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,
The reviewer panel appreciated your efforts for doing the needful to improve the quality of the manuscript and recommended the manuscript to be accepted in its current form. Please note, this is only the editorial acceptance and needs some tasks to be completed before its publication in PeerJ. Please be available for few days to avoid any delays.
All the best for your next publications.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Mike Climstein, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
good
good
good
thank yo for responding to my comments
Dear Authors,
Our reviewers appreciate your efforts for the improvements in the manuscript but still feels some points to be addressed. Please do the needful and resubmit at earliest.
All the best
meets standards
meets standards
meets standards
Comment 1
In the inclusion criteria, testosterone as an end variable... serum only? Serum or plasma? Serum, plasma, or saliva? Homogenised tissue?
Likewise, total T only, free-T as well? Please be specific. In the table, 'blood' is insufficient. Serum/plasma would be preferred.
Response: First, we are delighted to receive your positive feedback on this paper. Thank you for your detailed suggestions. We have made revisions and additions to address your concerns in the section “Characteristics of Included Studies” and in Figure 1.
There is none of this information in figure 1 (PRISMA). The information is in the text though, so thank you.
The authors have done a nice job of amending their paper and improving the clarity based on feedback. Thank you for making the suggested changes.
Congratulations again on an interesting study.
No further comments
No further comments
Dear authors,
After analyzing the comments from our reviewers, I would like to ask you to revise your manuscript and resubmit. It is very important to address all the issue raised or if you do not agree with them, then please justify your stand.
All the best
**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.
Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
Professional article structure, figures, and tables. Raw data shared.
Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.
Please check the referencing format, which currently has no space before the opening of the brackets (probably used a reference manager).
In the inclusion criteria, testosterone as an end variable... serum only? Serum or plasma? Serum, plasma, or saliva? Homogenised tissue?
Likewise, total T only, free-T as well? Please be specific. In the table, 'blood' is insufficient. Serum/plasma would be preferred.
There are no results... where is the change in T?
Introduction:
Scholars are increasingly concentrating on the dynamic variations of testosterone during
87 post-exercise recovery. Despite the circadian regularity of testosterone secretion, which peaks
88 between 05:30 and 08:00 and thereafter declines to a minimum over 12 hours(Brambilla et al.
89 2009). My understanding was that testosterone peaked later: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/496034/; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20560706/; https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5048541/
For instance, O’Leary et al.(O’Leary & Hackney 2014) documented a persistent
96 elevation in testosterone levels following resistance training, but Hayes et al.(Hayes et al. 2015)
97 saw no significant alteration in testosterone levels post-exercise. D’Andrea et al.(D’Andrea et al.
98 2020) posited that low-intensity exercise does not affect testosterone concentrations;
99 Nevertheless, extended low-intensity exercise may lead to a substantial increase in testosterone
100 levels (Galbo et al. 1977). You may wish to consider whether increases are biologically significant: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13105-014-0368-6
In training monitoring, blood testosterone serves as a
107 crucial indicator of the body’s anabolic potential, with its fluctuations illustrating the body’s
108 response to exercise load. The work of Stu Philipps' lab would disagree: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19910330/; https://journals.lww.com/acsm-essr/fulltext/2024/10000/hormones,_hypertrophy,_and_hype__an.2.aspx. My understanding is that there is minimal evidence that endogenous increases in T result in superior adaptation.
The main issue is that there are no results evident. i.e., the increase in T
I commend the authors on their work. This is an interesting and, overall, well-written manuscript. However, some points could improve the manuscript. For example, the fact that they could not carry out a meta-analysis is not reported, but it could be solved by including the information in the methodology section. Moreover, the discussion and conclusion are well constructed, but I would suggest justifying some of the findings by adding the revised manuscript and basing the discussion on the outcomes revised in some of the subsections. I hope the authors find my feedback helpful.
Title
Please, include the target population.
Abstract
Line 25: I would not put “more significantly”. Something is significant or not. Moreover, I do not understand why “the recovery period is extended following resistance training”. Please, rewrite it to better understand.
