Upper Body Development

Too much cheese....

ace recap....I forgot ?

14 years/80.... Long time.

Sleep is essential. The system needs rest. Simon sez 'I gotta sleep all day to stand here n yodel so I gotta stop yodeling'

Prob an incidence from bench work.

Writing is generally therapeutic for the inclined. And revelatory . Or so it appears...? Your transistors are producing.

I eased off twice this week from ...our moisture left for La. Leaving the area solar cooked. One short short of 30 seconds from within while couching ...

Then Fall planted a foot on the ground ...

I'm shifting West again n prepping. The authorities have pinned me to home base so further wirk is impossible. EG working with SpaceX brought an avalanche of vehike vandalism. There is a Trump factor !

I base from Yuma so the opening S5 screen sports a green field from Truckee overlay ed with Yuma weather. Visually pleasing..like the AC duct downloaded yesterday at 4AM ...graphic design is the answer.

WHOA... at 2AM was 102 in Yuma ...I'll try quayludes before heading to Yellowstone.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 11:51:01 +0700, John B.
wrote:

I'm curious. After the first problem arose, whether stint or bypass, I
would suppose that along with any specific heart/blood medication that
the doctor would have discussed cholesterol and possible prescribed a
specific medication for treatment of that problem.

Yep. Among other potions, the cardiologist prescribed lovastatin
starting immediately after the heart bypass. My various cholesterol
indicators soon feel within acceptable target limits. During the
following years, I developed muscle aches in my back, which I was told
were the result of the heart bypass surgery. The pains were
intermittent and marginally tolerable. I tried massage, acupuncture,
and various pain killers. They all worked, but the pains came back.

After 9 years, I finally realized that the pains were coming from the
statins and not from the original surgery. I advised my doctor that I
was going to try not taking lovastatin for a few days. The pains
reduced in intensity but didn't go away. Instead of approving statins
from my pill diet, he decided to try simvastatin instead. That was a
disaster. I only took those for about 10 days, which expanded the
pains to the upper arms and shoulders, and increased the back pains.

At this point, my cardiologist finally caved in, and allowed me to
discontinue taking statins. It took about 60 days to shake off the
effects of 10 days of simvastatin and about 1.5 years to totally
eliminate the back pains caused by 9 years of lovastatin.

However, I'm now with a new cardiologist, who absolutely insists that
I take statins. He has me on lipitor (atorvastatin) 20 mg twice per
week, which is a very minimal dose. Before starting on this, I ran my
own cholesterol tests:
https://www.directlabs.com
which showed that I was very close to the acceptable borderline, but
not quite close enough to not require statins. The minimal dose of
lipitor was sufficient to produce acceptable numbers. Just one
problem. The back aches are beginning to return.

I can provide a detail list of the other assorted drugs if you want.
It's after midnight and I don't want to assemble a list right now.

And I assume that you would have religiously adhering to the doctor's
suggestion and prescriptions. (as I do)

Hardly. I've had far too many close calls with medical error to trust
the doctors "suggestions" and prescriptions without questioning and
inspecting every little detail. I've had friends die from possible
medical mistakes and have no intention of following their example.
Unless I understand exactly what the "suggestion" or prescription
does, and why it's necessary, I will refuse to take it.

And I assume that after the current pipe reaming and installation of
more stints that doctor would have discussed the pipe reaming in some
detail.

Yes, he did, while I was in hospital and somewhat drugged. I can
barely recall what he said but did manage to take a photo of the
unreadable scribbling on the hospital room white board that he used to
illustrate what was done. I sensibly waited until a follow up visit
to ask him for the details. The hospital records provided additional
useful detail. That's where I discovered that a third stent would
have been useful, but because my plumbing for where the 3rd stent
would fit didn't follow a catheter accessible path, it wasn't
possible. Maybe later.

As I have had high cholesterol for 30 or 40 years, controlled with
medication, should I be expecting something similar?

Now, I see why you're asking. I don't have a definitive answer for
you. The topic of whether cholesterol levels have any effect on
cardiac risk levels is highly controversial. I spent quite a bit of
time reading everything I could get on the topic and have thrown
together an opinion which is not ready for public consumption.
However, I can offer a direction for your reading. Look at
homocysteines, calcium levels, and of course cholesterol.
http://www.drjoeesposito.com/Articles/homocysteine.html

If I assume that "aerobic" is measured by heart rate, what percent of
maximum heart rate constitutes "heavy" and how was maximum calculated?
With the X - age equation? Or?

