Due to COVID-19, wearing a face mask to reduce virus transmission is currently mandatory in some countries when participants practice exercise in sports centers. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to analyze the effect of wearing a surgical or FFP2 mask during a resistance training session. Fourteen people with sarcopenia (age: 59.40 ± 5.46 years; weight: 68.78 ± 8.31 kg; height: 163.84 ± 9.08 cm) that participated in the study performed three training sessions in a randomized order: 4 sets of 10 repetitions of a half-squat at 60% of the one-repetition maximum and 90 s of rest between set and were either (a) without a mask (NM), (b) wearing a surgical face mask (SM), and (c) wearing a FFP2 face mask (FFP2). We found that wearing face masks had no effect on strength performance (session mean propulsive velocity (m/s): WM: 0.396 ± 0.042; SM: 0.387 ± 0.037; and FFP2: 0.391 ± 0.042 (p = 0.918)). Additionally, no impact of wearing a mask was found on heart rate, heart rate variability, blood lactate concentration (WM: 4.17 ± 1.89; SM: 4.49 ± 2.07; and FFP2: 5.28 ± 2.45 mmol/L (p = 0.447)), or rating of perceived exertion. Wearing a surgical or FFP2 face mask during a resistance training session resulted in similar strength performance and physiological responses than the same exercise without a mask in persons with sarcopenia.

Objective: In this pilot clinical study we investigated the effect on blood pressure (BP) of two community-based exercise training programs of high (HIT) vs. low-moderate intensity (LMIT) in hypertensive individuals receiving at least one antihypertensive drug. Methods: The study included two phases of physical exercises based on 1-h session, 3 days/week for 12 and 16 weeks, respectively, separately by a 7-week resting period. Each phase was preceded by a four-week conditioning training period. According to the average maximal heart rate at baseline, participants were randomized to HIT (80–90%), LMIT (50–70%) or no-exercise (control). Heart rate was monitored during workout and BP profiles were registered by ambulatory BP monitoring at the beginning and end of each phase. Results: Of 60 individuals randomized, 44 completed the study (HIT, n = 10; LMIT, n = 16; controls, n = 18). BP levels were significantly reduced after the second phase for both LMIT (SBP −3.1 mmHg, DBP −2.4 mmHg) and HIT (SBP −10.8 mmHg, DBP −8.3 mmHg). Similar levels of improvement were also found in daytime and night-time BP. Mean attendance of the prescribed training sessions was 87.4 ± 6.2% for HIT and 87.4 ± 5.3% for LMIT during the first phase and 84.1 ± 5.0% and 85.2 ± 5.9% during the second phase, respectively (p = 0.047). Conclusion: Both HIT and LMIT exercise training programs reduced BP but the HIT modality showed a lower rate of compliance with proposed training schedule. Intensity of training should be individually prescribed to improve tolerance to more high intensity exercises.