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 8 Jul 2008 15:48 I heard that performing aerobic ex. after resistance work will lower the blood pressure raised by the resistance stint. True? How long should the aerobic activity be performed? I'm still trying to balance the time at the gym as I carpool with someone and she's usually ready to leave before I am. Thanks
From: joeu2004 on 10 Jul 2008 03:02 On Jul 8, 12:48 pm, val189 <gwehr...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > I heard that performing aerobic ex. after resistance work > will lower the blood pressure raised by the resistance > stint. What makes you think resistance exercise increases BP? To my knowledge, all exercise has the potential to lower BP, at least short-term. Aerobic exercise tends to have a more lasting effect on lowering BP because, by definition, it keeps your HR and breathing rate high for the duration of the session. But resistance exercise can achieve similar results if you do not rest between sets, but instead move from one exercise to another, or if you do aerobics before resistance exercises, keeping the "motor running" so to speak. > How long should the aerobic activity be performed? I believe that 20 min is a minimum; 30 or more is better. Although some new studies claim that you get the same cumulative benefits from several shorter periods in a day (e.g. 3 10-min sessions), those studies are based on obese subjects. However, if you do 10 min of aerobics followed by resistance and core exercises followed by 10 min of aerobics in the same gym session, I would count that as 20 min of aerobics. Also, keep in mind that BP is a very fickle metric. There are many factors that affect BP. Lower BP is a benefit of consistent moderate- to-intense exercise; but I don't think it should be your goal because exercise alone might not lower BP if the source of high BP is blood chemistry or psychological.
From: DrollTroll on 17 Jul 2008 14:16 "joeu2004" <joeu2004(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:75b8812a-cce2-4655-b4f1-19653a5decbb(a)b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... On Jul 8, 12:48 pm, val189 <gwehr...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > I heard that performing aerobic ex. after resistance work > will lower the blood pressure raised by the resistance > stint. What makes you think resistance exercise increases BP? To my knowledge, all exercise has the potential to lower BP, at least short-term. Aerobic exercise tends to have a more lasting effect on lowering BP because, by definition, it keeps your HR and breathing rate high for the duration of the session. But resistance exercise can achieve similar results if you do not rest between sets, but instead move from one exercise to another, or if you do aerobics before resistance exercises, keeping the "motor running" so to speak. > How long should the aerobic activity be performed? I believe that 20 min is a minimum; 30 or more is better. Although some new studies claim that you get the same cumulative benefits from several shorter periods in a day (e.g. 3 10-min sessions), those studies are based on obese subjects. However, if you do 10 min of aerobics followed by resistance and core exercises followed by 10 min of aerobics in the same gym session, I would count that as 20 min of aerobics. Also, keep in mind that BP is a very fickle metric. There are many factors that affect BP. Lower BP is a benefit of consistent moderate- to-intense exercise; but I don't think it should be your goal because exercise alone might not lower BP if the source of high BP is blood chemistry or psychological. =========================================== ------------------------------------------------------------- During the exercise: Weight lifting *radically* increases bp, if th elift is at all valsalvic, ie large maximum lifts. Circuit training certainly less so. And even aerobic workouts raise bp during the exercise. Weight lifting, long term, probably does not lower bp the way aerobic stuff does, for a variety of reasons, one of which is just duration. Brisk walking, 1/2 hr, for example, can work wonders in chronic hbp. 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. Is it equivalent ito of overall longterm health?? Very well might be, altho I doubt if there are as of yet any conclusive studies. -- DT
From: joeu2004 on 17 Jul 2008 19:56 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. > 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.
From: DrollTroll on 18 Jul 2008 02:06
"joeu2004" <joeu2004(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 |