View Single Post
Old July 19th 08, 10:06 PM posted to
external usenet poster
Posts: 114
Default aerobic exercise and blood pressure

"val189" wrote in message
On Jul 18, 2:06 am, "DrollTroll" wrote:
"joeu2004" wrote in message

On Jul 17, 11:16 am, "DrollTroll" 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
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

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
medical concern for older people unwisely feeling their Cheerios with
weights, ESP with a history of fragile vasculature, etc.

Ditto the ICP from passive inversion. The teeter-totter people
dispute this, but that's because, despite a legitimate product, they
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
effect", which is the synthesis of additional oxidative enzyme

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
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

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
really middling efforts, such as in the "Conductor Study", where train
conductor's had demonstrably improved markers for health than the much
sedentary train engineer.

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.

First impression, it's fine, altho probably the real issue is: Is a chosen
strategy consistent with a desired goal.
And a more general Q: Is there a *best* way to spend a given amount of time
in exercise, the best bang fer yer exercise buck?

I would also consider the following:

As my conditioning increased, I would tend to do more of one type in a day,
the other on other days. ie, the trad'l running one day, lifting the other.

This does not suit everyone, but if you can hack it, try it. If it's too
burdensome, go back to the previous strategy.

Right now, I would suggest reducing the warmup to 5 minutes (a short very
brisk walk followed by jogging), and tack that 5 minutes on to something
I am also not a big fan of stretching, and keep that brief, or try to work
it in to the beginning of a pyramid in weight lifting or some
calisthenic--lifting while bent over, crouched, etc.
Always lift in a pyramid style, of sorts: a mini warmup with that
weight/exercise, fairly quickly reaching your desired level. I personally
avoid 1 RM lifts (absolute maximum weight), as they can cause nothing but
trouble for some people. Pyramiding builds in an inherent safety factor.

I would let doms (delayed onset muscle soreness) be my guide in weight
lifting, shooting for an intensity that would just bring it on, but not
fully bringing it on. It is a myth that you must tear muscle down to build
it back up. Muscle is not like a broken bone, that heals stronger at that
spot. Severe doms is an uniformed assault on the body, but assholes wear it
like a badge of honor.

Ultimately my goal would be to burn as many calories as an activity will
allow. Circuit machines/muscle isolation inherently hobble this effort,
whilst the free weight modified clean and jerk (more like
deadlift/clean/jerk) is arguably the best and most efficient (most calorie
burning/most muscles) single resistance-type exercise on the planet. No
need for olympic efforts, either.

Circuit training, done quickly, is not bad, tho, and altho it won't burn the
calories of running, it will burn a significant number, and burn them in
such a way as to inherently cause more fat to be lost.

If Steve Freides steps in, and tells you to get kettlebells, almost listen
to him, but get dumbbells instead.

And don't let these P90X assholes try to sway you, either.
Bootcamp-type stuff is ""legit"", but it's just so mucho-macho melodramatic,
much too much effing drama. And not not not conducive to a long-term
strategy, virtually by its very definition.
In my mind, it's for paper-pushing assholes who need to show themselves and
their immediate cohort that "they still got what it takes...". Spare me,
and spare the ab crap...