Face Masks at the Gymnasium: Physiological Responses and Mechanical Performance Are Not Compromised by Wearing Surgical or Filtering Facepiece 2 Masks in Healthy Subjects

• Published in: Journal of strength and conditioning research Vol. 37; no. 7; p. 1404
• Main Authors: Rial-Vázquez, Jessica, Nine, Iván, Guerrero-Moreno, Jose María, Rúa-Alonso, María, Fariñas, Juan, Márquez, Gonzalo, Giráldez-García, Manuel Avelino, Méndez-Bouza, Kevin Yoel, López-Pillado, Hugo, Coutado-Sánchez, Etham, Losada-Rodríguez, Alejandro, Iglesias-Soler, Eliseo
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.07.2023
• Subjects: Exercise - physiology; Fitness Centers; Healthy Volunteers; Humans; Lactic Acid; Male; Masks
• ISSN: 1064-8011; 1533-4287
• DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004401

Rial-Vázquez, J, Nine, I, Guerrero-Moreno, JM, Rúa-Alonso, M, Fariñas, J, Márquez, G, Giráldez-García, MA, Méndez-Bouza, KY, López-Pillado, H, Coutado-Sánchez, E, Losada-Rodríguez, A, and Iglesias-Soler, E. Face masks at the gym: physiological responses and mechanical performance are not compromised by wearing surgical or filtering facepiece 2 masks in healthy subjects. J Strength Cond Res 37(7): 1404-1410, 2023-This study explored the effects of wearing 2 types of face masks on mechanical performance and physiological responses during high-intensity resistance exercise. Twelve healthy men performed 3 workout protocols in a randomized order: wearing a surgical or filtering facepiece 2 (FFP2) mask or without a mask. Each workout consisted of 3 sets of 10 repetitions of bench press (BP) and parallel squat (SQ) with a 12 repetition maximum load, including 2 minutes of recovery between sets and exercises. Mechanical performance was evaluated through the mean propulsive velocity and the number of repetitions completed during each session. Physiological responses were the oxygen saturation (SpO2), blood lactate concentration, heart rate (HR), and HR variability. Perceived exertion was recorded after each set, and The Beck Anxiety Inventory scale was completed at the end of each workout. The number of repetitions completed and the session mean propulsive velocity {(BP [m·s-1]: surgical: 0.35 ± 0.05; FFP2: 0.36 ± 0.04; nonmask: 0.38 ± 0.06) and (SQ: surgical: 0.43 ± 0.05; FFP2: 0.40 ± 0.07; nonmask: 0.41 ± 0.05)} were similar between conditions (p > 0.05). Heart rate recorded during sessions was similar across conditions: surgical: 119 ± 14, FFP2: 117 ± 13, and nonmask: 118 ± 10 bpm (p = 0.919). Face masks had no effect on SpO2, blood lactate concentration, HR variability, perceived exertion, and anxiety values (p > 0.05). Face masks do not compromise strength performance, physiological parameters, and perceived comfort of young and healthy individuals during a high-intensity resistance training session.