Printable View
Yes I read a newspaper article about those too. It suggested the reductions were relatively small, but I guess it all counts. Seems (from the newspaper article not the actual research paper) it's the isometric aspect. I'd be interested in your views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2...ts-2022-106503
Running comes out pretty well, a bit better than cycling. It does surprise me that isometric handgrip exercises are felt to be so beneficial. In general the BP reduction with exercise is greater in those with higher BP, but the same applies to reductions in BP with drugs. In some groups the size of the effect of exercise on BP is similar to single drug treatment, so not to be sniffed at.
An example of an isometric exercise used in at least one of the trials analysed is wall squats: 2 minutes x 4, with 1-4 minutes recovery, 3 times a week. Presumably planks would be just as beneficial with the same timings, and similarly press-ups, as they are partly isometric.
Read that too, one question is how long does the "exercise" actually reduce your BP for? Are they saying that a short session of plank or wall squats will reduce BP by xx amount for the next 24 hours, or just till the afternoon, or days??
Press-ups (floor to lock to floor) to failure per set - 1 min recovery intervals between sets.
31 - 13 - 15 - 10 - 11 - 11 - 10
For me, 1 min intervals is a bit tough, although I wondered whether the fact I reach failure quicker in subsequent sets is better than, say, 2 min 'rest' intervals with more reps before failure.
Alternating 2 chin-ups with 6 chest to floor press-ups, EMOM for 30 minutes, so 30 chin-ups and 90 press-ups in total.
It would seem isometric handgrip exercises in particular were found to reduce BP in fighter pilots - they were exploring isometrics to raise BP to counteract G forces, and they found that it helped, but led to a general reduction in BP.Quote:
Originally Posted by molehill
The effect must last for at least days, or somebody in the studies would have pointed out that it is more short lived.
As to how it works - I have seen no definite explanation. And we are talking about 30% of maximum hand grip.
Yesterday, while helping a friend move house, a few old niggling back issues re-emerged, so no sally session.
Today's run on the fells behind the house proved fine, but I later had to curtail an attempt at dumbbell bicep curls. 2 X 12.5 kg. recording only 24 - 12 - 11 - 10....
Very annoying GRrrrH
Excuses excuses .... no seriously, that is bad luck, backs are so unpredictable. Best wishes for a prompt recovery.
My excuse is that part of the ceiling in the "gym" has come down - it would seem we have an ultra slow leak in a pipe to an upstairs room - it has probably been brewing for years - the leak is so slow there has not yet been a single drop of water on the floor since it happened.
Such fun. And sorting out the relevant tradesmen adds to the enjoyment.
Yikes! Sorry to hear about that Mike. We had a similar plumbing issue due to a leaking header tank a few weeks ago. It's fixed, but I'm in the midst of sorting out redecorating part of the ceiling, and decorating is one DIY task I loath.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
So, given my present back niggles, but also mindful of recent comments on possible benefits of isometrics, I revisited a press-up I read about (and briefly tried) months ago. It's called the 'Impossible Press-Up'. One press-up! How hard can that be?
In its original form it starts from the 'up' position, followed by very slowly lowering to the standard press-up down position, making sure you take every second of 1 min 30 secs. Once there, it's slowly back up to the top, again taking all of 1 min 30 secs.
Today, I tried a different 'Sally-style' approach. Starting with my whole body flat on the floor, I rose to the locked position taking 1 mins 30 secs. I then attempted to lower myself, but failed after 31 secs.
Thoughts. Obviously a ground to lock to ground press-up (Sally-style) is normally harder than a standard press-up. But, reflecting on my performance months ago when I first attempted this, I believe it's easier to start on the ground. Anyway, plenty of isometrics involved (and some eccentrics?).
Yikes! Sorry to hear about that Mike. We had a similar plumbing issue due to a leaking header tank a few weeks ago. It's fixed, but I'm in the midst of sorting out redecorating part of the ceiling, and decorating is one DIY task I loath.
So, given my present back niggles, but also mindful of recent comments on possible benefits of isometrics, I revisited a press-up I read about (and briefly tried) months ago. It's called the 'Impossible Press-Up'. One press-up! How hard can that be?
In its original form it starts from the 'up' position, followed by very slowly lowering to the standard press-up down position, making sure you take every second of 1 min 30 secs. Once there, it's slowly back up to the top, again taking all of 1 min 30 secs.
Today, I tried a different 'Sally-style' approach. Starting with my whole body flat on the floor, I rose to the locked position taking 1 mins 30 secs. I then attempted to lower myself, but failed after 31 secs.
Thoughts. Obviously a ground to lock to ground press-up (Sally-style) is normally harder than a standard press-up. But, reflecting on my performance months ago when I first attempted this, I believe it's easier to start on the ground. Anyway, plenty of isometrics involved (and some eccentrics?).