RightRep EN · PT Open the app
BLOG

Can You Train on Beta-Blockers? The Dead-Heart-Rate-Monitor Audit: The Medication Door the Condition Wing Never Wrote — Where Both of the Gym's Default Scripts — the Pill Means Your Heart Can't Take Effort, So Take It Easy Forever, and Just Ignore It and Train by Your Watch Like Everyone Else — Fail the Reader (the Brake Column: Beta-Blockade Caps the SA Node, Not the Muscle — at Matched Perceived Exertion the Watch Reads 36.5 Beats Lower and the Same Effort Costs 4.2 mL/kg/min Less Oxygen Uptake, Yet Relative Work Rate Is Unchanged and RPE-Regulated Bouts Stay Reproducible to 2–8%; the Census Column: 42,771 Cardiopulmonary Tests — 7,787 on Beta-Blockers — Show Heart Rate Down 18.2% but Max Power Only 3.3% Lower, Because Oxygen Pulse Rises 19.5% to Pay the Bill; the Gains Column: the Annals RCT — 10 Weeks of Monitored Training Bought +24% VO2max on Placebo, +8% on Metoprolol, Zero on Propranolol — While 33% Gains Survived Under Metoprolol in Post-Infarct Rehab and Resistance Training Added 19% Peak VO2 in Heart-Failure Patients Already Beta-Blocked; the Lifting Column: Cardio-Protection Holds Under the Double-Leg Dead-Lift Itself, Rate-Pressure Product Cut Most in the Heaviest Mode; the Formula Column: 208 − 0.7 × Age Was Built on Unmedicated Hearts and MET Tables Underestimate Strain Under Blockade — Program by Effort, Talk Test and Calibrated Brackets Instead; the Fuel-and-Heat Column: Lipolysis Blocked and Submaximal Endurance Hit Harder Than Maximal, With Nonselective Blockade Blunting Skin Flow and Sweat in the Heat; the Diabetes Door: Warning Thresholds Shift Lower but Sweating Persists — Sometimes Restored; the Brazil Column: the SBC's Own 2025 Atenolol Review — Blood Pressure Falls Like Comparators, Outcomes Slightly Worse, Combination Not First Line; and the Competition Door: Archery and Shooting Ban the Molecule Out-of-Competition Too) — the Answer: Train, Re-Calibrate the Instruments, and Ask Which Molecule You're On

By RightRep AI Assistant · · 23 min read

Beta-blockers are the door where the internet's two default scripts — the fear script: the pill means your heart can't take strain, so no hard sets, no intervals, take it easy until you're off it and the dismissive script: ignore the pill and train by your watch like everyone else — both fail the reader at the exact instrument she walked in holding, because this reader is one of three people: the hypertensive on atenolol or metoprolol whose training zones stopped making sense the week the prescription started; the post-infarct, heart-failure or arrhythmia patient handed a beta-blocker and a rehabilitation program in the same appointment; or the young, otherwise healthy reader on propranolol for migraine prophylaxis, essential tremor or performance anxiety, asking whether the pill is quietly taxing her gains. The fear script fails because the training file is emphatic: gains survive under cardioselective blockade — post-infarct patients on metoprolol raised peak VO₂ +33% through three months of rehabilitation (against +27% in unmedicated peers) [3], heart-failure patients already on beta-blockers added ~19% peak VO₂ with eight weeks of resistance training alone [8], and across 42,771 cardiopulmonary tests the beta-blocked crowd trained with a heart rate 18.2% lower but a maximal power output only 3.3% lower [5]. The dismissive script fails because the monitor is dead and propranolol specifically negotiates: at the same perceived exertion, blockade read the watch 36.5 beats per minute lower [6], and in the Annals randomized trial ten weeks of monitored aerobic training bought +24% VO₂max on placebo, +8% on metoprolol, and zero on propranolol [2]. So the fences come first. First: the never-self-edit fence — the molecule, the dose and any taper belong to the prescriber; a beta-blocker is never paused for a workout, a PR attempt or a "better heart-rate reading" [1][2]. Second: the symptom fence — exertional chest pain, fainting or near-fainting, or breathlessness out of proportion to the work is a cardiology appointment before the next session, not a deload [3]. Third: the insulin fence — readers on insulin or sulfonylureas: nonselective blockade shifts hypoglycemia's warning shape (hunger and tremor fade, sweating persists), so the glucose meter and fast sugar travel with the training bag [13][14]. Fourth: the heat fence — the nonselective molecules blunt skin blood flow and sweating, so hot rooms and summer outdoor work get duration caps and hydration, not bravado [11][12]. Fifth: the competition fence — under the WADA Prohibited List beta-blockers are banned in-competition in the precision sports, and in archery and shooting out-of-competition too [17]. With the fences standing, the file underneath is the cleanest inversion in the medication wing: the pill caps your pulse, not your permission — train, re-calibrate the instruments, and ask which molecule you're on [1][2][5].

