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.
The authors have addressed most of the reviewers' comments. I have assessed the revision, and I am happy with the current version regarding the final comments by the reviewers.
I consider this manuscript ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Justin Keogh, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
See area 4 for additional comments
See area 4
see area 4
I appreciate authors’ responses to my comments and the revisions made to the typo and Tables 5 and 6 (the full tables can be seen in the pdf).
However, I have to reserve my comment on the title, and would leave it to the Editor and the authors to make the final decision. In my opinion the title is still unclear and the readers would have to guess what the “sets”, “athletic performance”, and “chronic” refer to.
For the uneven number of participants in the two groups, I would think it was a good design to match the initial conditions of the two groups. The authors might state that one participant withdrew from the study due a personal reason.
For the issue of “match” in Table 3 (and other data), what I wanted to draw your attention was that, because the design was to match the initial conditions between the two groups, but one participant withdrew from one group, whether it might cause a bias in the comparison for the training effects was not addressed. An alternative way to deal with it might be to drop that pair together.
For the issue of “relative strength”, again, you leave it to the readers to work out what you tried to present.
Hope my points are understandable to the authors, aiming to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Please, consider the comments of Reviewer#2.
I commend the authors on making excellent changes to the manuscript using all reviews provided, this has greatly improved the readability and basic reporting of the study.
A greater range of references and literature have also been utilised to explore elements in further detail.
All figures and tables are of a high quality.
The experimental design has been greatly improved, this will now allow for study replication, moreover it removes any confusion that may have been apparent earlier due to ambiguity.
The methods have been followed by a rigorous method to a high technical standard, even with methods that may be technically flawed, these elements have been identified and explored.
Excellent improvement on the discussion and conclusion of the findings and explanation.
no comment.
The authors have adequately addressed most of my previous comments. I appreciate their efforts.
However, there are still some areas that require further consideration and clarification.
The title still does not clearly reflect the contents and is not self-explanatory. E.g. “…sets” is used, however, it would be clearer if it says “in resistance training”. I don’t think this work assessed “athletic performance” but only the performance in specific laboratory-based testing. The authors might consider “Upper-lower body super-sets vs traditional sets in six weeks velocity-based resistance training for inducing performance improvement”, or similar. Adding “six weeks” in the title would be more informative and complete, instead of "chronic".
Line 125-126 (pdf file): The number of participants in the two groups is uneven. How was the single participant matched? Should the results of “relative strength” be presented in the descriptive data table? How is this “match” method related to the between-group difference shown in Table 3?
There are still missing parts in Tables 5 and 6. Landscape layout should be used to display the whole table.
Line 118 (pdf version): “post-moment” still has not been replaced with “test”.
The authors have replied successfully to all my previous comments.
The authors have replied successfully to all my previous comments.
The authors have replied successfully to all my previous comments.
Dear Authors,
Please, consider carefully the comments of all reviewers, especially concerning the limitations of the study.
Regards,
Dr. Vieira
[# 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. #]
The study is generally well written and uses professional English throughout, however, there are a few instances where lines of text are repeated.
L130 – point 3 is repeated.
L196-197 – There is a complete repeat of the previous sentence.
Additionally, I think some of the wording could be improved to remove some ambiguity as well as improve readability.
One word I am unsure on throughout the entirety of the present study is the use of the term “neuromuscular”. I don’t think this aligns particularly well with the assessments performed, you could argue that the jump assessment is a measure of neuromuscular performance, but I don’t see this term applying particularly well to maximal strength or endurance. I would suggest the authors consider changing this term to “athletic performance” or “muscular”, but I will leave this to the authors discretion.
L25 – the authors could also suggest as a variable “temporal aspect” with work to rest manipulation also occurring.
L25-26 – You type “Velocity Based Training” here with each word capitalised, why then change this in L28? This should be consistent through the text.
L35 – “muscle endurance” might be better as “muscular endurance” to encompass multiple muscles not a single muscle.
L67 – These studies help to explain difference to the different set configurations, but they can also “highlight potential adaptations.”
L82 – A study is inanimate; it cannot aim to do anything. Please change accordingly.
L128 – please change “we measure” to “we measured”
L242 – I would suggest removing the information around Mann-Whitney U test, as the data was found to be normally distributed anyway. This information is unnecessary clutter.
L268 – Please change “that” for “than”
There is a good use of relevant literature throughout the manuscript, however, there a few instances which could use some more support.
L153 – Could you provide a reference for the velocities that correspond to 80% 1RM.
The figure is an excellent quality and extremely relevant to the understanding of the study design. I would ask the authors to resubmit tables 5 & 6 in a landscape format, as they currently overlap the page and sections are unreadable.
