22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Resistance Training Safety during and after the SARS-Cov-2 Outbreak: Practical Recommendations

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In December of 2019, there was an outbreak of a severe acute respiratory syndrome caused by the coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19) in China. The virus rapidly spread into the whole world causing an unprecedented pandemic and forcing governments to impose a global quarantine, entering an extreme unknown situation. The organizational consequences of quarantine/isolation are absence of organized training and competition, lack of communication among athletes and coaches, inability to move freely, lack of adequate sunlight exposure, and inappropriate training conditions. The reduction of mobility imposed to contain the advance of the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic can negatively affect the physical condition and health of individuals leading to muscle atrophy, progressive loss of muscle strength, and reductions in neuromuscular and mechanical capacities. Resistance training (RT) might be an effective tool to counteract these adverse consequences. RT is considered an essential part of an exercise program due to its numerous health and athletic benefits. However, in the face of the SARS-Cov-2 outbreak, many people might be concerned with safety issues regarding its practice, especially in indoor exercise facilities, such as gyms and fitness centers. These concerns might be associated with RT impact in the immune system, respiratory changes, and contamination due to equipment sharing and agglomeration. In this current opinion article, we provide insights to address these issues to facilitate the return of RT practices under the new logistical and health challenges. We understand that RT can be adapted to allow its performance with measures adopted to control coronavirus outbreak such that the benefits would largely overcome the potential risks. The article provides some practical information to help on its implementation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references73

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1

          To the Editor: A novel human coronavirus that is now named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (formerly called HCoV-19) emerged in Wuhan, China, in late 2019 and is now causing a pandemic. 1 We analyzed the aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 and compared it with SARS-CoV-1, the most closely related human coronavirus. 2 We evaluated the stability of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1 in aerosols and on various surfaces and estimated their decay rates using a Bayesian regression model (see the Methods section in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this letter at NEJM.org). SARS-CoV-2 nCoV-WA1-2020 (MN985325.1) and SARS-CoV-1 Tor2 (AY274119.3) were the strains used. Aerosols (<5 μm) containing SARS-CoV-2 (105.25 50% tissue-culture infectious dose [TCID50] per milliliter) or SARS-CoV-1 (106.75-7.00 TCID50 per milliliter) were generated with the use of a three-jet Collison nebulizer and fed into a Goldberg drum to create an aerosolized environment. The inoculum resulted in cycle-threshold values between 20 and 22, similar to those observed in samples obtained from the upper and lower respiratory tract in humans. Our data consisted of 10 experimental conditions involving two viruses (SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1) in five environmental conditions (aerosols, plastic, stainless steel, copper, and cardboard). All experimental measurements are reported as means across three replicates. SARS-CoV-2 remained viable in aerosols throughout the duration of our experiment (3 hours), with a reduction in infectious titer from 103.5 to 102.7 TCID50 per liter of air. This reduction was similar to that observed with SARS-CoV-1, from 104.3 to 103.5 TCID50 per milliliter (Figure 1A). SARS-CoV-2 was more stable on plastic and stainless steel than on copper and cardboard, and viable virus was detected up to 72 hours after application to these surfaces (Figure 1A), although the virus titer was greatly reduced (from 103.7 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter of medium after 72 hours on plastic and from 103.7 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter after 48 hours on stainless steel). The stability kinetics of SARS-CoV-1 were similar (from 103.4 to 100.7 TCID50 per milliliter after 72 hours on plastic and from 103.6 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter after 48 hours on stainless steel). On copper, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 4 hours and no viable SARS-CoV-1 was measured after 8 hours. On cardboard, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 24 hours and no viable SARS-CoV-1 was measured after 8 hours (Figure 1A). Both viruses had an exponential decay in virus titer across all experimental conditions, as indicated by a linear decrease in the log10TCID50 per liter of air or milliliter of medium over time (Figure 1B). The half-lives of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1 were similar in aerosols, with median estimates of approximately 1.1 to 1.2 hours and 95% credible intervals of 0.64 to 2.64 for SARS-CoV-2 and 0.78 to 2.43 for SARS-CoV-1 (Figure 1C, and Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix). The half-lives of the two viruses were also similar on copper. On cardboard, the half-life of SARS-CoV-2 was longer than that of SARS-CoV-1. The longest viability of both viruses was on stainless steel and plastic; the estimated median half-life of SARS-CoV-2 was approximately 5.6 hours on stainless steel and 6.8 hours on plastic (Figure 1C). Estimated differences in the half-lives of the two viruses were small except for those on cardboard (Figure 1C). Individual replicate data were noticeably “noisier” (i.e., there was more variation in the experiment, resulting in a larger standard error) for cardboard than for other surfaces (Fig. S1 through S5), so we advise caution in interpreting this result. We found that the stability of SARS-CoV-2 was similar to that of SARS-CoV-1 under the experimental circumstances tested. This indicates that differences in the epidemiologic characteristics of these viruses probably arise from other factors, including high viral loads in the upper respiratory tract and the potential for persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 to shed and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. 3,4 Our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is plausible, since the virus can remain viable and infectious in aerosols for hours and on surfaces up to days (depending on the inoculum shed). These findings echo those with SARS-CoV-1, in which these forms of transmission were associated with nosocomial spread and super-spreading events, 5 and they provide information for pandemic mitigation efforts.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and their inactivation with biocidal agents

