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.
Dear Authors,
I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication.
I would like to thank you for the time and effort dedicated to addressing the reviewers’ comments. I was particularly pleased with the quality of the peer-review process, and I believe that your work has significantly improved as a result.
Congratulations on this achievement, and thank you for the opportunity to be part of this process.
Best regards,
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jeremy Loenneke, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment
No comment
No comment
To the authors,
thank you for addressing my comments and making changes where appropriate, well done on this piece of work, it is good to see more applied experimental physiology work conducted in combat sports. This paper may provide useful guidance for judo coaches and practitioners.
Congrats!
Thanks,
Dr Chris Kirk
Dear authors, reviewers have made new suggestions. Please consider their comments before re-submitting a new version. Regards
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
No comment
No comment
No comment
To the authors,
Thank you for submitting the revised manuscript and making the required changes, especially to the statistical analyses. I think the data and the results are useful for coaches to better understand the effects of these types of training on judokas and provide some rationale for targeting physiological adaptations from technical training. There is still a key problem, however, with the description of the training intervention being ‘HIIT’. The training conducted does not qualify as HIIT due to the intensity only being >80% maxHR, which would make this training moderate intensity only. So corrections will need to be made to remove any reference to HIIT from the methods and discussion. The results still stand, but the reported adaptations are more likely caused by a greater amount of technical training and moderate intensity aerobic training completed by the Tori group, rather than any effect of HIIT.
Please make these changes, and I will be very happy to review the next submission of this work.
Kind regards,
Dr Chris Kirk
INTRODUCTION
Line 61: Typing error – “rest ratios”, I think this should read ‘work-to-rest ratios’.
Line 86: ‘SJFT’ has not been abbreviated upto this point, please provide the full term here and then the abbreviation.
Lines 88-90: thank you for responding to my previous comment about the use of the term ‘power’ and for clarifying how you are using this term in your work. Based on your explanation I would strongly recommend using the term impulse throughout instead of power. Whilst ‘power’ is most commonly used in a training context to describe force being produced efficiently or rapidly, the correct term would be impulse, and given this is an applied physiology paper I would recommend use of the most correct terms.
Lines 93-97: Several different terms are used interchangeably here – anaerobic power/anaerobic capacity; aerobic endurance/aerobic conditioning; recovery ability/faster recovery. Please use only one term for each to avoid confusion.
Lines 97-99: please provide a reference in support of these claims for the CMJ.
Lines 104: Please see this as an example for why ‘power’ in this context should be avoided – ‘power output’ is the rate at which work is performed measured in W. The efficient use of stored elastic energy is reflected in impulse.
Lines 107-108: please check the p value from the Detanico paper – p<0.06 wouldn’t neccessarilly be a significant result, as 0.055 would be less than 0.06 but would not be significant.
METHODS
Lines 140-147: Please ensure this section is written in the past tense.
Lines 163-167: I agree with the issues of using cardiopulmonary training in a sport specific setting is extremely challenging, especially in any grappling-based sport. I also very much agree that there using sports specific or game-based modes of training can be an effective method of ensuring aerobic and anaerobic training can be achieved. The issue here is that this training was conducted >80% maxHR, which is not classified as high intensity. Using a threshold of 80% maxHR would only ensure that the participants are in working within zone 2 (of the 5 zone model), or would be training around the first lactate threshold making this session moderate intensity only (please see Chapter 6 of this book: https://www.human-kinetics.co.uk/9781492575894/physiological-tests-for-elite-athletes/ ). As such, this protocol cannot be described as ‘HIIT’ (as this requires >95% max HR). Please alter this description to ‘intermittent training’ and remove all discussion of HIIT.
RESULTS
Tables: There are several variables where the p value is reported as 0.00 – a p value of absolute zero isn’t possible, so please change these to ‘p = < 0.01’.
DISCUSSION
I agree with the interpretation of the results showing that Uke training does not negatively affect performance in these tests. I disagree, however, that the results show that ‘HIIT’ leads to increased performance. Firstly, as previously discussed the training completed cannot be described as HIIT as it is only moderate intensity. Secondly, the greater improvements seen in the Tori group could be simply because they have performed more throws in total than the other group during the training period. All of the increased changes in performance seen in this group could be explained by improved technical skills, or neuromuscular adaptations (rather than cardiovascular). Equally, the improvements in SJFT performance in the Tori group could be explained by them doing more aerobic work during the intervention as the ‘HIIT’ sessions were likely conducted around the first lactate threshold.
So I think the discussion needs to be reframed slightly to address for the training intervention not actually being a ‘HIIT’ protocol, but still appearing to be valuable for causing positive adaptations. This would still be a worthwhile finding for coaches and judokas.
