Atenolol blunts blood pressure increase during dynamic resistance exercise in hypertensives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT • Dynamic resistance exercise promotes a sizeable increase in blood pressure during its execution in non medicated hypertensives. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS • Atenolol not only decreases blood pressure level but also mitigates the increase of blood pressure during dynamic resistance exercise in hypertensive patients. An increase in blood pressure during resistance exercise might be at least in part attributed to an increase in cardiac output. AIMS This study was conducted to determine whether atenolol was able to decrease BP level and mitigate BP increase during dynamic resistance exercise performed at three different intensities in hypertensives. METHODS Ten essential hypertensives (systolic/diastolic BP between 140/90 and 160/105 mmHg) were blindly studied after 6 weeks of placebo and atenolol. In each phase, volunteers executed, in a random order, three protocols of knee‐extension exercises to fatigue: (i) one set at 100% of 1 RM; (ii) three sets at 80% of 1 RM; and (iii) three sets at 40% of 1 RM. Intra‐arterial radial blood pressure was measured throughout the protocols. RESULTS Atenolol decreased systolic BP maximum values achieved during the three exercise protocols (100% = 186 ± 4 vs. 215 ± 7, 80% = 224 ± 7 vs. 247 ± 9 and 40% = 223 ± 7 vs. 252 ± 16 mmHg, P < 0.05). Atenolol also mitigated an increase in systolic BP in the first set of exercises (100% =+38 ± 5 vs.+54 ± 9; 80% =+68 ± 11 vs. +84 ± 13 and 40% =+69 ± 7 vs.+84 ± 14, mmHg, P < 0.05). Atenolol decreased diastolic BP values and mitigated its increase during exercise performed at 100% of 1 RM (126 ± 6 vs. 145 ± 6 and +41 ± 6 vs.+52 ± 6, mmHg, P < 0.05), but not at the other exercise intensities. CONCLUSIONS Atenolol was effective in both reducing systolic BP maximum values and mitigating BP increase during resistance exercise performed at different intensities in hypertensive subjects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".