The short answer: train — the monitor is what's broken, not the license

Strip the file to its spine. The brake: beta-blockade sits on the β1-receptors of the SA node and the heart muscle — heart rate falls hardest, contractility and blood pressure less, and at submaximal intensities blood flow to working muscle is trimmed too; fat mobilization is inhibited, and the fuel mix shifts toward carbohydrate [1]. The census column: among 42,771 cardiopulmonary tests, the 7,787 readers on beta-blockers carried a heart rate 18.2% lower at matched work — but max power only 3.3% lower and perceived exertion 8% lower, because oxygen pulse (the oxygen carried per beat) rose 19.5% to compensate [5]. The gains column: the Annals randomized trial in hypertensive adults — 40 monitored sessions over ten weeks — produced +24% VO₂max on placebo, +8% on metoprolol 100 mg twice daily, and no gain on propranolol 80 mg twice daily (95% CI −10 to +15), while the training program still lowered resting systolic pressure on placebo (146→135) and metoprolol (144→133 mmHg) [2]; in post-infarct rehab, metoprolol did not blunt the training effect at all [3]; in heart failure, resistance training stacked +19% peak VO₂, +11.7% walking time and +87% quality of life on top of beta-blockade [8]. The monitor column: every age formula in the library — including the best one, 208 − 0.7 × age [9] — was built on unmedicated hearts, generic MET tables underestimate true strain under blockade [10], and the instrument that survives is perceived exertion: RPE-regulated bouts under blockade held relative oxygen uptake and work rate unchanged and reproduced to 2–8% visit-to-visit variability [6]. The lifting column: under double-leg dead-lifts at 30% of maximal voluntary contraction, both atenolol and propranolol attenuated the heart-rate and pressure rises — rate-pressure product was cut most in the dead-lift itself — so cardio-protection is preserved, not forfeited, when the bar gets heavy [7]. The honest tax column: submaximal endurance pays more than maximal capacity, propranolol charges more than the cardioselective molecules, and hot environments and insulin-treated diabetes each open their own side doors [1][4][11][12][13]. That is the audit in one paragraph: the license stands, the heart-rate monitor is the thing that retired, and the one variable worth knowing at this door is which molecule [1][2][4].

What the pill actually does: a brake on the SA node, not on the muscle

The mechanics in a paragraph: beta-blockers competitively occupy the β-adrenergic receptors that adrenaline would otherwise use to raise heart rate, contractility and blood pressure — so the chronotropic (rate) response to exercise is capped first and hardest, the inotropic (squeeze) response less, and resting and exercise blood pressure less again [1]. The distinction that decides this whole file is selective versus nonselective: metoprolol, atenolol, bisoprolol and nebivolol sit mainly on β1 (heart); propranolol and nadolol block β1 and β2 — the receptors that also open the airways, dilate vessels to muscle and skin, and mobilize fat [1][4]. The dose-response receipt: six well-trained men cycled to exhaustion under placebo, three doses of propranolol and three of atenolol — both drugs reduced time to exhaustion and, at equal heart-rate reduction, cut VO₂max equally — but propranolol cut performance time significantly more than atenolol even at matched cardiac effect, with muscle glucose-6-phosphate lower only under propranolol: the β2 blockade taxes the periphery, not just the pump [4]. The review's summary judgment still reads clean forty years on: maximal aerobic capacity is reduced in normotensive and probably hypertensive subjects, submaximal endurance is impaired to a much more important extent, the nonselective molecules cost more than the β1-selective ones — and in coronary disease, symptom-limited capacity actually improves on beta-blockade, because a slower heart is a longer diastolic filling time and less ischemia [1]. Translation for the reader deciding whether to fear her prescription: the pill edits the response curve, not the license — and which curve depends on which molecule is on the label [1][4].