Line 30-32: I would not include point number 3) as a result because it is something known. I would include something related to the levels of testosterone found in males and females.
I would also include, if the journal and the number of characters allow it, that the meta-analysis could not be performed and why.
Introduction
In general, I would reorganise the information because I feel a little lost when you first talk about something, then you change the topic, and finally, you come back to comment on something related to the first thing.
For example, I would include in the first two paragraphs what testosterone is, where it is produced in males and females, and what happens in a young, an adult, and an older population with their levels. Then, what are the functions of testosterone? Then, I would introduce exercise, the type of exercise, and testosterone levels. And finally, the objective and hypothesis of the study.
Line 78: HPG is first mentioned here. Please, define it.
Lines 95-98: There are some references along the manuscript that are not correctly written (D’Andrea et al.(D’Andrea et al.98 2020). I know that it is free format, but take it into consideration before publication.
Lines 118-121. I would include the objective of the study as mentioned in the abstract section.
The design is correct, but I would include something about the meta-analysis and why it was not possible. Moreover, I have a few queries about the research design:
Methodology
Line 128 (Search strategy): The primary databases are included, but I think that it could be interesting to include Sport Discuss when talking about Sport Sciences.
Line 130: Could it be possible to update the search until September? I know that the publication process is sometimes difficult, but 6 months is a very long period considering the actual publication rates.
Line 139: I have not revised all the included studies, but I think that it is important to establish that the population was healthy (or did they include the population with some kind of disease?) and that you included all the age ranges, females, and males.
Line 141: I think that publications not in English could not be a correct exclusion criterion. Instead, I would include as an inclusion criterion that the papers were included in the JCR.
Line 149: Please, be consistent with the terms used. For example, in the intervention details, you have included “kind of exercise” and in Table 1 is defined as “type of exercise”.
Line 150: I would substitute the term “exercise experience” for “training status,” or “participant training level,” or something similar.
The conclusions are in accordance with the data. However, the discussion needs some improvements, although it raises some interesting points.
Results
Line 177 (Table 1): Regarding Table 1, I think that it could be improved if the following points are taken into consideration:
- I would include how many males and females participated in the control and the intervention group.
- The classification of the participants is a little bit ambiguous. I recommend that the authors follow the instructions provided by this manuscript (McKay, A. K., Stellingwerff, T., Smith, E. S., Martin, D. T., Mujika, I., Goosey-Tolfrey, V. L., ... & Burke, L. M., 2021). Defining training and performance caliber: a participant classification framework. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 17(2), 317-331) to classify them.
- I would include a column indicating the main result of testosterone for each group or something like that.
- VO2max: put the 2 as a subindex.
Lines 177-202: I think that it could be interesting to include in the text, as a characteristic of the included studies, the population (gender and age), the level of training of the participants, and how the testosterone was quantified (blood, saliva…). I know that these data are included in Table 1, but a summary could be very informative.
Discussion
Line 234: Are “Exercise patterns” the same as “exercise kind” and “exercise modalities”? Please, revise it and be consistent throughout the manuscript.
In general, the discussion is well performed, but I miss some information about the manuscripts reviewed. For example, in the sample origin section (blood or saliva), you do not mention all the manuscripts that analyse testosterone through both methodologies, or if you have found differences between the studies that only analysed testosterone by blood or saliva analyses. In the effect of age section, you do not mention the studies performed in teenagers (Knatauskaite et al.). Thus, I would rewrite the discussion section to mix the results obtained by the manuscripts that you have revised with some additional information.
Line 325: DHEA is not defined.
Line 365: SHBG is not defined. Please, revise all the abbreviations.
I miss some information about when testosterone levels should be taken after exercise. Immediately after? After 1 hour? Or does it depend on the exercise modality, gender, and age? Or maybe it is impossible to determine due to the disparity of methodologies?
A limitation section should be included (and probably you could include here the impossibility to perform the meta-analysis).
Conclusion
Line 379: Isn't the sample origin a heterogeneity problem?
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.