it till at least 3 min are past after seating. Take it twice if necessary and use the right size cuff!
Totally in agreement with you Vik.
nice and new, thanks.
I want to thank Vin Khanna for clarifying the difference between relative and absolute risk. Too often doctors use only relative risk statistics which scare patients into compliance, while the poor patient has no idea of what their real risk is. I also appreciate the pointing out that “blood pressure thresholds rise with age. There is no evidence of improvement in morbidity or mortality, for example, in adults over age 60 of treating a blood pressure that is below 150/90 (JNC 8).” The parameters of acceptable blood pressure, along with cholesterol and others have lowered to the point of absurdity. This lowering of acceptable parameters has been very lucrative for pharmaceutical companies.
I have experienced “white coat hypertension” for many years. I experienced a heart attack on April 4th, 2018. The Cardiologist inserted four stents in arteries around my heart. I have consistently taken medications to control hypertension. I exercise 3-4 times weekly, have reduced my salt and my weight has been the same 173 for the last several years. What, if anything, have I missed that I should have been doing to control my Hypertension? Thank you. David Beauregard
Some of these people may have had traumatic medical treatment in the past or are worried about a current medical condition. They may not have elevated blood pressure under other circumstances, like on the road.
But is it really the white coat or seeing the doctor. Or, the drive to the doctor’s office and the inevitable wait wait to be seen?
Thanks this is incredible
A very poorly written article.
Her claim that risk of heart disease rises 36% is a meaningless exclamation of relative risk. Unless absolute risk is also stated, the relative risk is completely without context. Since the author is does not understand this or willfully ignored it, I’ll explain: if a person’s absolute risk of a heart attack is 5%, and risk rises by the amount noted, the new level of absolute risk is 6.8%. Not exactly earth shattering.
Further, blood pressure thresholds rise with age. There is no evidence of improvement in morbidity or mortality, for example, in adults over age 60 of treating a blood pressure that is below 150/90 (JNC 8).
Like many things that the medical industry produces, this is meant to frighten people into thinking that they are diseased or in need of treatment.
You are correct but this depends on the audience. She could have went on to explain what a heart attack is or what the heart itself is. For people who study medicine or health sciences this should be a clear giveaway (that she is talking about relative risk). She does indeed not mention what the absolute risk is but that is very general and can be found in multiple websites. This is not what the article is focusing on in my opinion
Vik makes a very good point. We often hear these large percentages of increase risk, but if the initial risk is 1% and a stated increase is 50% the actual risk is elevated to only 1.5%. At 100% it’s 2%. What often a person is led to believe is that his or hers risk is 50% or maybe even 100% which means a sure fact that they are going to succumb to that particular ailment if they don’t take action! I’m not advocating people ignore they’re health and not make a strong effort to lead a healthy life-style and take medications if needed, but the medical field needs to present findings in a honest manner that we can understand.
Vik Khanna thank you for that reply!
Thank you Vik that was a very helpful and clearly demonstrated response. I had not made the connection between absolute and relative risk in this context. Thank you for saving me time in reading further.!
Commenting has been closed for this post.
You might also be interested in…
Harvard Heart Letter
Be on your way to a healthy heart. Subscribe to Harvard Heart Letter today. Each month, you’ll get easy-to-try nutrition and exercise advice that will improve your heart’s health and overall well-being. In Harvard Heart Letter, you’ll also read about today’s breakthrough medications and treatments as well as advice from Harvard’s doctors on side effects, drug interactions, and surgery precautions.
Free Healthbeat Signup
Get the latest in health news delivered to your inbox!