Chuckle. When I started rehab, I assumed that they would generate a
set of target heart rates and exercise levels tailored specifically
for my physical condition, maladies, and drug intake. When it didn't
happen, I asked why. The problem is the beta blockers put an upper
limit on my heart rate and blood pressure. The magic aerobic formulas
and rules of thumb no longer work. For example:
http://www.active.com/fitness/calculators/heartrate
I'm 68 year old and lazy, so I'll start at 50% target rate. That
yields a target range of 83 to 129 bpm. However, when I'm stomping as
hard as I can in the exercise machine, I'm doing maybe 90 bpm. So,
the formulas don't quite work because I'm taking beta blockers.

What the rehab people seem to be doing is recording my peak output in
watts generated on the exercise machine. I guess the bicycle world is
equally divided between stompers and spinners. My knees prevent me
from being a stomper, so I try to spin when possible. I setup the
resistance for what I can handle, and try to keep the power output
above 100 watts. Using the same machine for 4 consecutive sessions,
I've found that every time I use it, the average output improves by
about 10%. However, that is for a manually controlled machine. The
fancier machine allows me to set the power output level (watts) to a
fixed value. It will then adjust the resistance for me to maintain
that output level. If I slow down, it will increase the resistance.
If I spin faster, it will decrease it. This is much like an electric
assisted bicycle. I can hold about 60 watts this way but I've been
told that the different machines have inconsistent ideas of what
constitutes a watt. Sigh.

I don't know the secret to not having heart problems. It would seem
that exercise is not the total answer because so many athletes also
have heart attacks:
https://www.google.com/#q=athletes+have+had+heart+attacks
Diet doesn't seem to be the answer. I rant into an old friend in
rehab. He's been a life long vegetarian but needed a recent quad
bypass operation. The current fashion is to blame refined carbs but
that might change overnight. In my case, it's probably heredity as
both sides of my family are plagued by cardio problems. Choose your
parents wisely.

Hopefully, this answers most of your questions and concerns.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

The veggie never had energy for ex.

yeah Dr's are mud but the science is super

When was the beginning ?

Reads like urine good shape but dying
from that.

I"ll send more clips.

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

:I don't know the secret to not having heart problems.

:both sides of my family are plagued by cardio problems. Choose your
arents wisely.

But, you do know the secret.

--
sig 26

On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 01:11:20 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 11:51:01 +0700, John B.
wrote:

snipped

And I assume that you would have religiously adhering to the doctor's
suggestion and prescriptions. (as I do)

Hardly. I've had far too many close calls with medical error to trust
the doctors "suggestions" and prescriptions without questioning and
inspecting every little detail. I've had friends die from possible
medical mistakes and have no intention of following their example.
Unless I understand exactly what the "suggestion" or prescription
does, and why it's necessary, I will refuse to take it.

I probably didn't phrase that very well :-( I didn't mean blind
obedience :-) I meant if the doctor tells you have high cholesterol
and you should do something abut it, you do.

And I assume that after the current pipe reaming and installation of
more stints that doctor would have discussed the pipe reaming in some
detail.

Yes, he did, while I was in hospital and somewhat drugged. I can
barely recall what he said but did manage to take a photo of the
unreadable scribbling on the hospital room white board that he used to
illustrate what was done. I sensibly waited until a follow up visit
to ask him for the details. The hospital records provided additional
useful detail. That's where I discovered that a third stent would
have been useful, but because my plumbing for where the 3rd stent
would fit didn't follow a catheter accessible path, it wasn't
possible. Maybe later.

As I have had high cholesterol for 30 or 40 years, controlled with
medication, should I be expecting something similar?

Now, I see why you're asking. I don't have a definitive answer for
you. The topic of whether cholesterol levels have any effect on
cardiac risk levels is highly controversial. I spent quite a bit of
time reading everything I could get on the topic and have thrown
together an opinion which is not ready for public consumption.
However, I can offer a direction for your reading. Look at
homocysteines, calcium levels, and of course cholesterol.
http://www.drjoeesposito.com/Articles/homocysteine.html

Yes, my present cardiologist has explained much of that.


If I assume that "aerobic" is measured by heart rate, what percent of
maximum heart rate constitutes "heavy" and how was maximum calculated?
With the X - age equation? Or?

Chuckle. When I started rehab, I assumed that they would generate a
set of target heart rates and exercise levels tailored specifically
for my physical condition, maladies, and drug intake. When it didn't
happen, I asked why. The problem is the beta blockers put an upper
limit on my heart rate and blood pressure. The magic aerobic formulas
and rules of thumb no longer work. For example:
http://www.active.com/fitness/calculators/heartrate
I'm 68 year old and lazy, so I'll start at 50% target rate. That
yields a target range of 83 to 129 bpm. However, when I'm stomping as
hard as I can in the exercise machine, I'm doing maybe 90 bpm. So,
the formulas don't quite work because I'm taking beta blockers.

I tried "training"using a pulse meter and the first thing I discovered
was that there is no "standard" for max pulse rate. I finally settled
on the description "about as fast as you can go for a couple of
hours".

