Evidence for Physical Fitness to Slow Loss of Cognitive Function via Lowered Blood Pressure
As is true of excess weight, the raised blood pressure appears to have a lower threshold for causing long-term harm to health than is commonly thought. Negative effects increase as blood pressure increases, but the point at which harms start is surprisingly close to normal blood pressure ranges. More aggressive control of blood pressure via antihypertensive drugs and lifestyle changes produces benefits even when pushing it back down into what the normal range. The boundary at which raised systolic blood pressure is considered to be a problem, veering into the territory of hypertension, was recently lowered by ten points.
There are any number of mechanisms by which raised blood pressure causes harm. It accelerates the onset and progression of atherosclerosis. It increases the pace at which small blood vessels rupture in the brain, where neural tissue is not effectively repaired once so damaged. It helps to disrupt the blood-brain barrier and other aspects of endothelial function. Thus it isn't to surprising to note the correlations between blood pressure and later life cognitive function, and between lifestyle choices that affect blood pressure and later life cognitive function, as in today's open access paper.
Mean arterial pressure, fitness, and executive function in middle age and older adults
Physical activity and associated gains in fitness have been shown to be neuroprotective for older adults, with evidence suggesting preserved brain structure, function, and better cognitive functioning. Many recent meta-analyses suggest that exercise interventions and subsequent gains in fitness may have a selective effect on cognition in older adulthood, with the greatest impact on executive functioning. Some evidence suggests that changes in executive function may be occurring earlier in middle age and may be predictive of future cognitive decline. Therefore, there is a need to examine how fitness may be related to executive function across a younger adult sample.
Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is a measure of the ability of the circulatory and respiratory systems to deliver oxygen, and the peak rate at which oxygen can be consumed, during sustained physical activity at a maximal effort. Higher CRF has been shown to be related to greater brain volume, particularly in gray matter regions like the prefrontal cortex. Higher CRF has also been associated with preserved white matter integrity, and functional connectivity, as well as better cognitive functioning in older adults. However, the mechanisms underlying these positive effects are not fully understood.
The purpose of the current study was to examine whether mean arterial pressure (MAP) mediated the association between CRF and executive function in middle age and older adults. Participants were adults (age 40+) without any self-reported psychiatric and neurological disorders or cognitive impairment from the Nathan Kline Institute Rockland Sample (N = 224, M age = 56). CRF was defined by V̇O2max estimated via a bike test, neuropsychological testing was used to examine executive functioning, and MAP was calculated from systolic and diastolic blood pressure recordings. Mediation models were analyzed controlling for age, sex, and education.
Results indicated that higher CRF was associated with better inhibition and there was a significant indirect effect of greater CRF on better inhibition through lower MAP. There were additional significant indirect effects of greater CRF and better fluency and planning through lower MAP. This suggests that MAP may be an underlying physiological mechanism by which CRF influences executive function in mid- and older adulthood.
I suppose that I find it frustrating to acknowledge the reality that what is perceived as fair and reasonable maintenance (doing laundry, changing the oil in your car, fixing broken handrails, etc.,) in many lifestyle chores is not considered the same with physical activity. That one's personal choice to not undertake aerobic, resistance, and flexibility performance-maintenance activities, is not then perceived as neglect and even active disdain, with no other likely outcome than diminished functionality and reduced healthy lifespan, leading to unreasonable costs and demands on our healthcare system, not to mention eventual, reduced participation in all of life's work and personal undertakings.