The monitor column: why every heart-rate formula dies under blockade

The deepest practical problem at this door is not the drug — it's the instrument. The library's own zone 2 file and every percentage-based program in it assume a heart rate that means something; blockade breaks the assumption in both directions at once. The formula receipt: Tanaka's meta-analysis of 351 studies and 18,712 subjects rebuilt the age equation to 208 − 0.7 × age (the old 220 − age underestimates in older adults) — and every coefficient in it was estimated on unmedicated hearts, which is why a drugged SA node turns the output into fiction [9]. The MET-table receipt: when post-infarct patients on beta-blockers rode at 50–100 W, they worked at a significantly higher percentage of their anaerobic threshold per MET than unmedicated controls (P<0.001) — generic calorie-and-intensity tables under-read true strain under blockade and should "be used with caution" [10]. The fresh prescription receipt: participants completed repeated 3-minute bouts self-regulated to RPE 13 and RPE 15 on and off blockade — blockade read the watch 36.5 beats per minute lower (45.5 lower at RPE 15), oxygen uptake 4.2 mL/kg/min lower and external work 0.6 METs lower at the same effort — yet the percentages of peak VO₂ and peak work rate were unchanged, and bout-to-bout reproducibility stayed at 2–8% variability [6]. That is the whole replacement strategy in one study: absolute heart rate dies, relative effort survives — the RPE scale, the talk test and percentage-of-personal-calibrated-brackets take over [6][9][10]. The reader's translation is precise: stop asking "what zone is 135 bpm?" — under blockade the number has no answer — and start asking "can I speak a full sentence at this pace, and where on the 6–20 scale am I actually sitting?" [6][10].

The census column: what an 18% lower heart rate actually costs

The scale receipt in this file is the 33-year McMaster retrospective: 42,771 cardiopulmonary tests performed between 1988 and 2012, of which 7,787 belonged to readers on beta-blockers [5]. The between-group arithmetic: the beta-blocked crowd carried heart rates 18.2% lower (95% CI 18.15–18.38) — and maximal power output just 3.3% lower, with the perceived effort of cycling and breathing rated 8% lower, not higher [5]. The mechanism column explains why the bill is so small: oxygen pulse — the oxygen extracted per heartbeat — ran 19.5% higher under blockade, a stroke-volume-and-extraction compensation that claws back most of what the slower rate removes [5]. Two honest caveats travel with the number: the medicated group was a decade older (mean 61 vs 51) and this is observational data, so part of the 3.3% is the population, not the pill [5]. But the direction is the point and it matches the experimental file: the heart-rate column and the capacity column are not the same column, and a watch reading that looks catastrophic can sit on a power output that barely moved [1][5]. Gym translation: the reader whose interval watch used to read 165 and now reads 128 has not lost 37 beats of fitness — she has lost 37 beats of display, and the session is priced, as always, in watts, reps and perceived effort [5][6].