What the rehab people seem to be doing is recording my peak output in
watts generated on the exercise machine. I guess the bicycle world is
equally divided between stompers and spinners. My knees prevent me
from being a stomper, so I try to spin when possible. I setup the
resistance for what I can handle, and try to keep the power output
above 100 watts. Using the same machine for 4 consecutive sessions,
I've found that every time I use it, the average output improves by
about 10%. However, that is for a manually controlled machine. The
fancier machine allows me to set the power output level (watts) to a
fixed value. It will then adjust the resistance for me to maintain
that output level. If I slow down, it will increase the resistance.
If I spin faster, it will decrease it. This is much like an electric
assisted bicycle. I can hold about 60 watts this way but I've been
told that the different machines have inconsistent ideas of what
constitutes a watt. Sigh.

I don't know the secret to not having heart problems. It would seem
that exercise is not the total answer because so many athletes also
have heart attacks:
https://www.google.com/#q=athletes+have+had+heart+attacks
Diet doesn't seem to be the answer. I rant into an old friend in
rehab. He's been a life long vegetarian but needed a recent quad
bypass operation. The current fashion is to blame refined carbs but
that might change overnight. In my case, it's probably heredity as
both sides of my family are plagued by cardio problems. Choose your
parents wisely.

Hopefully, this answers most of your questions and concerns.

Most of them.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 06:02:46 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 01:11:20 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 11:51:01 +0700, John B.
wrote:

snipped

sniff

I probably didn't phrase that very well :-( I didn't mean blind
obedience :-) I meant if the doctor tells you have high cholesterol
and you should do something abut it, you do.

That's better. Doctors are much like lawyers and computer repairmen.
When faced with a specific problem to solve, they will offer the
client/patient/customer/victim all the available options and let them
choose which seems the best choice. If it doesn't work, it's the
patients fault. If it works, the doctor can claim it was his
insightful brilliance that provided the correct solution.

You don't have to read between my lines much to know that I disagree
with my cardiologist "suggesting" that I take statins and try to
ignore or suffer through the side effects. It's much like curing the
disease, but killing the patient. I want no part of that.

Fortunately, there's another option. One of my friends became a
cycling fanatic literally overnight. He bought a really nice
Specialized Allez road machine, joined the local cycling club, and is
furiously accumulating the miles. The inspiration is that like me,
his cholesterol scores are right on the borderline, where a
combination of diet and exercise will probably bring him over into the
acceptable zone, where statins are not "suggested". So far it's
working for him. I'm considering doing much the same, but there's a
problem. I'm still working and don't have sufficient time for to do
major rides or prepare proper meals. Maybe when I retire or burn out,
but not now.

Also, the cardiologist is part of a large medical group (PAMF) that
seems to practice defensive medicine. The prescriptions are not so
much what is best for the patient, but rather what will stand up in
court as "standard practice" as a defense against the inevitable
malpractice suit when something goes wrong. The results are strict
guidelines and cookie cutter prescriptions extracted from the ACC
playbook. I don't like this, but can see no way around it.

http://www.drjoeesposito.com/Articles/homocysteine.html

Yes, my present cardiologist has explained much of that.

Good. Although doctors are seriously busy, taking time to educate the
patient in how things work is important. I do it a bit different,
which unfortunately causes some friction. I do the research, reading,
and self-education and then make recommendations to the doctor. That
worked well with my previous cardiologist for about 13 years because
he was not so much into defensive medicine. It's been a miserable
flop with my present cardiologist of 1.5 years probably because he
doesn't like me doing his job.

I tried "training"using a pulse meter and the first thing I discovered
was that there is no "standard" for max pulse rate. I finally settled
on the description "about as fast as you can go for a couple of
hours".

I have an update. I mentioned the lack of a target heart rate for my
specific condition during this morning rehab ordeal, and was presented
with a personalized "Discharge Exercise Prescription Guideline". The
problem was that they could not produce a target number until after
they had some history on my vital signs and could measure the effects
of the beta blockers and vasodilators. So, they took their time, do
as you suggest, and deliver the numbers near the end of the rehab
series. Mine is 75 to 120 bpm target range. I can scan the report
and post it somewhere if you want the details.

Incidentally, I had some minor chest pains during todays 30 min
exercise machine session. At about 15 mins, I was going flat out
doing interval training. My heart couldn't pump enough blood
resulting in angina pectoris pains. I slowed down and the pain went
away. I sped back up, and it came back. I mentioned this to one of
the exercise therapists, which produced a reaction similar to what I
would expect if I set off the fire alarm. I had to explain what had
happened to 4 different therapists, all of whom felt obligated to file
a report to my cardiologist. I'm expecting a confused call from him
shortly. Meanwhile I continued cranking at a slightly reduced rate
with a burst of speed near the end, all without any pain. This is the
first time since the stents were installed that I had a blood flow
limited reaction. I'm not happy, but at least I know what happens
when I hit my new limits.

