Review History


All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.

Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on April 18th, 2022 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on June 20th, 2022.
  • The first revision was submitted on August 3rd, 2022 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on August 22nd, 2022.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Aug 22, 2022 · Academic Editor

Accept

Congratulations on meeting the high standard for publication in PeerJ. All the best in your future research.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Justin Keogh, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

In the latest edition of the manuscript, the use of English is appropriate and professional.

Experimental design

After the author provided the latest version of the manuscript, I think they have adequately answered my previous questions.

Validity of the findings

After the author provided the latest version of the manuscript, I think they have adequately answered my previous questions.

Additional comments

I think this article has now met PeerJ criteria for publication.

·

Basic reporting

The authors consistently and satisfactorily answered all the questions raised in the first review. I believe that the manuscript is up to the level of the journal and can be accepted.

Experimental design

The authors consistently and satisfactorily answered all the questions raised in the first review. I believe that the manuscript is up to the level of the journal and can be accepted.

Validity of the findings

The authors consistently and satisfactorily answered all the questions raised in the first review. I believe that the manuscript is up to the level of the journal and can be accepted.

Additional comments

The authors consistently and satisfactorily answered all the questions raised in the first review. I believe that the manuscript is up to the level of the journal and can be accepted.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Jun 20, 2022 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Dear authors,

reviewers genreally provided good comments about the manuscript, although some clarifications are needed. In addition, there are a few recent papers very similar to the one presented here (longitudinal effects of VBT in handball). It is important to relate the findings if this study with more specific papers. Please, see these 2 references and the reference llst of these papers to be aware of important papers related to this topic.

1. Cuevas-Aburto, J., Janicijevic, D., Pérez-Castilla, A., Chirosa-Ríos, L. J., García-Ramos, A. (2020). Changes in bench press performance and throwing velocity after strength-oriented and ballistic resistance training programs. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 60(11):1423-1430.

2. Cuevas-Aburto, J., Jukic, I., González-Hernández, J. M., Janicijevic, D., Barboza-González, P., Chirosa-Ríos, L. J., García-Ramos, A. (2021). Effect of resistance-training programs differing in the set configuration on maximal strength and explosive-action performance. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 16(2), 243-249.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Some English grammar mistakes need to be corrected.

Experimental design

From line 590 to line 594, while here are some reasons why a control group was not used, it may not perfectly mean that this study doesn’t need a control group. According to the conclusion of this study, we can know that VBT can significantly improve the Muscle Mass, %1RM and Throwing velocity for high velocity group or low velocity group. However, based on the understanding of ordinary people, even after only a few weeks of ordinary bench press training, it is possible that the above parameters of the subjects will be improved. Therefore, it may be necessary to set up a suitable control group to try to demonstrate that better training results can be obtained using the VBT method used in this study.

Validity of the findings

At lines 462-463, it cites Kawamori & Haff, 2004 that high-velocity training enhances performance and increases muscle power more than low velocity, however, this is not consistent with the results shown in Table 3. According to the results obtained in Table 3, there is little difference between the two groups of Effect size in Muscle mass, but in %1RM and Throwing velocity, the low velocity group performs better.

The conclusion of the superiority of the LVP-based VBT method adopted in this experiment may lack sufficient basis. Firstly, this study did not find a significant difference between the high velocity group and the low velocity group after using VBT; in addition, it did not compare with the control group using some common training methods, so it may not be concluded that this training method is more effective.

Additional comments

No comment

·

Basic reporting

The language is clear and the manuscript is well written. I just suggest avoiding using very short sentences in sequence, like at the beginning of the introduction. Reading is more fluid if the sentences are connected.

I believe the authors can explore the gap of their research problem a little more in the introduction. I also believe that some more recent papers could add to the construction of this section. Some examples are: The Implementation of Velocity-Based Training Paradigm for Team Sports: Framework, Technologies, Practical Recommendations and Challenges; Effects of Velocity-Based Training on Strength and Power in Elite Athletes—A Systematic Review; Bar velocities capable of optimising the muscle
power in strength-power exercises.

On line 102, I suggest including a more recent reference. Would it be possible for the authors to explore the aspects of the force-velocity relationship in a little more depth?

Experimental design

The work is within the scope of the journal and the research question has practical relevance and ethical research standards were followed.

How did the authors define the number of participants? Was a sample calculation performed?

How was the randomization process done? This must be described.

Why the five-week period was chosen?

Do the authors consider the composition measurement method to be adequate? The study by McLester et al. 2018 found an overestimation of fat-free mass in men compared to DXA. (Reliability and Agreement of Various InBody Body Composition Analyzers as Compared to Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry in Healthy Men and Women).

Would not the bench press test be more reliable with the gesture of the throw if it was done with free weights?

Validity of the findings

The study has practical relevance as it provides data that can be easily used in the field.

Data is placed in the results section, such as effect sizes. Raw data were also placed in a supplementary way.

The conclusions are in line with the results obtained in the study.

Additional comments

I would like to congratulate the authors for their work, which certainly required many hours of work. Following, I have some general comments about the work that aims to improve the text.

Line 79: VBT does not correspond to the acronym of "movement velocity".

Line 125: what kind of injury?

The expression "Load Velocity Profile (LVP)" appears several times throughout the text. Once the acronym has already been described, it is no longer necessary to write it out in full.

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.