            Summary Currently, the emergence of a novel human coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, has become a global health concern causing severe respiratory tract infections in humans. Human-to-human transmissions have been described with incubation times between 2-10 days, facilitating its spread via droplets, contaminated hands or surfaces. We therefore reviewed the literature on all available information about the persistence of human and veterinary coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces as well as inactivation strategies with biocidal agents used for chemical disinfection, e.g. in healthcare facilities. The analysis of 22 studies reveals that human coronaviruses such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) coronavirus, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronavirus or endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV) can persist on inanimate surfaces like metal, glass or plastic for up to 9 days, but can be efficiently inactivated by surface disinfection procedures with 62–71% ethanol, 0.5% hydrogen peroxide or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite within 1 minute. Other biocidal agents such as 0.05–0.2% benzalkonium chloride or 0.02% chlorhexidine digluconate are less effective. As no specific therapies are available for SARS-CoV-2, early containment and prevention of further spread will be crucial to stop the ongoing outbreak and to control this novel infectious thread.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Epidemiology, causes, clinical manifestation and diagnosis, prevention and control of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) during the early outbreak period: a scoping review

              Background The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been identified as the cause of an outbreak of respiratory illness in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China beginning in December 2019. As of 31 January 2020, this epidemic had spread to 19 countries with 11 791 confirmed cases, including 213 deaths. The World Health Organization has declared it a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Methods A scoping review was conducted following the methodological framework suggested by Arksey and O’Malley. In this scoping review, 65 research articles published before 31 January 2020 were analyzed and discussed to better understand the epidemiology, causes, clinical diagnosis, prevention and control of this virus. The research domains, dates of publication, journal language, authors’ affiliations, and methodological characteristics were included in the analysis. All the findings and statements in this review regarding the outbreak are based on published information as listed in the references. Results Most of the publications were written using the English language (89.2%). The largest proportion of published articles were related to causes (38.5%) and a majority (67.7%) were published by Chinese scholars. Research articles initially focused on causes, but over time there was an increase of the articles related to prevention and control. Studies thus far have shown that the virus’ origination is in connection to a seafood market in Wuhan, but specific animal associations have not been confirmed. Reported symptoms include fever, cough, fatigue, pneumonia, headache, diarrhea, hemoptysis, and dyspnea. Preventive measures such as masks, hand hygiene practices, avoidance of public contact, case detection, contact tracing, and quarantines have been discussed as ways to reduce transmission. To date, no specific antiviral treatment has proven effective; hence, infected people primarily rely on symptomatic treatment and supportive care. Conclusions There has been a rapid surge in research in response to the outbreak of COVID-19. During this early period, published research primarily explored the epidemiology, causes, clinical manifestation and diagnosis, as well as prevention and control of the novel coronavirus. Although these studies are relevant to control the current public emergency, more high-quality research is needed to provide valid and reliable ways to manage this kind of public health emergency in both the short- and long-term.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Biomed Res Int
                BMRI
                BioMed Research International
                Hindawi
                2314-6133
                2314-6141
                2020
                23 September 2020
                : 2020
                : 3292916
                Affiliations
                1Faculdade de Educação Física e Dança, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Brazil
                2Liga de Hipertensão Arterial, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Brazil
                3GO fit LAB, Ingesport, Madrid, Spain
                4Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK
                5Centre for Sport Studies, King Juan Carlos University, Madrid, Spain
                6Departamento de Enfermagem em Saúde Coletiva da Escola de Enfermagem da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
                7Research Center for High Performance Sport, UCAM, Murcia, Spain
                8Faculty of Sport Sciences, UCAM, Murcia, Spain
                9Department of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
                10Department of Biomedical Sciences, Physiological Laboratory, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
                11Instituto Valorize, Vitória, Brazil
                12Centro Universitário UniFMU, São Paulo, Brazil
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Luisa Brussino

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2459-4977
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5749-6877
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2721-1778
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5295-9668
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4143-701X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5012-5977
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9792-6656
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8334-6581
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0474-4229
                Article
                10.1155/2020/3292916
                7532374
                ea61eef9-93a1-452e-84f0-248b70c89266
                Copyright © 2020 Paulo Gentil et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 28 May 2020
                : 5 August 2020
                : 11 September 2020
                Categories
                Review Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article