aerobic exercise and blood pressure
in [Aerobic]
|
Prev: New Edition: Discover 100 ways to shed pounds, feel better and live healthier; Learn from the Experts! - 100 weight loss tips.jpg (0/1)
Next: Easy five steps to reduce your belly and burnout unwanted fats
From: val189 on 19 Jul 2008 13:55 On Jul 18, 2:06 am, "DrollTroll" <fit...(a)optonline.net> wrote: > "joeu2004" <joeu2...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:e6a0b142-f474-474d-b22b-848ec3bc6d08(a)m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 17, 11:16 am, "DrollTroll" <fit...(a)optonline.net> wrote: > > > During the exercise: > > Weight lifting *radically* increases bp [...]. > > And even aerobic workouts raise bp during the exercise. > > I stand corrected. Thanks. I am certain that I read over the years > that BP drops during (aerobic) exercise, resulting in light-headedness > in extreme cases. But a google search just now produced some credible > explanations to the contrary that make a lot of sense. > ====================================== > > You really didn't need no (stinkin) studies. It's simple fluid > mechanics/hydraulics. > If your heart is pumping at 2-3 times its resting rate AND at a higher > stroke volume, the pressure MUST go up. As in any pump, any garden hose. > > The *real* Q is, Why doesn't bp rise higher than it does, during aerobic > effort? > > The answer is two-fold: > vascular dilation, all over the place, AND in fact NEWly opened capillary > pathways that were previously closed. > And probably some reduced blood viscosity, as well-- unless you've got > sickle cell. > > And, btw, the bp rise in heavy lifting is so precipitous that there is real > medical concern for older people unwisely feeling their Cheerios with heavy > weights, ESP with a history of fragile vasculature, etc. > > Ditto the ICP from passive inversion. The teeter-totter people vehemently > dispute this, but that's because, despite a legitimate product, they still > feel the need to twist logic and science to their advantage. > > Blood pressure is an artfully subtle parameter. > > ================================== > > > This "cumulative effect" business is dicey. > > Short cumulative stuff absolutely *does not* lead to the "aerobic training > > effect", which is the synthesis of additional oxidative enzyme pathways. > > I agree wholeheartedly (no pun intended). I suspect that some of the > conclusions of recent studies are simply motivated by trying to get > sedentary people to do __any__ kind of phyiscal movement. "Tell > people that they can get some benefits by doing almost nothing many > times a day, and eventually they will get healthy and motivated enough > to do the right thing". At least, that's what I suspect is behind > their thinking. > ====================================== > > Indeed, you'd think Big Media would have at least one altruistic ethical > bone in their greedy li'l bodies, but more likely it's just pandering to the > new "fitness PC-ness". > > AND always keeping the consumer off balance with some new tidbit, so the > consumer never knows up from down. > > And of course always on the sell. They've got column inches to fill, and > column-inches of ad space to sell, and they're not really particular about > either. > > But, having said all that, there is no doubt in my mind that there are > likely a variety of beneficial effects from the cumulative effect theory, > but these effects are most certainly also proportional to intensity. > > Altho, having just said that, it is really amazing the benefits yielded by > really middling efforts, such as in the "Conductor Study", where train > conductor's had demonstrably improved markers for health than the much more > sedentary train engineer. > -- > DT OK - so if can be at the gym for an hour, how about a ten minute aerobic warmup, then 30 minutes of resistance work, then top it off with 15 more minutes of aerobic and 5 min. of stretch? Btw, I manage to get to the gym about 4 days a week. Should I vary the plan? Thanks for your critique. |