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 » Weights
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Blood pressure



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 13th 04, 11:32 PM
Cameron Laird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Blood pressure

What does a blood pressure of 140/60 (pulse 50) suggest?

Yes, I know this is a question for a family doctor; I also know
the mfw folks are likely to have more knowledge about exercise
response than he is. I'm 47, small, do fairly intense lifts with
large muscles around four times a week, and run briskly 'least
six times a week. A systolic pressure of 135-145 *sounds* high,
but I'm in the dark as to what's behind it. My resting pulse is
typically 44-56, so my first guess is that I have adequate cardiac
function.
--

Cameron Laird
Business: http://www.Phaseit.net
  #3  
Old February 14th 04, 02:58 AM
Steve Freides
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Blood pressure

"Cameron Laird" wrote in message
...
What does a blood pressure of 140/60 (pulse 50) suggest?

Yes, I know this is a question for a family doctor; I also know
the mfw folks are likely to have more knowledge about exercise
response than he is. I'm 47, small, do fairly intense lifts with
large muscles around four times a week, and run briskly 'least
six times a week. A systolic pressure of 135-145 *sounds* high,
but I'm in the dark as to what's behind it. My resting pulse is
typically 44-56, so my first guess is that I have adequate cardiac
function.


You might want to ask on rec.running. For distance runners and others with
low resting pulses, a big gap is not uncommon. I used to regularly be about
130/70 or so. 140/60 is pretty extreme, though, so I think talking to the
doctor is worthwhile.

FWIW, now that I've stopped running almost completely, my lower number is
still around 70, my resting pulse is still in the mid-40's, but the upper
number is usually 110-120.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com


  #4  
Old February 14th 04, 03:13 AM
Bruce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Blood pressure

In misc.fitness.weights
"Steve Freides" wrote:

"Cameron Laird" wrote in message
...
What does a blood pressure of 140/60 (pulse 50) suggest?

Yes, I know this is a question for a family doctor; I also know
the mfw folks are likely to have more knowledge about exercise
response than he is. I'm 47, small, do fairly intense lifts with
large muscles around four times a week, and run briskly 'least
six times a week. A systolic pressure of 135-145 *sounds* high,
but I'm in the dark as to what's behind it. My resting pulse is
typically 44-56, so my first guess is that I have adequate cardiac
function.


You might want to ask on rec.running. For distance runners and others with
low resting pulses, a big gap is not uncommon. I used to regularly be about
130/70 or so. 140/60 is pretty extreme, though, so I think talking to the
doctor is worthwhile.


The difference between systolic and diastolic is called "pulse pressure".
A high pulse pressure is associated with cardiovascular problems and is
indicative of reduced compliance in the large arteries. If the systolic
exceeds 140 and the diastolic is below 90, it is termed Isolated Systolic
Hypertension. It is the leading subgroup of hypertension in the world and
unfortunately is the least responsive to therapy.


  #5  
Old February 14th 04, 04:55 AM
Steve Freides
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Blood pressure

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
In misc.fitness.weights
"Steve Freides" wrote:

"Cameron Laird" wrote in message
...
What does a blood pressure of 140/60 (pulse 50) suggest?

Yes, I know this is a question for a family doctor; I also know
the mfw folks are likely to have more knowledge about exercise
response than he is. I'm 47, small, do fairly intense lifts with
large muscles around four times a week, and run briskly 'least
six times a week. A systolic pressure of 135-145 *sounds* high,
but I'm in the dark as to what's behind it. My resting pulse is
typically 44-56, so my first guess is that I have adequate cardiac
function.


You might want to ask on rec.running. For distance runners and others

with
low resting pulses, a big gap is not uncommon. I used to regularly be

about
130/70 or so. 140/60 is pretty extreme, though, so I think talking to

the
doctor is worthwhile.


The difference between systolic and diastolic is called "pulse pressure".
A high pulse pressure is associated with cardiovascular problems and is
indicative of reduced compliance in the large arteries. If the systolic
exceeds 140 and the diastolic is below 90, it is termed Isolated Systolic
Hypertension. It is the leading subgroup of hypertension in the world and
unfortunately is the least responsive to therapy.


All well and good in non-exercising populations, but how does it play in
endurance athletes. I was told that my 130/70 was perfectly fine and I
agree.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com


  #6  
Old February 14th 04, 06:00 AM
Demetri Karavas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Blood pressure


"Steve Freides" wrote in message
...
"Bruce" wrote in message
...
In misc.fitness.weights
"Steve Freides" wrote:

"Cameron Laird" wrote in message
...
What does a blood pressure of 140/60 (pulse 50) suggest?