No comments. I recommend acceptance of the manuscript.
No additional comments
No additional comments
No additional comments
Dear Authors,
The reviewers have identified several critical issues that require your attention prior to the next round of review. The primary concerns revolve around the following aspects:
Terminology and Definitions: The use of HIIT (High-Intensity Interval Training) terminology and its definitions throughout the manuscript needs to be clarified and consistently applied.
Statistical Analysis: A revised statistical analysis is necessary to address the methodological concerns raised by the reviewers.
Methods and Rationale: The descriptions of the methodology and the underlying rationale for the study require further elaboration and refinement to enhance clarity and rigor.
We kindly request that you address these concerns in detail and provide a revised version of the manuscript accordingly. Your responses to the reviewers’ comments will be essential for the subsequent evaluation process.
Regards
No comment
The design of the research has flaws in the presence of confounds, and the main intervention potentially not meeting the requirements of 'HIIT' training. The statistical analyses are also inappropriate for the stated research question.
The raw data are provided, however the experimental design may not support the claimed findings, with the aforementioned presence of confounds and inappropriate statistical analyses.
To the authors,
Thank you for submitting this manuscript for review. This is an interesting piece of work, with a potentially useful discussion of the effects of training on the ‘Uke’. There are, however, multiple flaws and issues with the paper and the data as it currently stands. The training program used does not appear to meet the definition for ‘HIIT’ training (either the definition listed by the authors, or the Laursen & Buccheit definition). There is also the confounding variable of the strength training sessions being completed by the participants at the same time, meaning we have no idea if the observed changes were caused by the ‘HIIT’ training or the strength training. There are several vital details missing from the testing protocols. The statistical analyses used are not appropriate for the research question being asked.
Each of these vital issues will need to be resolved before I can recommend this manuscript proceed any further. Please address my comments and I will be happy to review the next version of this manuscript.
Kind regards,
Dr Chris Kirk
INTRODUCTION
Lines 33-34: Suggest avoiding the word ‘proves’ – we never prove anything, we only ever provide evidence for or against something.
Lines 38-42: I strongly suggest reviewing more up-to-date HIIT related literature given how much our understanding of this area of training has changed over the last decade. The substantial work is summarised and explored in Laursen and Buchheit (2019) - https://hiitscience.com/hiit-science-book-application/
Current evidence shows that for exercise to be ‘high intensity’ it needs to be above 90-95% of the athlete’s capacity, with this capacity being better measured using V̇O2max or their velocity at V̇O2max (vV̇O2max) due to the drift and inaccuracy of HR based methods.
There also needs to be consideration of the different types of HIIT: long HIIT (intervals of 2-5 mins @ 95-100% V̇O2max with recoveries of 1-2 mins); short HIIT (intervals of ≤2 mins at 100-120% of V̇O2max); repeated sprint training (‘all out’ intervals of 3-10s); sprint interval training (‘all out’ intervals of 20-30s); game based HIIT (performed using the skills of the sport). Given that this study appears to use a combination of these methods, the authors need to determine which types they are using for each stage of the intervention, and justify their use in relation to the changes seen in the data.
Lines 49-50: The activity is ‘intermittent’, but is the physiological response intermittent? Given that HR appears to be relatively stable during randori (https://journals.co.za/doi/epdf/10.10520/EJC48377 ), this would appear to be a key consideration for discussing the effects of HIIT.
Lines 53-55: Please consider whether the SJFT is more related to aerobic fitness, or more to anaerobic capacity and muscle buffering.
Line 63: Please confirm whether ‘power’ here is referring to the rate at which work is performed (measured in Watts), or whether the authors actually mean ‘impulse’ (the product of force x time). If this is being discussed in a training and performance aspect of improving the athlete’s ability to perform high force actions quickly, then please change this to impulse.
Line 78: Please avoid the term ‘explosive’. This is a meaningless term as humans do not explode. Please also reconsider using the term ‘power’ (the rate at which work is performed) here. Please use the correct term of ‘high impulse’ instead.
METHODS
Line 87: Was any kind of power analysis undertaken to determine the required sample size?
Lines 88-92: Please change ‘height’ and ‘weight’ to mass and stature in keeping with scientific convention and terms. Please also state whether the participants were male or female.
Lines 95-100: Please ensure that all statement are written in the past tense. Please also use the term ‘participants’ and avoid the term ‘subjects’.
Line 107: If this is the first time that the abbreviation ‘CMJ’ is being used please write it out in full before applying the abbreviation.