But, to be fair: how and what are reasonable levels and kinds of physical activity? I would argue that it would be that amount and type which fulfills all the dynamic needs of our organs and systems to perform at the same level as in one's early years. Failing that may not even lead to damage or deterioration, at least right away, just sub-optimal performance. Hard to measure. Hard to determine what long-term or even nearby effects that lack contributes to. The point is that activity levels undertaken by an athlete and that of a well-maintained person (whatever that means - perhaps good time of recovery vs not-maintained person) may be significant and may lead to an entirely different batch of benefits and damage recognized in the athlete. Of course, the spectrum of time and intensity of exercise cannot be endlessly good to 100% time spent on exercise - there are likely diminishing or even negative returns at and beyond a certain point. The finer point is that a 'healthy person' BASELINE has not likely been reasonably defined (at any one instant or over time). Since aging may be defined as an accumulation of damage (which others may add, also including a 'running out' (or exhaustion) of some capacities (to which I would also add includes an ongoing running time of sub-optimal performance by one or more organs/ systems (through lack of activity))). The finest point is that opportunity is lost: not realizing which systems are running sub-optimally is to not quickly determine what interventions could be most likely to extend life span beyond repair/ replenish, since sub-optimal may not be recognized as damage (at least until much later). It could be argued that there are countless professionals who know the fine working details of an athlete's performance and how to maintain it, who would then be the best people to ask about maintaining a 'healthy person's systems. There is so much sports knowledge and expertise not likely being mapped onto simply 'healthy active folk', thus reducing our arsenal of interventions against aging as being more re-active (damage) than pro-active (sub-optimal). My 2c.
Total BS. The criminal medical/pharma cartel keep reducing what they say "normal" blood pressure readings are in order to get more people to visit their incompetent and/or complicit medical quack who will put then put them on an unwarranted blood pressure medication.
There are numerous studies that have shown as one ages, blood pressure readings often increase with no increase in adverse effects or mortality at levels much higher than this nonsensical 120/80 level.
People need to wake up to the fact one of the most dangerous things they can do is seek routine medical "care" at either the doctor's office or a hospital, which could be the leading cause of death in the US. Do a little research and you'll see how you've been scammed by this corrupt system and why it's only going to get worse. Sad but true.
Hey there! Just a 2 cents. TL DR: It's abiggie, so help yourself/get coffee/get comfy and read..
I think that blood pressure studies are all over the place; but, there is a clear(ly) emergent thing, is that high blood pressure damages the vascular system from longterm excess vessel wall pressure from (too high) blood flow in it; with that said, it seems there is a conundrum/paradox;
you need 'some' blood pressure for mental function -- to oxygenate the brain and other organs; yet too much of a good thing is just as bad as little of it; mental function/capabilities/tasks are highly oxygen demanding/hungry, because brain tissue is o2 hungry, if cognitive function in full; to think. Low blood pressure can be dangerous from lack of enough o2 and mental dementia setting in; high blood pressure accelerates aging, metabolism and can cause cardiovascular events (atherosclerosis (have it)), heart attack/arrest, arrhytmias, anginas, embolisms, aneurysm, vessel rupture/internal hemorrhaging bleeding..)
hypertension systolic/diastolic; while low blood pressure can cause/is hypotension, lack of blood flow, mental fog/blur, mental retardation/ dementia, cold temperature (body), lack of oxygen/blood reaching limb extremeties (end up with amputation), slow/low metabolism...living in the slow lane; which, technically, is good because (s)lower metabolism = slower aging; but, in humans, you need to maintain a certain metabolism speed --normocardy/normocardio/normometabolism; of course, high blood pressure, can make excess metabolistic speed; which is not good = accelerated aging; high blood pressure shows accelerated epigenetic aging too. With that said (as said) there is a conundrum that stays; why do centenarians have Higher blood pressure or 'mild-to-high blood pressure'; mildly elevated blood pressure in their case; studies showed that mild-hypertension is beneficial --only at veryy old age-- near centenarian; because you keep your mental faculties, thus, it was shown that in order to reach centenarian age (over 100 years old); you must keep brain white matter size-intact (no brain pruning with age -> dementia/alzheimer's), slightly elevated blood pressure increased the blood flow, blood oxygenation and perfusion; thus, it Helped to Mitigate the Loss of blood flow - with age; in essence, it Counter(ed) the hypotension that happens with age; becaue the body Slows the metabolism as you age -- in order to slow down early 'accelerated aging' (it is why we live to 100 years...because after Adulthood,
our body Slows down the metabolism..and we age Slower in our 40s..50s...60s...etc; of course, aging accelerates with the decades; but the 'overall/total aging' is SLOWER in the later decades;; than Before the Maturation/Puberty around teenage age (13-17); where There, the Aging is Ultra-Fast and that is for Growth (as was shown in Telomeres..the telomeres see a Drastic reduction at/before the teenage 'sexual maturation' phase; demonstrating the 'teenage growth/sexual capability' - is costly and accelerates telomeres loss dramatically); after sexual puberty and reaching adulthood, the body Switches to 'Conservation Mode/Somatic tissue/DNA maintenance/sexual resources retranslocation -> to self/somatic maintenance/longevity' -- by slowing the metabolism; and it is why, we don't 'change much' for over 6-7 decades after that...); during puberty/sexual adulhood entry, the telomeres can increase up to +150bp/year loss; while, after the sexual entry, it drops to about 50bp/year loss; meaning almost Thrice-less aging speed. This demonstrates that the body adapts (itself) to the phase of life/the point in life, to ensure longevity; or else, we would never reach 100 years. Because, sexual maturation, sexual reproduction and body growth are clearly costly, in terms of longevity (limiting it). Because, they are resources (sexual resources, growth resources) being allocated for that; not towards DNA repair and longevity/body repair sustaining.