The study is original with a good description of the highlighted gap in the literature, with a high need for this investigation. Although generally the research question is well designed and focuses upon the muscular or performance adaptations, which as sport scientists is where we focus our time and efforts, I think some consideration around one the key findings/conclusions around the set up could also be discussed here. Specifically, the organisation of training, with a key finding almost a 50% reduction in training time this could be hugely beneficial for practitioners and this should be reflected in the research aim/question, which would benefit from further exploration within the introduction.
The present study appears to have been performed to a high ethical standard and although some of the methods are not gold standard, the methods are described with sufficient detail and information which would allow sufficient replication for future studies.
The findings of the present study have great practical application, especially to time constrained environments such as team sports, however, several areas could be improved with a more thorough exploration of the information and data presented.
Firstly, one area that requires highlighting is the role of typical error and any previously established smallest detectable difference values presented for the methods used. As any improvement could just be an error or not be classified as a meaningful change, especially for CMJ when flight time method has numerous limitations.
Please see this study which could help with the interpretation of change regarding jump height:
Rago, V.; Brito, J.; Figueiredo, P.; Carvalho, T.; Fernandes, T.; Fonseca, P.; Rebelo, A. Countermovement Jump Analysis Using Different Portable Devices: Implications for Field Testing. Sports 2018, 6, 91. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports6030091
L293 – 294 – You classify your effect sizes as small (0.18 & 0.23), however it worth noting that you have not identified a threshold for effect sizes, so this requires identification initially. Secondly, commonly classifications Rhea, (2004) & Hopkins (2002) would classify one or both trivial, with threshold of 0.35 and 0.20, respectively. Please elaborate and clarify this.
Generally, this is a well written and thought out study, with clear practical applications. However, these are several inaccuracies and a lack of detail or exploration in certain area that could be improved to improve the readers impression of the paper. This includes the comments highlighted above in addition to the aspects of the present study that have clear benefits to working with time constrained environments such as elite team sport. Furthermore, although you highlight well the efficacy of VBT training in this case I don’t think it adds anything different than what conventional resistance training would employ with regards a set prescription and general progressive overload with intensity (3x10 @55%, 3x8@60%, 3x6@65% and 3x4@70%. Further exploration of how this type of training was essential for this study would be beneficial. Additionally, you could also look to discuss how the loads and prescriptions utilised are light and sub-optimal maybe for specific adaptations (strength, jump or velocity’).
Finally, you could the look into the role of including alternating sets which may results in central adaptations, due to the reduced factors regarding peripheral factors the local muscular endurance assessment. This could be a suggestion for athletes to overcome health issues as will as engaging in major
The research presented in this manuscript aimed to compare the effects of traditional vs alternating set (3 sets of SQ followed by 3 sets of BP vs 3 sets of alternative SQ and BP) configurations in resistance training, using VBT method on neuromuscular performance (CMJ, SQ, BP) following six weeks of training in a cohort of moderately strength trained young men (n=17).
The study appears to be carefully designed and executed. The major finding was that the AS training configuration appeared to be more time-efficient and demonstrate a lower level of fatigue in achieving similar improvement in the measured variables, compared with the TS. This may have implications in training practice.
However, the manuscript requires a more careful proof reading. There are missing data in Tables 5 and 6 and Figure 2 cannot be found, therefore this review cannot be fully completed. I can only provide the following comments for authors’ consideration, aiming to improve the quality of the manuscript.
In the title the phrase of “neuromuscular performance” might be an over-statement, as no specific assessments of “neural” function were included, such as that on the sensory and motor nervous system, central motor drive, etc. Description such as “velocity-based performance” might be more appropriate.
Clarifications are required in some areas:
Line 92-93: The time interval (45 s) between the SQ and BP in each set for the AS should be stated here. That is the actual difference between the two groups.
Line 98-99: It is not clear how the velocity loss was controlled or measured.
Line 118-120: It is not clear what was “matched”, e.g. whether the participants were paired then the two in each pair were randomly assigned into the two groups. It is also not clear what “depending” means here. If the group allocated was depending on some conditions, it cannot be regarded as random.
Line 158-159: Please ensure you cite the prediction equations correctly, e.g. for SQ, please use superscript for power of 2; and the same for BP, but why VMP was used instead of MPV?
The participants in the cited references (22, 26) appear to be different to the population in this study. The authors should address whether these prediction equations are valid to be applied in this study, and potential bias, if any.
Some areas need clarification. Some data in tables and figure 2 cannot be found.
