The objective was to compare the mean propulsive velocity (MPV), maximum power (PMAX), heart rate, and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) during the parallel squat using elastic bands (EB) or weight plates (WP) to load the bar. The effect of relative strength on the dependent variables was analysed. Additionally, the potential of the RPE to predict external load parameters was assessed. Eighteen trained volunteers squatted at 40%, 55%, 70%, and 85% of their one-repetition maximum with EB and WP (a total of eight sets) in random order. Dependent variables were measured at the first and last repetition (i.e., 10% velocity loss). Two identical sessions were conducted to assess the reliability of measurements. Compared to WP, EB allowed a significantly greater number of repetitions, MPV, and PMAX, and significantly lower RPE. The RPE of the first repetition was a significant predictor of the external load of the set. The RPE showed good repeatability and was not influenced by the relative strength of athletes. In conclusion, compared to WP, the use of EB allows for greater external load with reduced internal load responses in a wide spectrum of load-based intensities. The potential implications of these novel findings are discussed in the manuscript.

The aim was to explore the effects of a 32-week resistance training (RT) intervention with elastic bands with or without microfiltered seawater (SW) supplementation on isokinetic strength, bone mineral density (BMD), body composition, and subjective quality of life in postmenopausal women. Ninety-three untrained women (age: 70.00 ± 6.26 years; body mass index: 22.05 ± 3.20 kg/m2; body fat: 37.77 ± 6.38%; 6.66 ± 1.01 s up-and-go test) voluntarily participated in this randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial. Participants were allocated into four groups (RT+SW, RT+PLA, CON+SW, and CON+PLA). The RT intervention (twice weekly) consisted of different exercises for the whole body performed at submaximal intensities with elastic bands. Both control groups were not involved in any exercise program. A two-way mixed analysis of variance of repeated measures revealed significant improvements in almost all the variables in both intervention groups (p < 0.05). However, significant differences with controls were encountered in isokinetic strength, body fat percentage, and bodily pain. Although the group with SW supplementation obtained greater effect sizes, non-significant differences between both RT groups were observed. In conclusion, the determinant factor of the adaptations seems to be RT rather than SW.

In 2019, a new condition caused by the COVID-19, became a global pandemic, presenting a disparate symptomatological picture. The immune response to the virus depends on multiple factors, making the practice of physical exercise an important enhancer of the immune system, but it is unknown what effects it could have on the very different symptoms. In order to achieve and summarize the most outstanding information on the influence of the different types and parameters of physical exercise on the immune system and symptoms presented by COVID-19, it was decided to carry out a review of the literature in the databases PubMed and Medline until August 2020. The results showed that while high intensity and prolonged volume exercise produces counterproductive alterations in the immune system, increasing the possibility of contracting infections; low and moderate intensity exercise reverses these effects, increasing the benefits, providing the body with better protection against viruses. For the symptoms of COVID-19 related to cough, dyspnea, pulmonary obstruction, hypoxia, muscle pain and neuromuscular conditions, exercise at low and moderate intensity is recommended, while those people who present gastrointestinal symptoms and fatigue are recommended to exercise at low intensity. Exercise is completely contraindicated in case of fever and myocarditis.

Resistance training is one key method for improving physical conditioning. With this purpose, Menatechpro System® has designed an avant-garde garment that includes elastomeric technology that may stimulate the neuromuscular system in a better way, but a deeper knowledge of its effects is needed. Objective: To explore the effects of a new garment with elastomeric technology on upper-limb performance, and neuromuscular, perceptual, and cardiovascular responses in two upper-extremities exercises. Methodology: Fit young men trained in resistance exercises performed a seated shoulder press (80% of one-repetition maximum) and push up (bodyweight) until muscle failure with the garment that incorporates the elastomeric technology versus a placebo garment without it. The number of repetitions, mean propulsive velocity, mean and peak muscle activation, rate of perceived effort and perceived velocity, and heart rate were analysed. Possible differences were obtained with a two-way mixed ANOVA of repeated measures with post-hoc analysis. Results: Compared with a placebo garment, the use of this new garment with elastomeric technology improved positively the physical performance and muscular activation during the exercises analysed (p ≤ .05). Conclusion: Menatechpro System®'s elastomeric technology integrated into the garment could provide an optimal neuromuscular stimulus for the development of the performance during the upper extremity training.

Purpose: Mean ocular perfusion pressure (MOPP) is calculated as the difference between mean brachial arterial pressure (MBP; with a correction factor to compensate for differences in flow resistance and hydrostatic pressure between the arm and eye) and intraocular pressure (IOP). The main aim was to evaluate differences between the most used formulas to calculate MOPP and the effects that physical exercise may have in this parameter. Methods: Fifteen physically active, healthy subjects (6 female, 24.07 ± 3.65 years) voluntarily performed a 15‐minute protocol consisting of combined exercise including, mobility, bodyweight exercises, running, dynamic stretching, and three sets of barbell back squat at low intensities. Five different formulas retrieved from the scientific literature were used to calculate MBP. Formulas used to calculate MOPP pressure were 1) 2/3*(MBP)–IOP; 2) 2/3*(MBP–IOP); 3) 95/140*(MBP)–IOP. A three‐way analysis of variance evaluated the effect of the exercise, the formula used to calculate MBP, and the formula used to calculate the mean ocular perfusion pressure. Results: Significant effects of the exercise (F(1, 14) = 135.21, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.91), formula used to calculate mean blood pressure (F(1.06, 14.87) = 250.37, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.95), formula used to calculate mean ocular perfusion pressure (F(1.01, 14.14) = 163.98, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.92) and their interaction (F(1.48, 20.68) = 47.35, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.77) were observed. The post‐hoc results showed significant differences between most of the formulas both preexercise and postexercise. Conclusions: The results presented suggest that caution should be applied when using indirect formulas to estimate mean ocular perfusion pressure. Future research should objectively evaluate ocular perfusion pressure with a direct method to find the most reliable formula. Meanwhile, this study is published to raise awareness on the importance of choosing one or other methods when aiming to estimate physiological parameters with formulas.