Bottom line: Lower your blood pressure, but Not 'too low' neither; just 'low enough' (moderation, once again...) find that gold mean; and then, you ahve a chance of reaching 100 years; and to reach it; you must - Later - have a certain 'mild' hypertension; just slightly hypertensive; Not Enough to Cause Cardiovascular events; nor Too Low that you are slow/low-to-no metabolism and thus can develop dementia; mildly elevated blood pressure Safeguards the Mind and the Brain Matter (white matter pruning stalled/staved); so if you keep your brain matter; you push back dementia and azlheimer's from happening (too soon, because you are brain pruning); slightly high blood pressure increases blood flow/oxygenation/perfusion of brain, that's a Good thing; it's what keeps the mental accuity/sharpness - with age;
ONLY Mildly elevated, Not Hyper elevated blood pressure; that accelerates aging and causes cardiovascular complications/ events, fatal ones. And, also, Only in your Elder Age; not in young age (between 30-60...); only after 60-70...is it even good; that might still be too early; and it should be more around 80-90 that you would wish mildly elevated blood pressure -- In order, to reach the 100; it's like that 'final kick/final boost/final extra-mile'...to reach 100 years; it helps ratehr than hinder at that late age. But, only (done), at that very Late age; not in young age. In young age, it will just Hasten the death and increase the aging acceleration; which means, a short life -- you won't even reach 100 years.
Just a 2 cents.
Offtopic.
I think now (and now to sound naysayer/negativenelly (again)); that the aging/biogerontological domain is Completely LOST...like don't know if going forward..or backward...or left, or right..up down...you know like a child trying to maneuver a giant boat or truck...for the first time; it's hard and the person will be lost...and just going around in aphazardzigzags, hitting walls/going straight in the bg decorum...not knowing how to paddle the right movements...to keep their balance and control their self-orientation. Or, just swing/spin the wheel like madman...or like drunkard at the wheel. I'm not saying that that is what the situation is; exactly, just it 'seems/looks' sort of like that. I guess it's like (again) mirages, hope (but turning into hope-less(ness)) and wishful thinking.
I mean, don't get me wrong, there is lots of (new) stuff happening; but, once again, it feels stagnant and 'not much happening' (altogether). I guess we become 'demanding' with time; the 'bar' raises and thus, expectatiions, too. People are just not impressed anymore and it's just not enough, to convince people (enough, to care, anymore); and I would say the project of longevity is pretty much (a)sleep(ing), with the fishes. It's sad, because 15 years ago, it was real, in belief; now, it's 'vapor' 'vaporware'...I believed that we would go Beyond 150 years lifespan..now it's seen like a waste of time and why bother...now people Want to Die..SoonTM. The faster, the better. It's so sad; it's as if COVID 19 put a wrench in everything and made people think : ''why bother...we die anyway....let's die..quick (just don't get (or give me) covid in in the mean time)''. The saying is: ''they fall like flies/leaves''; and now we see 'suspect deaths'..of young people...of course, not always related to COVID; but, yeah...some said : 'oh...look, those vaccines are killing em years later..'; tons of people have not died of them, but unexpected events happened showing that nobody is immune (pun intended) to hazard/haphazard hazard of using whatever new technologies to protect ourselves/our health.
