A Fitness & exercise forum. FitnessBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FitnessBanter.com forum » Fitness & Exercise » Aerobic
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

aerobic exercise and blood pressure



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 17th 08, 07:16 PM posted to misc.fitness.aerobic
DrollTroll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default aerobic exercise and blood pressure


"joeu2004" wrote in message
...
On Jul 8, 12:48 pm, val189 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


  #2  
Old July 18th 08, 07:06 AM posted to misc.fitness.aerobic
DrollTroll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default aerobic exercise and blood pressure


"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
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


  #3  
Old July 19th 08, 09:06 PM posted to misc.fitness.aerobic
DrollTroll
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
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.


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
else.
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...
--
DT



  #4  
Old December 27th 13, 12:46 AM
coucouza coucouza is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by FitnessBanter: Jul 2013
Posts: 10
Default

Thanks for the nice article. It is very useful.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Blood pressure Len A. Running 16 May 28th 07 09:46 PM
low blood pressure Hans Bootsma Running 4 March 21st 05 06:18 AM
isometric hand exercise and systolic blood pressure [email protected] Weights 2 July 31st 04 12:47 AM
blood pressure Larry McCarty Running 4 February 29th 04 02:01 PM
Blood pressure Cameron Laird Weights 10 February 15th 04 07:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.