The gains column: selective negotiates, propranolol bills

The single most decision-relevant study at this door is the Annals of Internal Medicine randomized trial, because it is the one place the same ten weeks of training ran against three different pill conditions. Thirty hypertensive adults (mean pressure 145/95, mean age 46.5) completed 40 monitored exercise sessions over ten weeks on propranolol 80 mg twice daily, metoprolol 100 mg twice daily, or placebo, double-blinded [2]. The gains: VO₂max rose +24% on placebo (95% CI 8–40), +8% on metoprolol (3–14), and did not rise at all on propranolol (95% CI −10 to +15); acutely, propranolol — but not metoprolol — cut VO₂max and exercise duration before training even began [2]. The blood-pressure column: training alone lowered resting systolic pressure on placebo (146→135 mmHg) and on metoprolol (144→133), the foundations of the exercise-as-prescription file — but propranolol showed no additive training effect [2]. The patient file then bends the story back the other way, and it matters just as much: in 27 post-infarct patients through three months of cardiac rehabilitation, those on metoprolol (mean 142 mg daily) gained +33% peak VO₂ against +27% in the unmedicated group, with ventilatory-threshold gains of +28% vs +39% and no significant between-group difference — metoprolol did not blunt the training effect where the heart needed the training most [3]; and in fifteen men with chronic heart failure already on beta-blockers, eight weeks of resistance training alone added ~19% peak VO₂, +11.7% walking time and an 87% quality-of-life improvement [8]. The review's verdict on trainability — most studies show a similar training-induced VO₂max rise on and off blockade — sits between the two columns honestly [1]. The reader's translation: on metoprolol, atenolol, bisoprolol or nebivolol, train as programmed and expect the gains; on propranolol or another nonselective molecule, expect the endurance column to negotiate and raise the training question with the prescriber — not with the comment section [1][2][4].

The lifting column: strength, blood pressure and the dead-lift receipt

The barbell reader's question is narrower and the file answers it directly: what happens to the cardiovascular response when the load is heavy and static? Eleven young men performed handgrip, single-leg extension and double-leg dead-lift at 30% of maximal voluntary contraction under placebo, atenolol and propranolol, with catheters and gas exchange running [7]. The pressor receipt: across every condition the response graded rest < handgrip < leg extension < dead-lift — the double-leg hold is the mode that raises heart rate, both pressures and the rate-pressure product most, exactly why heavy holds and maximal Valsalva carry their own file in the blood pressure wing [7]. The drug receipt: both atenolol and propranolol attenuated the heart-rate and systolic-pressure rises — and the rate-pressure product fell most in the dead-lift itself (mode × drug interaction, P<0.001), with the authors' conclusion that cardio-protection "is preserved during isometric exercise and even enhanced once heart rate increases above 100 beats/min" [7]. Translation for the reader mid-program: the beta-blocker is not a reason to drop the barbell — it is the reason the heavy holds feel safer cardiologically than the watch suggests, while the progressive overload file, set structure and rest timers never change [7][8]. The strength column completes it: resistance training in beta-blocked heart-failure patients built strength, capacity and quality of life [8] — there is no column in this file where the lifting license is revoked, and the usual companion doors (after a heart attack, atrial fibrillation, heart failure) each carry their own ramp calendars [3][7][8].

The fuel-and-heat column: endurance, sweat and hot rooms

Two side doors open at this pill, and both are mechanism columns. The fuel door: β2 blockade inhibits adipose lipolysis, so non-esterified fatty acid availability during exercise falls and the fuel mix shifts toward carbohydrate; muscle glycogenolysis at submaximal intensities is largely spared, but the maximal glycogenolytic rate at high intensity shows signs of a ceiling — one reason submaximal endurance performance is impaired to a much more important extent than VO₂max, and why the long steady session taxes more than the short hard one under blockade [1]. The heat door: in six mildly hypertensive men cycling 30 minutes at 60% VO₂max, nonselective blockade cut peak forearm blood flow and flattened the skin-flow-to-core-temperature slope — propranolol additionally flattened the sweat-rate slope — with a trend toward higher core temperature at the end — while cardioselective metoprolol left the skin response intact [11]; in fourteen subjects riding 90 minutes at 31.7 °C, propranolol raised forearm vascular resistance and cut forearm blood flow, yet core temperature held because sweat loss was enhanced — the body pays the nonselective molecule's bill in sweat, and the reader feels it as unusually heavy sweating or, in long heat exposure, earlier fatigue [12]. Gym translation, stated carefully: the beta-blocked reader does not stop zone 2 work or summer training — she prices it: hydration before and during, duration caps on the hottest windows, and the nonselective reader budgets more respect for the hot room than her metoprolol counterpart [11][12].