Most of them.

You'll find the remaining answers by reading between my lines.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 18:57:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 06:02:46 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 01:11:20 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 11:51:01 +0700, John B.
wrote:

snipped

sniff

I probably didn't phrase that very well :-( I didn't mean blind
obedience :-) I meant if the doctor tells you have high cholesterol
and you should do something abut it, you do.

That's better. Doctors are much like lawyers and computer repairmen.
When faced with a specific problem to solve, they will offer the
client/patient/customer/victim all the available options and let them
choose which seems the best choice. If it doesn't work, it's the
patients fault. If it works, the doctor can claim it was his
insightful brilliance that provided the correct solution.

You don't have to read between my lines much to know that I disagree
with my cardiologist "suggesting" that I take statins and try to
ignore or suffer through the side effects. It's much like curing the
disease, but killing the patient. I want no part of that.

If you don't agree with the treatment that you are getting then go to
another doctor :-) There are perhaps 900,000 of them in the U.S. and
something like 100,000 in California alone :-)


Fortunately, there's another option. One of my friends became a
cycling fanatic literally overnight. He bought a really nice
Specialized Allez road machine, joined the local cycling club, and is
furiously accumulating the miles. The inspiration is that like me,
his cholesterol scores are right on the borderline, where a
combination of diet and exercise will probably bring him over into the
acceptable zone, where statins are not "suggested". So far it's
working for him. I'm considering doing much the same, but there's a
problem. I'm still working and don't have sufficient time for to do
major rides or prepare proper meals. Maybe when I retire or burn out,
but not now.

Is that last bit about not having sufficient time actually correct? A
10 mile ride in the morning take less than an hour and if you get up
at 05:30 you can easily be home before 07:00, at which time probably
the majority of the people are still abed.


Also, the cardiologist is part of a large medical group (PAMF) that
seems to practice defensive medicine. The prescriptions are not so
much what is best for the patient, but rather what will stand up in
court as "standard practice" as a defense against the inevitable
malpractice suit when something goes wrong. The results are strict
guidelines and cookie cutter prescriptions extracted from the ACC
playbook. I don't like this, but can see no way around it.

That is undoubtedly correct, but after all, you live in America, the
land of the free and the brave and the lawsuit :-)

http://www.drjoeesposito.com/Articles/homocysteine.html

Yes, my present cardiologist has explained much of that.

Good. Although doctors are seriously busy, taking time to educate the
patient in how things work is important. I do it a bit different,
which unfortunately causes some friction. I do the research, reading,
and self-education and then make recommendations to the doctor. That
worked well with my previous cardiologist for about 13 years because
he was not so much into defensive medicine. It's been a miserable
flop with my present cardiologist of 1.5 years probably because he
doesn't like me doing his job.

Actually, I, myself, have never encountered a doctor that would not
tell me the details, providing I asked and exhibited at least a
minimal knowledge of the subject.


I tried "training"using a pulse meter and the first thing I discovered
was that there is no "standard" for max pulse rate. I finally settled
on the description "about as fast as you can go for a couple of
hours".

I have an update. I mentioned the lack of a target heart rate for my
specific condition during this morning rehab ordeal, and was presented
with a personalized "Discharge Exercise Prescription Guideline". The
problem was that they could not produce a target number until after
they had some history on my vital signs and could measure the effects
of the beta blockers and vasodilators. So, they took their time, do
as you suggest, and deliver the numbers near the end of the rehab
series. Mine is 75 to 120 bpm target range. I can scan the report
and post it somewhere if you want the details.

I doubt that your details will match my details :-)

Incidentally, I had some minor chest pains during todays 30 min
exercise machine session. At about 15 mins, I was going flat out
doing interval training. My heart couldn't pump enough blood
resulting in angina pectoris pains. I slowed down and the pain went
away. I sped back up, and it came back. I mentioned this to one of
the exercise therapists, which produced a reaction similar to what I
would expect if I set off the fire alarm. I had to explain what had
happened to 4 different therapists, all of whom felt obligated to file
a report to my cardiologist. I'm expecting a confused call from him
shortly. Meanwhile I continued cranking at a slightly reduced rate
with a burst of speed near the end, all without any pain. This is the
first time since the stents were installed that I had a blood flow
limited reaction. I'm not happy, but at least I know what happens
when I hit my new limits.

Most of them.

You'll find the remaining answers by reading between my lines.

I suppose it is as Roger Miller said,
"I see you goin' down the street in your big Cadillac
You got girls in the front, and got girls in the back
and way in the back, you got money in a sack" :-)
--
cheers,

John B.