Aging and Health, are interrelated...yet, can be Untangled, uncoupled and still remain (sort of) associated; thus, separate (thing), yet related. This, was demonstrated with IEAA and EEAA;
Intrinsic Epigenetic Aging Acceleration (IEAA), and Extrinsic Epigenetic Aging Acceleration (EEAA). IEAA is a reflection of our 'true' aging, that is Essential for the Maximal Longevity to be reached; while EEAA, is the reflection of the (conservation/maintenance) of our health (threshold). Thus, for aging, there are 2 layers...intrinsic, and extrinsic; aging
--and health; 2 things. Not, necessarily, one and the same; but differentiated. Related Yes, but are uncoupleable; or, in layer fashion;. health is Downstream of aging. Extrinsic relates more to the Immune related things; such the immune system; to fight over invaders/cancer...and is clearly Affected by the nutrional (food) input and the 'exterior' (extrinsic) environment...While the Intrinsic epigenetic is Not controlled by the external forces; and relates to the blood, cells, deeper, the nuclear DNA telomeres, and thus, stuff that 'is' as it is, when we are born; --as 'human specie'...we can't do much anything about it; it is Internally/Intrinsically Controlled/Balanced, not extrinsically. Studies compared Caucasian People vs African Black People vs Han Asian People (east asian) vs Aboriginal/Indigenous Natives (native americans) People vs Latino People (mix white/mix native)...and they saw that, clearly, there are divergences between the people's 'aging speed' in terms of IEAA and EEAA; for example, Blacks had more advanced/faster EEAA, but older blacks had lower/slower IEAA..than whites. While caucasians, as said, had slower EEAA, but faster IEAA. Latinos, had slower IEAA; and this, specifically show in Natives; they had slower IEAA too; even slower than Latinos; but, Natives (Guarani people of south america) had Much faster EEAA; and these people die young (50 years old) from immune problems; thus, it meant that the Native people of certain places did not keep their immunity and health threshold;
since their EEAA was accelerated; but there IEAA was decelerated compared to all others; So, it means they succombed of infection/virus/bacterial/immune diseases....they died before 50 years old of diseases like malaria, pneumonia and other viral like disease; we saw this often...we the conquistador went to south americas...they brougth the european diseases..this wiped the 'unadapted' 'virgin' native population who never were exposed to such foreign diseases/viruses...because their immunity/immune system was not adapted to them. This could decimate the village; it's why they died young of immunity complications/problems. BUT, if they Didn't...
they would Outlive all the other people; because their Actual IEAA is Slower/Lower than other ethnicity people. Latino people live long lives, because they inherited the Native aspect of one of their parenst (native + white parent = latino/mix); but, of course, not as much as 2 native parents; but, you could they got the 'best of both worlds' (Native = IEAA + white = EEAA); Caucasian white people age faster (per the IEAA); it was about 3-5 years more on average; but, are more 'sturdy' (per the EEAA); this means, that their Total Life Burden of virus/bacteria...attack..is higher and their body is Adapted to that (more) and it is why they succomb Less from immune diseases; because they have more Thrifty/Adapting/Adaptogenic immune system that is 'ready to fight' the invaders, better. Thus, they can live to 90 years old; because they maintain that health threshold (immune wise) necessary to not succomb to some immune-related disease. Now, they have faster IEAA...so less chance of reaching 100+...than a Native or Black or Latino. Blacks, can succomb to diseases of immunity; like Latino, and Natives; because they, also, have a bit higher EEAA. Exclusing Caucasians, Latinos would be the best protected and the best longevity;; since they carry Both the Caucasian - and - the Natives DNA; (native + white parent = latino); Blacks, that do Survive the immune challenges...