Lines 110-115: Please state how this training could be classified as ‘HIIT’ according to the either the specifications listed by the authors on line 39 (≥80% maxHR for 2-4 mins), or the specifications provided by Laursen & Buccheit (≥95% V̇O2max). Were the participant’s HR monitored during these sessions? If so, how were they monitored?
If these specifications were not met during these training protocols then this cannot be said to the ‘HIIT’. This would qualify as ‘intermittent training’, but not HIIT.
Were they instructed to complete each set of throws at a maximum intensity, or as many as they could in a certain time? If so then it could potentially be classified as ‘repeated sprint training’.
Table 1: This table is difficult to understand. Which of these sessions are being classed as the ‘HIIT’ sessions? Which groups were completing the strength training sessions on the Monday and Friday? If the participants are also completing strength training then how can we know if the changes reported are caused by the HIIT training or if they are caused by the strength training?
Lines 129: Please report the test-retest reliability here.
Lines 146: Please provide the equation used to calculate RSIMOD). Please list all the variables calculated and used in this study, please do not summarise them with ‘etc.’.
Line 147: How long was the recovery period between each CMJ? Did the participants have any familiarisation jumps? Were these jumps performed before or after the SJFT?
Lines 153-156: What time of day were these measurements made? Were the participants asked to fast or avoid fluids before these measurements? How were these measures standardised between testing days?
Lines 156-158: Please state exactly how this procedure was completed. How many trials did they perform? How long was the grip held for? Which hand did they use? Which variables were measured? What is the reliability of this equipment and this method?
Lines 161-167: Were the data evaluated for normality? Were the grip strength or body composition data not compared?
Lines 164-165: Please state which denominator was used for the Cohen’s d calculations.
The authors seem to have compared time points within groups, which will provide an indication of whether the measured variables changed for that group only. For us to understand whether or not there was any difference between the groups (and therefore whether the chosen training methods have any influence on performance) there needs to be a comparison between groups.
I strongly urge the authors to re-analyse these data using a repeated measures ANOVA between the three groups and the two sample points (with omega squared effect size). This is the only way of knowing whether the training intervention actually had any effect.
There are too many factors needing to be addressed before I can appropriately review the results or the discussion. Please address all of the above comments and changes and I will be happy to review this manuscript again.
TITLE
I recommend rewriting your title to reflect the main finding of your experiment. Although professionals recognize HIIT, please avoid using abbreviations in the title.
ABSTRACT
- Please add an introductory sentence to your abstract highlighting the importance of sport-specific high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in enhancing athletic performance. Why do you think this method could be beneficial for judokas? Build this sentence based on previous studies to highlight its relevance. It is essential to provide readers with the importance of your experiment in the opening sentence.
- The objective of the study is vague. Please rewrite it to define the purpose and scope of your research clearly. You have two goals. Clearly outline them.
- Provide age and anthropometric measures of the participants, including height and weight, as well as their levels (trained, professional, club-level, provincial-level, national-level, ....).
- You have already categorized your groups as UI and MU, so labeling them again as Tori and Uke may create confusion. Consider using consistent terminology to ensure clarity.
- Please mention the intensity of the HIIT intervention and rest periods (active, passive?).
- What is the reactive strength index modified (RSImod)? While we know it is a method for monitoring countermovement jump (CMJ) performance, you should clearly define it at the outset and explicitly state that CMJ performance will be reported using RSImod.
- You have also evaluated body composition measures. Please mention them here.
INTRODUCTION
L22, remove “ability” after agility.
L23-24, rewrite the sentence: The ability to repeatedly perform high-intensity intervals, enabling judokas to gain an advantage by knocking down opponents or securing holds on the floor, has become essential for achieving excellence in judo.
- At the start of the introduction, focus on two key aspects: 1) Defining high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and 2) Explaining its relevance as a practical training approach for judokas. Please elaborate on the specific characteristics of judo competition, linking them to the demands and benefits of HIIT. Finally, introduce your proposed intervention and its potential impact on judo performance.
- Remove general information, including yearly competitions required for qualification, etc. Focus on the main objectives.
- Provide a brief overview of the different types of HIIT. Then, based on the specific demands of judo competition, identify and justify the most suitable HIIT type for judokas.
- L38, there are various high-intensity interval training (HIIT) types, classified based on the duration and intensity of both the activity and rest intervals. Please provide a complete introduction to these HIIT variations, as your general statement does not sufficiently cover them.
- L41-42, HIIT consisting of the above... Use references related explicitly to sport-specific HIIT, particularly for judokas. Specify which performance measures have been evaluated.
- L43-45, Your study focuses on athletes, so avoid including information about recreationally active individuals.
- L50, remove “indeed” from the beginning of the sentence.
