The channel aims to optimize biomarkers across various organ systems, such as the kidney, liver, immune system, and metabolic health.
A significant aspect of this focus is the regular tracking of blood pressure, which raises the question of its importance in health outcomes.
Research indicates that reducing blood pressure can lead to a 15% lower risk of dementia and decreased cardiovascular-related events, including heart attacks and strokes.
Understanding Blood Pressure Changes with Age
Systolic blood pressure tends to increase with aging, while diastolic blood pressure increases until midlife and then declines.
The data presented spans from September 2022 to early May 2025, encompassing 336 measurements of systolic and diastolic blood pressure.
Data Collection Methodology
Blood pressure measurements were standardized to a specific time frame, taken between 11:30 AM and 1:00 PM, to minimize variability.
The speaker took blood pressure readings five to six times within that time window, averaging the results for accuracy.
Measurements were conducted four to five hours after consuming food or water, ensuring consistency in testing conditions.
Systolic and Diastolic Blood Pressure Trends
The average systolic blood pressure recorded was 122 mmHg in 2022, decreasing to 119 mmHg in 2023, 118 mmHg in 2024, and remaining at around 118 mmHg in early 2025.
For diastolic blood pressure, averages were approximately 73 mmHg in 2022, 69 mmHg in 2023, and returning to about 70 mmHg in early 2025.
The speaker highlights their ability to maintain blood pressure levels lower than the expected values for their chronological age of 52 years.
Factors Influencing Blood Pressure
The speaker suggests that a lower body weight may be a contributing factor to their ability to resist age-related increases in blood pressure.
A correlation analysis shows a significant positive relationship between body weight and both systolic and diastolic blood pressure.
When the speaker’s body weight was around 138 to 140 pounds, their blood pressure readings were at their most youthful levels.
Future Plans and Diet Tracking
The speaker plans to monitor dietary correlations with blood pressure and make adjustments if necessary to maintain youthful blood pressure levels.
They emphasize the importance of tracking food intake, macro and micronutrient consumption, and their impact on blood pressure.
I was reviewing the transcript of this recent Optispan / Kaeberlein interview with Brad Stanfield and saw this statement:
In a moment of personal revelation, Dr. Stanfield shared that he personally uses an SGLT2 inhibitor. He takes it not for diabetes, but as an “off-guideline” treatment for his high blood pressure, a decision made as an informed patient in consultation with his kidney doctor.
and I was a little surprised as I had not noticed this before. So - I looked into it more. Here is the summary of the research and clinical evidence on SGLT2 inhibitors lowering blood pressure:
CGPT5 Response:
Short version: yes—SGLT2 inhibitors lower blood pressure, but the effect is modest (roughly −3 to −5 mmHg systolic and −1 to −2 mmHg diastolic on average), seen on both clinic and 24-hour ambulatory monitoring, across diabetes, CKD, and heart-failure populations.
What the best evidence shows
Meta-analyses (ABPM + office BP): Class effect of ~−3.5/−1.7 mmHg on 24-h BP; consistent office SBP reductions as well.
Ambulatory BP RCTs: Empagliflozin lowered 24-h SBP/DBP in randomized trials and ABPM cohorts (daytime and especially nighttime dips). Typical magnitude ≈ −5/−2 mmHg at 1 month.
Resistant hypertension: In patients with apparent treatment-resistant HTN on background meds, dapagliflozinproduced additional BP lowering vs placebo (modest but significant).
CKD: DAPA-CKD analyses show modest SBP/DBP reductions with dapagliflozin; effects seen with and without diabetes.
Heart failure (HFrEF/HFpEF): Trials (DAPA-HF, EMPEROR) report small average SBP decreases (~1–3 mmHg) while outcome benefits occur across baseline BP strata.
Who drops the most: Higher starting BP and nighttime BP tend to show larger falls; ABPM often shows a slightly bigger effect than office readings.
Reduced arterial stiffness / improved vascular compliance (pulse-wave-velocity and related measures improve).
Weight loss contributes (analyses attribute a meaningful fraction—on the order of ~40%—of BP fall to weight change).
Possible sympathetic dampening (trial comparing empagliflozin with HCT looked at muscle sympathetic nerve activity).