The diabetes door: masked warnings and the sweating surprise

The insulin-treated reader owns the sharpest edge at this door, and the file prices it precisely. In insulin-dependent diabetes under stepped hypoglycemic clamps, nonselective blockade with propranolol shifted the plasma-glucose threshold for symptoms a full step lower — symptom scores that first rose at the 4.4 mmol/L step without the drug did not rise until 3.3 mmol/L with it: the early adrenergic warnings (hunger, tremor) faded, the neuroglycopenic (brain) symptoms did not change, and — the counterintuitive receipt — sweating perception was actually greater under propranolol at the frankly hypoglycemic step (P<0.01) [13]. The clinical counterpoint: in fourteen insulin-dependent patients with true hypoglycemia unawareness, low-dose propranolol restored warning symptoms — 5 of 9 investigator-judged successes against 0 of 5 on placebo (P=0.038) — predominantly by increasing hypoglycemia-induced sweating [14]. Both papers agree on the mechanism that matters to a training bag: the adrenergic alarm clock gets rewired under nonselective blockade — for the ordinary reader the tremor-and-hunger warnings arrive later, and for the unaware reader the sweat alarm may arrive earlier [13][14]. The translation is operational, not fearful: the insulin-using reader on a nonselective molecule checks glucose before and after hard sessions, keeps fast sugar in the bag, treats unusual sweating as data rather than inconvenience, and files the whole question with the endocrinologist at the next visit — the type 1 diabetes and blood sugar doors carry the full program [13][14].

The Brazil column: atenolol, the SBC file and the reader on the classic molecule

The pt-BR reader at this door is disproportionately an atenolol reader — the molecule that dominated Brazilian hypertension cards for decades — and the Brazilian Society of Cardiology has now written its own receipt: a 2025 systematic review and recommendation, GRADE-rated across seven randomized trials, finding atenolol lowers blood pressure as well as the comparator classes but carried a slightly higher incidence of cardiovascular events than amlodipine (low certainty) and losartan (moderate certainty), concluding that atenolol remains an option within combination therapy rather than a default first-line monotherapy for primary hypertension [15]. That sentence answers a question the gym forums never do: the Brazilian reader's atenolol prescription is (or was) real medicine for a real indication — and the training question at this door is not "is my doctor old-fashioned" but "given that I'm on a cardioselective molecule, what does the training file say" — which is the good half of the file: cardioselective blockade negotiates gently with training [2][15]. The pt-BR program translation is the same as the EN one: the watch zones retired with the prescription, the RPE effort anchors and the talk test took over, and the prescriber owns every molecule question — including the switch from atenolol, which is a cardiology conversation about outcomes, never a self-service edit [2][15].

The prescription column: how the program is actually written under blockade

The rehabilitation world solved this problem decades ago, and its rules fit any gym. First: intensity is written in RPE and talk-test, not beats — RPE-regulated training under blockade preserved relative intensity and reproduced within 2–8% across bouts [6], which is better discipline than most unmedicated lifters ever apply; the RPE effort anchors and the full-sentence talk test replace the zones. Second: brackets come from supervised tests on the same medication — a stress test on metoprolol at 9 a.m. calibrates 9 a.m. training; the time-of-day letter exists precisely because metoprolol's effect waxes and wanes between doses, so the test and the session should sit in the same window of the dosing day [16]. Third: the warm-up lengthens — the review's CAD column (symptom-limited capacity improves under blockade, steepest strain in the first phase of rising work) makes the warm-up ladder the cheapest safety instrument at this door [1]. Fourth: progress is tracked in load, reps, watts and RPE — honest tracking with the rep score exists precisely for the reader whose wearable retired; the numbers that still mean everything are the ones the bar and the clock report [5][6]. Fifth: the endurance reader on a nonselective molecule prices the long sessions and the hot rooms [1][11][12], and sixth: nothing about the molecule is ever self-edited — dose changes, tapers, switches and "can I stop for my competition?" are prescriber conversations, because the rebound file (tachycardia, angina, pressure spikes after abrupt withdrawal) is the one genuinely dangerous column in this entire door [1][2].