- L52, your study examines the effect of HIIT on SJFT and CMJ. Remove any references to unrelated physiological parameters, such as VO₂max.
- L52, If Franchini et al. [5] have already investigated judo-specific HIIT and its effectiveness in enhancing SJFT, what is the rationale for testing it again? Clearly explain the novelty of your study and how it extends or differs from previous research.
- L56-60, Please explain the significance of CMJ and SJFT in judo performance. Specify the parameters measured in SJFT and discuss how improvements in SJFT and CMJ contribute to success in judo competitions.
- L62-64, In this section, avoid discussing mechanisms unless your study explicitly investigates them. Instead, focus on the significance of the parameters under investigation.
- L64-67, You should emphasize the specific objectives of your experiment rather than making general comments about the overall study direction.
- L68-74, this paragraph is vague. You may re-write it as follows:
in Taiwan, only the top-performing first-grade collegiate judo athletes are chosen by coaches to compete in official matches, while other athletes are sparring partners. These sparring partners practice Ukemi (falling techniques) repeatedly during training. Ukemi is a key skill in judo that helps prevent injuries from falls and includes various types, such as Mae-ukemi, Ushiro-ukemi, Yoko-ukemi, and Forward Rotating Ukemi. However, the impact of practicing Ukemi on athletes' overall athletic performance has not been fully established. Understanding these effects could help coaches create more targeted and effective training programs for the upcoming season.
METHODS
- Include a “study design” section separated from the “participants” section.
- How did you determine the sample size? Did you use specific software, such as G*Power? If so, please include the relevant criteria used for the calculation.
- Was the habitual training of the participants the same? How did you assess their homogeneity? Were the participants' conditioning levels similar? Please explain how you evaluated this. This is crucial, as differences in participants' conditioning levels can impact adaptive outcomes and influence the statistical results and conclusions.
- Please rewrite the HIIT protocol to include the following information:
1. The habitual training of the participants, including frequency, duration, type, intensity, and total volume.
2. Detailed information about the HIIT program, such as the intensity of activity and rest, the duration of activity and rest periods, the number of sets, the number of repetitions per set, and the duration and intensity of rest intervals between sets. Also, specify the time of day and the days of the week (e.g., Saturday and Sunday) when the sessions were conducted.
3. How was the intensity of the HIIT monitored? Did you use methods such as RPE (Rating of Perceived Exertion) or lactate measurements?
4. The specific season of the annual training cycle during which the experiment was conducted.
- Rewrite the “Statistical analyses” section. Your analysis method is not relevant. You have three groups and must use ANOVA to compare their differences. More importantly, you have two levels and three groups. You should use a 2 × 3 (time × group) repeated measure ANOVA using the post-hoc test. More importantly, you have to test the distribution’s normality and homogeneity using the Shapiro-Wilk and Levene’s tests, respectively. Moreover, you have to mention the sample size calculation here.
RESULTS
- L170, re-write it as follows:
Table 2 presents body composition measures from pre- to post-training.
- L180, re-write it as follows:
Table 2 presents CMJ measures from pre- to post-training.
- In the section “results,” please mention time effects. Then, the magnitude of changes in different groups over the training period will be compared.
- Please mention F ratios, P values, and d.
DISCUSSION
This section requires significant revision. You should begin by clearly presenting the results for each variable, including the time effects (i.e., the changes within each group over time) and the group × time interaction effects (i.e., the differences between groups over time). After presenting the results, discuss the outcomes in the context of how HIIT influenced each variable under investigation. Compare your findings with previous studies to highlight consistencies or discrepancies in the results.
Additionally, potential mechanisms that could explain the observed outcomes should be considered. For example, if HIIT improved performance measures like SJFT or CMJ, explore how factors such as improved cardiovascular fitness, muscle recruitment, or neuromuscular adaptation might have contributed to these effects.
Finally, provide practical suggestions based on your findings. For example, if HIIT significantly enhanced specific performance metrics, you could recommend incorporating certain HIIT protocols into judo training routines to optimize athletic performance.
- Add a limitations section.
- Rewrite conclusions precisely according to your findings.
- Write Key points of your findings.
- Write a “practical applications” section.
- Ensure consistency in terminology throughout the manuscript to avoid confusion.
- Clarify the novelty of your study concerning existing literature, particularly on judo-specific HIIT.
- Provide more detailed information on the HIIT protocol, including intensity, duration, and rest intervals, for better study replication.
- Address the statistical analysis methods more thoroughly to ensure robustness in the conclusions drawn.
- Emphasize the importance of participant homogeneity in conditioning levels and how this could affect adaptive outcomes and statistical analysis.
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.