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.
Thank you for considering the suggestions of the reviewers. I have now recommended accepting your careful work.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jeremy Loenneke, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Thank you very much for carefully revising your manuscript. I sent it to the two previous reviewers and while one does not have any further comments, Reviewer 1 still has a few concerns. I hope you will interpret their comments in the same vein as I do, that you have submitted a worthy paper that can be improved with a few minor revisions. My take on their comments is as follows:
• For Item 2 from Reviewer 1, please either verify that the training routines during the high-intensity interval training were identical for both weeks or that the athletes were pushed to the same intensity. If the physiological states of the participants were not measured during exercise, simply state that fact.
• For Item 3, Please state how pre-treatment of H2 better tests your hypothesis or mechanism under study.
• Regarding Item 4, I am happy with the data being presented in both the Results section and supplementary material.
• Evaluate whether the suggestions from Items 5 & 6 will improve your analysis and be incorporated in the Results.
• Address the suggestions for the Discussion mentioned in Items 7 & 8.
Also, when I was closely reading the sections of your manuscript that they referred to, I noticed that line 123 should read "program was recorded." Please thoroughly review the manuscript for any other potential grammatical and typographical corrections. It is my understanding that PeerJ does not use a copy editing service, and your only other chance to correct any errors will be in the proof stage.
I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors acknowledged all my questions and gave detailed responses, and the paper was carefully and rationally revised, and I had no more questions. My suggestion is "accept".
I had no more questions.
I had no more questions.
I had no more questions.
Both reviewers commented that this is a well-designed and worthy study. I found the manuscript to be clearly presented. However, both reviewers had a number of specific and, to my eye, helpful suggestions that could improve the manuscript. For Reviewer 1 see the attached document for their review. Please address the suggestions for both reviewers to the best of your ability, because doing so can substantially improve the manuscript. These include greater explanation or justification on the study design and conclusions and statistical issues. Once completed, I would be happy to receive your revised manuscript.
no comment
Authors should explain why the authors focused on blood NO levels in this study.
I get the impression that the conclusion is an overstatement.
This study explores the potential benefits of hydrogen inhalation as an antioxidant in mitigating oxidative stress in professional athletes after high-intensity training and protecting post-exercise nitric oxide signaling, presenting a novel and clinically significant topic. Through a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial, the research offers practical guidance to professional athletes and broadens scientific knowledge of hydrogen use in sports medicine.
Despite the abundance of research results, I had anticipated that the authors would delve deeper into their discoveries by incorporating the historical context and current state of H2 inhalation research. Unfortunately, the article fails to fully expand on this crucial aspect, leading to a hasty and insufficient conclusion. Therefore, I perceive the current manuscript as more of a preliminary summary of findings rather than a mature academic discourse. I believe further refinement is necessary, and the article is not yet ready for publication.
This study features rigorous design and sound statistical analysis. Its randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial reduced biases and subjectivity, bolstering result reliability and validity. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA accurately assessed hydrogen inhalation's effects on physiological indices and their temporal changes. Targeting male professional rugby athletes, the study's findings are highly relevant to the broader athletic community due to their intensive training routines.
However, the study does not match the depth of information needed to provide the reader with a full understanding,particularly regarding the historical background and current status of hydrogen inhalation research. Furthermore, the experimental design lacks rigor, omitting essential conditions and details such as the definition and monitoring of training intensity, the rationale for the washout period, and the impact of sequence effects and carryover effects in the crossover design, all of which could potentially influence the study outcomes.
(1) Line 23：“separated by 1 week of low-intensity training as a washout.” --Why was the washout period set at one week? Is there any literature to support this decision? I would expect this issue addressed and discussed in the discussion section.
(2) Line 38：“exogenous antioxidants generally blunt 39 cell signaling responses that are favorable to exercise adaptations ” -- discuss this briefly with examples except vitamin C.
(3) Line 50-62：Please include specific quantitative relationships in this paragraph -- the exact extent and duration of the reduction of hydrogen ions on hydroxyl radicals (OH-) and peroxynitrite (ONOO₂)? The rate of ROS and NO combining to form ONOO₂? The dynamic relationship between NO and ONOO₂? If possible, incorporate some experimental data or research findings to support the arguments.
(4) Line 97-105：What are the definitions of high-intensity and low-intensity training? Are they defined by oxygen consumption? Exercise heart rate? Blood lactate levels? Is monitoring conducted during exercise?
(5) Although the author has clearly presented the experimental results involving various aspects of NO signaling, antioxidation, and anti-inflammation, I would suggest that the main headings of each research finding be summarized in a concise and conclusive manner, so as to meet the readers' expectations prior to reading.
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.