Practical takeaways
Magnitude: Expect ~3–5 mmHg SBP lowering on average; larger in those with higher baseline BP and at night on ABPM.
Populations: Effects occur in T2D, CKD (with/without diabetes), HFrEF/HFpEF, and resistant HTN—though the BP effect is smaller than classic antihypertensives.
Safety/monitoring: Watch for volume depletion/orthostasis, especially in elderly or with loop diuretics; adjust other diuretics if symptomatic. (Monitored in the cited RCTs/meta-analyses.)
He (Dr. Brad Stanfield) actually made a whole video about this, which I posted here - and it’s a pretty involved thing with polypharmacy, where he had to counteract some effects with other drugs:
@RapAdmin a while back you posted about a new blood pressure product that also did something like pulse wave velocity? A bit more than that even. I can’t find it under blood pressure, or anything else actually. What was that thing? I need a new BP cuff anyway.
When I went to the hospital back in September they prescribed me Amlodipine (tiny little flat pills). My blood pressure fell to where a few times it was 110 over 68 or so (they prescribed it I think to prevent complications in the brain). That’s pretty good! Usually my bp is around 125 over 80 or a little more.
…
One thing that has occurred to me is how people talk about bp. They talk about it like people are being lazy or lacking in morals or something if it’s like 140 over 85 or so. In many cases, that might be the median BP in some parts of the world, or at least the upper third of the population. Who’s to say that isn’t the typical BP of our ancient ancestors that made it to that age?
What I’m getting at is that there’s a kind normative language about the right bp level. I think the more ethical way to talk about bp is that medicines are artificially keeping it low. What we’re doing is more akin to applying life-extension methods than being an upright, decent human being.
Untreated, my blood pressure is low. Every time I’ve tried a -flozin it has given me a headache and made me feel light headed and out of it for 1-2 days.
I’ve tried eating extra salt and drinking lots of water, but haven’t found a solution, so no -flozins for me.
I was familiar with only the Yanomami but here’s a review of other hunter-gatherers in South/Central America, all had 95/65 BP with hypertension (>140) at 0-2% prevalence.
Those are interesting numbers, though according to this:
According to statistics, more than 75% of adults over 65 have high blood pressure.
Adults between the ages of 55-64 are also at-risk, with 70 percent of men and 63 percent of women meeting the standard.
Here, “high blood pressure” means:
A normal blood pressure is lower than 120/80. Once your blood pressure reaches 130/80 or higher, you meet the definition of high blood pressure.
Why does blood pressure rise like that with age?:
This happens because our arteries, which carry blood from our hearts, change over time. They become stiffer, which can result in higher blood pressure.
So, do hunter gatherers not experience this? I’d guess that they do. It’s possible the ones who would have pushed the stats higher died young, so didn’t get counted. And the ones that lived to age 65, say, were exceptionally hardy (able to battle germs and bacteria and other things that tend to kill others in their tribe).
If it’s because of survivorship bias, wouldn’t there should be a spike in BP with age, as it takes time for it to cause damage, especially without other risk factors? An inverted U-shape curve.
If that’s the case, is the age related data in the tables and another one from Yanomami in the paper showing it’s stable and without bias?
Maybe so. It’s just a little hard to believe that the lifestyle and diet of hunter gatherers could delay the rise in blood pressure that we see in the U.S. – the percentages of Americans with much higher blood pressure just seem too high. And for even older Americans (like age 80+), targets for bp are like 150 over 90. Could that really all just be due to the cumulative effect of not adopting a hunter gather lifestyle?
One thing about the “normative language” I wrote earlier that didn’t occur to me was that a lot of the talk about keeping the numbers so low (like 110 and lower) is likely mainly directed at people under about the age of 55, or even 50. Once one is past an age like that the targets and standards shift.
I’m open to the possibility that the data is biased, or wrong in some other way.
If this was a cohort study, rather than a cross sectional one, should resolve the bias question, if my memory serves me correctly. At the same time it seems odd that the people with hypertension would die, or is that not the implication?
@relaxedmeatball is there any consensus about whether age related increases in hypertension is because of lifestyle (salt, adiposity , activity levels) or aging? If the latter, what’s the consensus related to hunter-gatherer data on HBP levels with age?
