I was about to be put in blood pressure medication. Then I started a gym, with a trainer. I noticed that, after the exercise, blood pressure would immediately drop and stay low for a few hours.
Over time, the amount of time it spent lower than average increased, and it got lower and lower. It crossed 24h.
Now? I can go to the gym Mon/Wed/Fri and it will remain low at all times. I did stop for a couple of weeks and it started creeping back up so it's not a 'cure', but functionally, as long as I keep it up, I have normal BP.
I still have some weight to lose, that can further help things, most likely. And removing sugars also did help since I dropped a lot of liquid I was retaining.
Great that you have the time to do it. I just cycle the children to kindergarden and then to work everyday. I am lucky to fit in one evening of sports every week. Plus owning no car saves lot of money. I guess I am quite lucky.
And it could skyrocket for example if you get into a stressful situation. And you wouldn't notice that you are over 180+. And one day you get a stroke and become paralyzed. Sure, do not take the medication. These exists since the 40s, there is nothing wrong with them.
With the caveat that I'm just a random non-expert on the internet who has nevertheless spent too much time reading scattered studies and scholarly opinion articles:
We don't need "more" evidence exactly, but rather a better model of how the effects of exercise map to a given individual's physiology. Exercise is good overall, but it's also considerably overhyped due to a procession of weak and narrowly-applicable results being misconstrued as adding up to a massive pile of benefits that applies to the average person. In reality, the average person does not get anywhere close to the sum of all the touted benefits; they get some constellation of some of the benefits, while other outcomes are flat or even regress [1].
So yes, "exercise is good" at a sufficient level of abstraction, but it's much harder to make the case that it's "good for [specific outcome] for [specific person]". Which is one reason that it's such an obnoxious trend for specific health complaints to be met with generic recommendations to exercise (or exercise more, or exercise differently).
It seems a bit silly to me that in many circumstances it's just way more acceptable for exercise to be zero part of your life than the reverse, and that an argument needs to be made for geting more than even 30 mins worth of movement in a week. A culture of getting exercise by default seems like the way things should be, and the should be an affordance for those who can't rather than a luxurious escape from not having to.
It's not as true in some places in some circles, but it's hard not to notice a difference when you temporarily visit the others.
Until society has better work-life balance to allow for exercise while allowing for cost effect doctor visit to assign supportive and recognized improvement. Cheerleaders are more useful then people think.
This is a big problem in the UK I think. The idea of having a regular checkup with a doctor is unheard of and will get you some weird looks if you ask for it.
The NHS doesn't seem (as an outsider looking in) to do well with preventative care. I firmly believe (without necessarily a lot of evidence) that if we focused more on healthy lifestyles and made them more cost effective for people the amount of money we plough into the NHS every year could be reduced drastically.
outworlder|1 year ago
I was about to be put in blood pressure medication. Then I started a gym, with a trainer. I noticed that, after the exercise, blood pressure would immediately drop and stay low for a few hours.
Over time, the amount of time it spent lower than average increased, and it got lower and lower. It crossed 24h.
Now? I can go to the gym Mon/Wed/Fri and it will remain low at all times. I did stop for a couple of weeks and it started creeping back up so it's not a 'cure', but functionally, as long as I keep it up, I have normal BP.
I still have some weight to lose, that can further help things, most likely. And removing sugars also did help since I dropped a lot of liquid I was retaining.
looofooo0|1 year ago
physicles|1 year ago
lofaszvanitt|1 year ago
0xcde4c3db|1 year ago
We don't need "more" evidence exactly, but rather a better model of how the effects of exercise map to a given individual's physiology. Exercise is good overall, but it's also considerably overhyped due to a procession of weak and narrowly-applicable results being misconstrued as adding up to a massive pile of benefits that applies to the average person. In reality, the average person does not get anywhere close to the sum of all the touted benefits; they get some constellation of some of the benefits, while other outcomes are flat or even regress [1].
So yes, "exercise is good" at a sufficient level of abstraction, but it's much harder to make the case that it's "good for [specific outcome] for [specific person]". Which is one reason that it's such an obnoxious trend for specific health complaints to be met with generic recommendations to exercise (or exercise more, or exercise differently).
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6818669/
brailsafe|1 year ago
It's not as true in some places in some circles, but it's hard not to notice a difference when you temporarily visit the others.
yndoendo|1 year ago
HuwFulcher|1 year ago
The NHS doesn't seem (as an outsider looking in) to do well with preventative care. I firmly believe (without necessarily a lot of evidence) that if we focused more on healthy lifestyles and made them more cost effective for people the amount of money we plough into the NHS every year could be reduced drastically.
jimjimjim|1 year ago
m3kw9|1 year ago
Of course doing 1 hour a day is better than nothing but it may not be effective
dartos|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]