On Jul 18, 2:06 am, "DrollTroll" <fit...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "joeu2004" <joeu2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:e6a0b142-f474-474d-b22b-848ec3bc6d08@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Jul 17, 11:16 am, "DrollTroll" <fit...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 "***ulative effect" business is dicey.
> > Short ***ulative 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 ***ulative effect
theory,
> but these effects are most certainly also pro****tional 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.
|
