We appreciate the interest shown in our recent editorial1 and would like to take this opportunity to reply.

First, we would like to thank the authors for the careful and critical review of our work and for their comments and insights, as this dynamic is key to the scientific endeavor and, as they themselves have mentioned, results in clearer, more specific guidance in publications.

We would like to answer each of their comments:

The authors are correct in that we have not considered “type” to be an exercise variable. Type of exercise can refer to aerobic exercise, strength training, etc, hence it would be more appropriate to refer to “exercise style” or even “training protocol.” We also agree with their opinion that the terms “quantity” and “duration” are equivalent to “volume.”

Regarding the Spanish Society of Cardiology/Spanish Heart Foundation (SEC/FEC) reference, the original source for the information has been cited specifically.

Last, the authors state that “a more critical review was required” of the recommendations provided in the literature we selected. Because the text is brief and our main purpose was to collect, summarize, and compare the recommendations proposed by the most prestigious organizations (American College of Sports Medicine, American Heart Association, etc) in the field of health and physical exercise during this unique lockdown situation, we did not consider a critical review appropriate. Although it is true that we lacked a more specific, individualized approach to the exercise protocols proposed by these institutions, a critical review would be undertaken in another kind of scientific publication.

We hope to have fully and satisfactorily answered the authors’ concerns and would like to thank them sincerely for their valuable contributions to our article.