Line 144-145: How did the authors control jump “intensity”. It might be better to use “effort”.
Line 151-153, 177: Please revise the description to ensure the criterion of “80% 1RM” (in kg) is comparable to the measurement unit used for MPV (m/s), e.g. “…corresponding to the MPV when performing ~80% 1RM…” if that was what you wanted to say.
Tables 5 and 6: The tables are long and the data on the right end are cut off, therefore cannot be reviewed. Please revise.
Line 304: Figure 2 is cited but missing in the manuscript.
Line 318-319: The research focused on some specific performance variables but they possibly cannot be regarded as “analyzing...a wide variety...”.
Below are some examples of typos, problems with punctuation, choice of words, and redundant statements.
Line 26: The sentence is difficult to comprehend. Further information is needed for “upper and lower super-sets”.
Line 28-36: The major difference between the AS and TS is not clearly described in the Abstract. That is important for understanding the conclusion on “more time efficient”.
Line 87-88: It would be better to state the number of sets to be completed after the first sentence, so that readers can better understand the next two sentences.
Line 90: Deleted the “,”.
Line 107-108: Replace “moment” with “test”.
Line 128: “measured”.
Line 130: Deleted the redundant “3) Fatigue test in SQ”.
Please use the correct expression for the measurement unit throughout (superscript for -1).
Line 168: Missed a full stop at the end of the sentence.
Line 192: What is the “y” for?
Line 194-196: Replace “both” with “the two”. This sentence was repeated in the next two lines. Please delete one.
Line 236: Please use “Pre” consistently.
Line 250: “did not”.
Table 2 Note: The “**” was not found in the table, therefore the last phrase in the Note should be deleted.
All tables: Please indicate in the Note whether the statistical method used was t-test or ANOVA.
General comments
I think the manuscript is well written, the material and methods are well defined, and the statistics and the reporting data are adequate. However, I have major concerns with the introduction, discussion and some points in the methodology since this paper seems to be very biased to one research group. I strongly suggest that references to other works should be included in the manuscript.
Additionally, I hardly understood what the objective was when choosing this “resistance training program” with loads from 55% to 70%1RM (approximately). Could authors justify these loads if the aim is to increase neuromuscular performance?
Note that the authors do not mention their study limitations. However, they should be addressed accordingly since it serves two purposes: 1) readers may be concerned about how the results of this study have been developed, 2) authors show humility in presenting their study flaws.
Experimental design:
I have no major concerns with this section
Participants:
Did you run an a priori statistical power analysis? Eight and 9 participants per group seem a very small sample size to determine your conclusions. If you did not run such analysis. At least, you should consider running one a posteriori as well as justifying your sample size.
Should not you report that relative strength ratio to have an idea of how strong your sample was?
Testing procedures:
I consider that you should define the warm-up first, to follow a chronological thread.
“3) Fatigue test in SQ” is duplicated. Please, change accordingly.
Do not you think that performing the fatigue test during the SQ exercise before the progressive loading test during BP could affect the neuromuscular performance of the latter? Please, justify why you chose that sequence.
Please, consider providing a reference why you chose only the best repetition for subsequent analysis
Please, consider justifying why you estimated the 1RM using the heaviest load and not using a two point method or a multiple point method.
Although it is not specified in the text, Should I assume that the squat was performed to full depth?
Resistance training programme:
I consider that you should define the warm-up first, to follow a chronological thread.
“The only difference between both experimental groups was the set configuration (structuring) performed between exercises: traditional or alternating manner” is duplicated. Please, change it accordingly.
Why was the relative load (%1RM) determined from a general load-velocity relationship for SQ and BP? Please, provide some explanation and additional references (other than the research group that you are citing again and again) to justify your choice.
For example: “Thereby, a target velocity to be attained in the fastest (usually the first) repetition of the first set of each training session was used as indicative of relative load for all participants.” This statement, which is lacking a scientific reference, is covered in an interesting paper that has recently been published (1). I suggest you should cite it.
(1) García-Ramos, A., Weakley, J., Janicijevic, D., & Jukic, I. (2021). Number of Repetitions Performed Before and After Reaching Velocity Loss Thresholds: First Repetition Versus Fastest Repetition—Mean Velocity Versus Peak Velocity. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 16(7), 950-957.
Statistical analyses:
How were the effect sizes interpreted?
The main limitations that I see in your study is that participants were not resistance-trained. Although you did not facilitate this information and it should be (i.e. relative strength rations for SQ and BP), it may be inferred from the estimated 1RM of both exercises along with the body mass that they were not well-trained. Therefore, you should not extrapolate your results to any population. Please, change accordingly.
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.