would reach long lifespan, because it was shown they are epigenetically younger (per IEAA); we see this often with certain blacks that look 'babyface' like kids yet are adults (a neotenous face/ neoteny)...and have glowing skin/plump/nary a wrinkle anywhere..that means they are bio-aging slower than others...and it was shown some/they ahve Longer Telomeres/telomeric DNA in nucleus..than certain white people that age at the speed of light'. Asians (han asians/east asians) also aged slower, but not that much, there was almost no difference much between Asians and Caucasians; I mean they are related; but, they verified 'mainland china' vs rural...and checked people from urban vs non-urban areas...and altogether.. IEAA was about same between Asians and Caucasians; same too for EEAA. Yet, some of the Longest Lived people are Asians; like Japanese or Chinese herbalists...that lived 115;
Okinawa in Japan has a ton of Supercentenarians; it goes to show...it's the Lifestyle factor 'element' after, why there might be discrepancies between Caucasians and (east) Asians...in longevity; but, there are Supercentenarians in White people also (Jeanne Calment...the longest lived woman, at 122, was/is french, white). So, it seems, that familial longevity/family genetics plays a strong part of why we see these nuances/disconcordances/discrepancies...and the lifestyle chosen; food, exercise, nutrition, stress, smoking, drugs, environment, exposure, purpose..all these contribute also. Especially, on the EEAA, but that's the thing; you need to maintain a slow EEAA...to LET the IEAA be slow too and allow a longer/longevity; because it's Not the EEAA that dictactes maximum lifespan (but onlt the health maintenance); it's the IEAA. So, there are 2 aspects to epigenetic aging; the intrinsic and the extrinsic; the intrinsic (epiage signature/phenotype/longevity/the max you can reach as human); the extrinsic (epihealth age/'the actual age of your 'health'/not the possible max. longevity 'extent' of your life/as human specie).
This is dire, bnecause we have not Solved the DNA repair problem..and epigenetic reprogramming is going nowhere so far..I mean they can reverse the cells 30 years per the IEAA or less so, the EEAA; but, like, how does that reverse all the damages that accumulated in DNA; they see telomere elongation...thet question that begs..is what abuot the actual DNA frags and DNA DSBs/SSBs (strand breaks)...this stuff is what determines the IEAA, more so than EEAA.
Like, recently, AdG made a new venture instead of SENSE and I mean it'S great it's such I'm puzzled as to how this will mean anything; it will improve EEAA and health...but what about that 1000 years old lifespan in the future...? I am thinking more and more it's complete bullsh...because they do not respond to the major STOPPERS of us reaching Even 150 years...thus, I can safely and quite accurately say that No, no one we will reach 150 years not even in the next 50 years...if we don'T solve these limitations of our body. Because, right now, there is none/no solution to them; it's just blabla...and we'll crete more ventures...that Do Not answer the problems that cause us to DIE at/to 120-130 years...and that'S all there is to it.
I tthink now, there is defeatist attitude and just 'too expensive/not worth it/we abandon'...so they concentrate on 'healthy aging' bs...which is great to improve health and imrprove your EEAA that happens with age...but that does not DO ANYTHING to solve the damn aging (IEAA) and longevity LIMIT that we reach around 120-130...
Just a 2 cents.
PS: But what can you do...until DNA repair is solved we won't make it above 150 years...no matter if they taljk of telomeres, of stemm cell implant, rejuvenation ->> Please it's NOT Truerejuvenation..it's 'slowing to improve your health-->>improve your EEAA'...that'S what it is..true rejuvenation is REVERSING the EPIGENETIC AGING (BOTH IEAA AND EEAA) to a youth/young self; like turning back thte clock (epiclockl) to 20 years old and Reversing/Removing all the crap/residue/dna damage/dsbs...that accumulated since; now, that is a clean slate...reprogrammed, reversed and rejuvenuated; the rest, it's Illusory and is just 'powder in the eyes'...or like the saying ; ''sugar sprinkled.. on rat poison (or a pile of sht),... is still rat poison (or a pile of sht)''.