The anti-doping door: if you compete

One fence at this door is jurisdictional rather than medical: under the WADA Prohibited List, beta-blockers are prohibited in-competition in the precision and motor-control sports — archery, shooting (both also prohibited out-of-competition), automobile, billiards, darts, golf, ski jumping and the freestyle/snowboard aerials-halfpipe disciplines, and underwater sports [17]. The mechanism is exactly the audit's subject: a slower, steadier pulse steadies the aim — which is performance in those sports, not a side effect [17]. The competitive reader holding a therapeutic-use exemption question, or unsure whether her Saturday league counts, checks the current list and her federation's rules before the first scored round — the list is published, versioned, and shorter to read than this post [17]. For every other sport — lifting included — beta-blockers are not prohibited, and this column closes [17].

The program in gym terms: what stops, what ramps, what never changes

Stops and refers, today: exertional chest pain, fainting or near-fainting, or breathlessness out of proportion to the work — cardiology before the next session [3]; any plan to pause, halve or taper the pill for a workout, a PR or a watch reading — that edit belongs to the prescriber, and the rebound file is why [1][2].

Retires the instrument, not the license: the watch-based zones and the age formulas built on unmedicated hearts [9]; the generic MET tables that under-read strain under blockade [10]. What replaces them: RPE anchors, the talk test, and brackets calibrated on supervised testing in the same dosing window as training [6][16].

Ramps exactly as the rehabilitation file did: graded warm-ups, progressive overload, zone 2 volume as the base — the post-infarct readers ramped to +33% VO₂ on metoprolol [3], the heart-failure readers added 19% peak VO₂ with the barbell itself [8], and the heavy holds ran under cardio-protection measured in the dead-lift [7].

Never changes: progressive overload — graded, patient, honest — honest tracking of load, reps, watts and RPE — the rep score and form check exist so effort is measured, not guessed — tempo controlled and symmetry kept honest; the heat and hydration budget on nonselective molecules [11][12]; the glucose kit for the insulin reader [13][14]; and the companion doors for the files that cross over — high blood pressure, after a heart attack, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, type 1 diabetes — with prevention for the reader building the habit at 40-plus.

The bottom line

  • The brake column: blockade caps the SA node, not the muscle — heart rate falls hardest, blood pressure and output less, and fat mobilization is inhibited; submaximal endurance pays more than maximal capacity, and nonselective molecules charge more than β1-selective ones [1][4].
  • The census column: 42,771 cardiopulmonary tests — heart rate 18.2% lower under blockade but maximal power only 3.3% lower, perceived exertion 8% lower, oxygen pulse +19.5% paying the bill [5].
  • The monitor column: at matched RPE the watch reads 36.5 beats lower; age formulas (208 − 0.7 × age [9]) and MET tables [10] were built on unmedicated hearts — RPE-regulated training stays reproducible to 2–8% and carries the program instead [6].
  • The gains column: the Annals RCT — +24% VO₂max on placebo, +8% on metoprolol, zero on propranolol after ten monitored weeks [2]; post-infarct rehab +33% on metoprolol vs +27% off [3]; heart-failure resistance training +19% peak VO₂ and +87% quality of life on top of blockade [8].
  • The lifting column: cardio-protection measured inside the double-leg dead-lift — rate-pressure product cut most in the heaviest mode, preserved and enhanced above 100 bpm [7].
  • The heat column: nonselective blockade blunts skin blood flow and sweat slopes with a trend to higher core temperature [11]; in 90-minute heat rides, sweat loss compensated for cut flow [12] — price the hot room, don't fear it.
  • The diabetes door: propranolol shifted the symptom threshold one glucose step lower (4.4→3.3 mmol/L) with hunger and tremor faded but sweating greater [13]; in true unawareness, low-dose propranolol restored warnings via sweat (5/9 vs 0/5) [14].
  • The Brazil column: the SBC's own 2025 GRADE review — atenolol matches comparators on blood pressure, trails slightly on outcomes, and lives in combination therapy, not first line [15].
  • The competition door: WADA bans beta-blockers in-competition in the precision sports, out-of-competition too in archery and shooting [17].
  • The honest nulls: the census is observational with a decade age gap [5]; trainability studies in healthy adults are inconsistent, with the majority showing similar gains on and off blockade [1]; and no column in this file fences the ordinary metoprolol or bisoprolol reader from ordinary progressive training [2][3][6].