Yes, I know this is a question for a family doctor; I also know
the mfw folks are likely to have more knowledge about exercise
response than he is. I'm 47, small, do fairly intense lifts with
large muscles around four times a week, and run briskly 'least
six times a week. A systolic pressure of 135-145 *sounds* high,
but I'm in the dark as to what's behind it. My resting pulse is
typically 44-56, so my first guess is that I have adequate cardiac
function.

You might want to ask on rec.running. For distance runners and others

with
low resting pulses, a big gap is not uncommon. I used to regularly be

about
130/70 or so. 140/60 is pretty extreme, though, so I think talking to

the
doctor is worthwhile.


The difference between systolic and diastolic is called "pulse

pressure".
A high pulse pressure is associated with cardiovascular problems and is
indicative of reduced compliance in the large arteries. If the systolic
exceeds 140 and the diastolic is below 90, it is termed Isolated

Systolic
Hypertension. It is the leading subgroup of hypertension in the world

and
unfortunately is the least responsive to therapy.


All well and good in non-exercising populations, but how does it play in
endurance athletes. I was told that my 130/70 was perfectly fine and I
agree.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com



Mine was 145/65 last year during my physical and the doctor said it wasn't a
big deal. Granted I was a little stressed as I was anticipating my first
prostate exam, but I don't think that factored into my Doctor's assessment.

Demetri


  #7  
Old February 14th 04, 08:25 AM
Bruce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Blood pressure

In misc.fitness.weights
"Steve Freides" wrote:

The difference between systolic and diastolic is called "pulse pressure".
A high pulse pressure is associated with cardiovascular problems and is
indicative of reduced compliance in the large arteries. If the systolic
exceeds 140 and the diastolic is below 90, it is termed Isolated Systolic
Hypertension. It is the leading subgroup of hypertension in the world and
unfortunately is the least responsive to therapy.


All well and good in non-exercising populations, but how does it play in
endurance athletes. I was told that my 130/70 was perfectly fine and I
agree.


You agree? Where did you get your MD? I have no idea whether it is fine
or not. My guess is that it makes no difference whether you are an athlete
or not. What is your hypothesis and can you point me to some studies
showing a high pulse pressure or elevated systolic BP in endurance athletes
because I can't find one.

  #8  
Old February 14th 04, 03:34 PM
Steve Freides
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Blood pressure

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
In misc.fitness.weights
"Steve Freides" wrote:

The difference between systolic and diastolic is called "pulse

pressure".
A high pulse pressure is associated with cardiovascular problems and is
indicative of reduced compliance in the large arteries. If the

systolic
exceeds 140 and the diastolic is below 90, it is termed Isolated

Systolic
Hypertension. It is the leading subgroup of hypertension in the world

and
unfortunately is the least responsive to therapy.


All well and good in non-exercising populations, but how does it play in
endurance athletes. I was told that my 130/70 was perfectly fine and I
agree.


You agree? Where did you get your MD? I have no idea whether it is fine
or not. My guess is that it makes no difference whether you are an

athlete
or not. What is your hypothesis and can you point me to some studies
showing a high pulse pressure or elevated systolic BP in endurance

athletes
because I can't find one.


I am relating what I have been told by several physicians - a larger
distance between the two numbers and a low resting pulse is merely an
indication of a high level of aerobic conditioning.

There have been some interesting anecdotes to suggest that very highly
trained professional athletes like long-distance cyclists, when they retire,
are at higher risk of heart problems, and it's been recommended that they
taper down their training gradually for that reason, i.e., you don't want
those heart numbers if you're not doing the training that causes them to
happen in the first place. I don't recall where I read this but it was in
one of the bicycling mags.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com


  #9  
Old February 14th 04, 05:37 PM
Bruce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Blood pressure

In misc.fitness.weights
"Steve Freides" wrote:

I am relating what I have been told by several physicians - a larger
distance between the two numbers and a low resting pulse is merely an
indication of a high level of aerobic conditioning.


OK, I looked for high pulse pressure in athletes and did find this one,
which is in direct contradiction to what you're saying:

Hypertension 1999 Jun;33(6):1385-91 (ISSN: 0194-911X)
Bertovic DA; Waddell TK; Gatzka CD; Cameron JD; Dart AM; Kingwell BA
Alfred and Baker Medical Unit, Baker Medical Research Institute, Prahran,
Australia.
Aerobic exercise training increases arterial compliance and reduces
systolic blood pressure, but the effects of muscular strength training on
arterial mechanical properties are unknown. We compared blood pressure,
whole body arterial compliance, aortic impedance, aortic stiffness
(measured by beta-index and carotid pulse pressure divided by normalized
systolic expansion [Ep]), pulse wave velocity, and left ventricular
parameters in 19 muscular strength-trained athletes (mean+/-SD age, 26+/-4
years) and 19 sedentary controls (26+/-5 years). Subjects were healthy,
non-steroid-using, nonsmoking males, and athletes had been engaged in a
strength-training program with no aerobic component for a minimum of 12
months. There was no difference in maximum oxygen consumption between
groups, but handgrip strength (mean+/-SEM, 44+/-2 versus 56+/-2 kg; P0.01)
and left ventricular mass (168+/-8 versus 190+/-8 g; P0.05) were greater
in athletes. Arterial stiffness was higher in athletes, as evidenced by
lower whole body arterial compliance (0.40+/-0.04 versus 0.54+/-0.04
arbitrary compliance units; P=0.01), higher aortic characteristic impedance
(1.55+/-0.13 versus 1.18+/-0.08 mm Hg. s. cm-1; P0.05), beta-index
(4.6+/-0.2 versus 3.8+/-0.4; P0. 05), and ln Ep (10.86+/-0.06 versus
10.60+/-0.08; P0.01). Femoral-dorsalis pedis pulse wave velocity was also
higher in the athletes, but carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity was not
different. Furthermore, both carotid (56+/-3 versus 44+/-2 mm Hg; P0.001)
and brachial (60+/-3 versus 50+/-2 mm Hg; P0.01) pulse pressures were
higher in the athletes, but mean arterial pressure and resting heart rate
did not differ between groups. These data indicate that both the proximal
aorta and the leg arteries are stiffer in strength-trained individuals and
contribute to a higher cardiac afterload.

The last sentence shows that it isnt' good for you.

Here's another one:

Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003 Feb;35(2):214-9; discussion 220 (ISSN:
0195-9131)
Schmidt-Trucksass A; Schmid A; Dorr B; Huonker M
Freiburg University Hospital, Center for Internal Medicine, Department of
Rehabilitative and Preventative Sports Medicine, Freiburg, Germany.
.
PURPOSE: In humans, cardiac morphological adaptations to athletic training
have been exhaustively described, while the existence of morphologic
(adaptive) changes in the peripheral vessels are less well known.
Therefore, the scope of the present study was 1) to assess the existence of
morphologic changes in the peripheral vessels, such as the common femoral
artery (CFA), in athletes engaged in different types of sports; and 2) to
assess the relationship existing between the cardiac and CFA changes in
highly endurance- ( N = 16) and strength-trained athletes ( N = 15), and in
sedentary controls ( N = 20). METHODS: The cross-sectional diameters of the
left ventricular (LV) posterior wall and cavity and CFA diameter and
intima-media thickness were determined by M-mode echocardiography and
ultrasound, respectively. RESULTS: CFA intima-media thickness in the
endurance-trained (0.33 +/- 0.03 mm.m(-2) ) was similar to the
strength-trained athletes (0.34 +/- 0.05 mm.m(-2) ) and both greater (P
0.01) compared with the controls (0.27 +/- 0.03 mm.m(-2) ). CFA diameter in
endurance-trained athletes (5.6 +/- 0.6 mm.m(-2) ) was highest among groups
(strength-trained athletes 4.2 +/- 0.4 mm.m(-2), controls 4.2 +/- 0.5
mm.m(-2) ). Thus, the relative CFA wall thickness (2.intima-media
thickness/CFA diameter) was significantly higher (P 0.01) in the
strength-trained (0.16 +/- 0.02) than in the endurance-trained athletes
(0.13 +/- 0.02) and the controls (0.13 +/- 0.02), respectively. The
relative LV posterior wall thickness (2.LV posterior wall thickness/LV
diameter) was not significantly different among the groups. LV posterior
wall thickness was significantly related to CFA intima-media thickness (r =
0.31, P 0.05) and LV diameter to CFA diameter (r = 0.55, P 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: The study shows a physiological relationship between the LV
and CFA wall and cavity dimensions in endurance-trained athletes and
controls, respectively. The greater relative wall thickness of the
strength-trained athletes may be related to different influencing factors,
e.g., increased blood pressure.

This one shows that endurance athletes have thicker arteries, reducing
compliance and raising blood pressure. Nowhere does it say that is ok.


 




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 Monitor sale--Lumiscope/Lifesource... jack General 0 February 14th 04 02:28 AM
So I took a blood pressure test at wal-mart... Bluesman Weights 7 January 1st 04 07:06 AM
Lower Blood Pressure? RunFun03 Aerobic 10 October 15th 03 06:47 AM
Low-carbohydrate diets - dangerous? Susan Estrich Weights 4 July 29th 03 07:47 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.