Train like the file reads: the prescription edits the response curve, not the license — and the camera counts the reps of the long game at rightrep.app.

This post was written by the RightRep AI Assistant — the same AI that counts and scores your reps at rightrep.app.

Sources

  1. Van Baak MA. Beta-adrenoceptor blockade and exercise. An update. Sports Medicine, 1988;5(4):209–225. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  2. Ades PA, Gunther PG, Meacham CP, Handy MA, LeWinter MM. Hypertension, exercise, and beta-adrenergic blockade. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1988;109(8):629–634. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  3. Pavia L, Orlando G, Myers J, Maestri M, Rusconi C. The effect of beta-blockade therapy on the response to exercise training in postmyocardial infarction patients. Clinical Cardiology, 1995;18(12):716–720. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  4. Kaiser P, Tesch PA, Frisk-Holmberg M, Juhlin-Dannfelt A, Kaijser L. Effect of beta 1-selective and non-selective beta-blockade on work capacity and muscle metabolism. Clinical Physiology, 1986;6(2):197–207. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  5. Priel E, Wahab M, Mondal T, Freitag A, O'Byrne PM, Killian KJ, Satia I. The Impact of beta blockade on the cardio-respiratory system and symptoms during exercise. Current Research in Physiology, 2021;4:235–242. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  6. Mitchell BL, Davison K, Parfitt G, Eston RG. Effect of β-blockade on measures and reproducibility of heart rate, oxygen uptake and work rate across repeated bouts of short-duration, RPE-regulated exercise. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 2025;125(11):3247–3257. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  7. Conviser JM, Ng AV, Rockey SS, Thomas DP. Cardio-protection afforded by β-blockade is maintained during resistance exercise. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 2017;20(2):196–201. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  8. Levinger I, Bronks R, Cody DV, Linton I, Davie A. Resistance training for chronic heart failure patients on beta blocker medications. International Journal of Cardiology, 2005;102(3):493–499. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  9. Tanaka H, Monahan KD, Seals DR. Age-predicted maximal heart rate revisited. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2001;37(1):153–156. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  10. Woolf-May K, Meadows S. Appropriateness of the metabolic equivalent (MET) as an estimate of exercise intensity for post-myocardial infarction patients. BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine, 2016;2(1):e000172. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  11. Pescatello LS, Mack GW, Leach CN Jr, Nadel ER. Thermoregulation in mildly hypertensive men during beta-adrenergic blockade. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 1990;22(2):222–228. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  12. Freund BJ, Joyner MJ, Jilka SM, Kalis J, Nittolo JM, Taylor JA, Peters H, Feese G, Wilmore JH. Thermoregulation during prolonged exercise in heat: alterations with beta-adrenergic blockade. Journal of Applied Physiology, 1987;63(3):930–936. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  13. Hirsch IB, Boyle PJ, Craft S, Cryer PE. Higher glycemic thresholds for symptoms during beta-adrenergic blockade in IDDM. Diabetes, 1991;40(9):1177–1186. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  14. Chalon S, Berlin I, Sachon C, Bosquet F, Grimaldi A. Propranolol in hypoglycaemia unawareness. Diabetes & Metabolism, 1999;25(1):23–26. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  15. Brandão AA, Rodrigues CIS, Nadruz W, et al. Systematic Review on the Efficacy of Atenolol in Antihypertensive Treatment: Recommendation from the Brazilian Society of Cardiology. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, 2025;122(9):e20250034. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  16. Dadova K, Slaby K, Radvansky J, Matous M, Varekova J, Hodis J, Steffl M, Tufano JJ. Exercise prescription in cardiac patients treated with metoprolol - should the time of day for stress tests and training coincide? European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 2018;25(10):1026–1027. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  17. World Anti-Doping Agency. The Prohibited List (current edition), section P2: Beta-Blockers. wada-ama.org