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.
Congratulations for meeting the publication standards of PeerJ
Dear authors, please consider the last comments of the reviewer.
I’m glad receive a revised version of the manuscript. Overall, this manuscript almost shows a fair enough level for publication, but there are still some works that need to do for a better version. Further revisions are needed.
no comment
no comment
General comments
1. Line 35-36, ‘a significant increase (p = 0.029)’.
2. Line 42-43, ‘and between Post-8-week Training and…’.
3. Line 44-46, The adaptation took place after the 8-week training. The adaptations to running barefoot were characterized by causing an increase…
4. Line 53-54, Giving the deadline year of the data (55 million practitioners in the United States). ’55 million’ rather than ’55 millions’.
5. Line 56, mainly in the lower limbs.
6. Line 59, remove ‘mainly’.
7. Line 82-83, barefoot running ‘produced’ on variables that affect plantar support.
8. Line 91, using abbr. TFC, FFP.
9. Line 92, ‘in its acute and chronic effect (20 min VS 8 weeks training of BFR)’.
10. Line 101, ‘The subjects were running regularly between 5 and 10 km per week’. Line 132, running at a self-chosen speed.
Why the authors replied that the subjects had no experience as runners?
In this case, why the 20 min acute running did not use the same speed (self-chosen speed).
11. Line 133, delete ‘during eight weeks’, as it is duplication.
12. Line 157-158, line 162-163, change the sentence order as: It was considered as a valid attempt only when the three judges gave their approval and five valid attempts were recorded for each foot of the subjects.
13. Line 188, Showing the classification of ES.
14. Giving the subtitles for results for the clarity purpose.
15. Adding the calculated ES values to the results.
Three reviewers generally provided positive comments about your manuscript. Authors should clarify in the manuscript several methodological aspects following the specific comments of the reviewers.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in an appropriate rebuttal letter, and please ensure that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the rebuttal letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript (where appropriate). Direction on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
References
References in the main document should be revised.
Method
The 8-week training should be better explained. For instance: Who watched the runners perform every minute of the training? It has been controlled? Have they been done individually or in groups?
line 205: It is said that the participants have no experience in barefoot running but they appear not to be experienced in running too with only 5 to 10 kms a week. The mentioned adaptations could be part of the changes produced by the adaptation to the race and training, and not to the barefoot running?
line 126: The running speed in the test was 3.1 m·s. It is well known that the speed and fatigue influences the foot strike. If participants are not experienced runners, How does it was taken in account? Not all runners are comfortable with the same running paces or volumes.
line 145: At the end of the 8 weeks protocol, How was the measurement? It is supposed that the participants ran again the 20 minutes in the treadmill as the accutte changes protocol.
line 155: It seems that when the data is taken in 15 meters of stroke with the baropodoscope, the initial running conditions on the treadmill change (f.e. the 5% slope) Could that affect the data?
line 156: “A music guide was used to indicate to the subjects at what time they had to start running and at what time they had to put their feet on the platform”. This part of the protocol should be further explained. What is the role of music exactly?
line 159: “...when the natural running mechanics was not altered (in step frequency and amplitude)”. How has the amplitude and stride frequency been controlled?
line 199: The mortality of the sample is quite high. Why was it?
line 205: If there are no significant differences between dominant and non-dominant feet, could it be better to present the data of the average of both feet?
Dear authors, first of all, I congratulate you on the manuscript. I have listed some general comments below for your consideration. Please consider them as constructive recommendations to enrich your study.
no comment
no comment
no comment
This manuscript entitled “Plantar support adaptations in healthy subjects after eight weeks of barefoot running training” primarily aimed to analyze the modifications undergone by the Total Foot Contact phase and its Flat Foot Phase in subjects beginning the practice of barefoot running, in its acute and chronic effects. The authors bring an interesting study, but there are still some problems that can not up this review to a publishing level. Some suggestions are listed in the specific comments below.
Specific comments:
1. In the abstract section, line23-24, delete ‘20.0 ± 1.5 years, 70.9 ± 10.4 kg of body weight, 1.7 ± 0.1 m tall, and a BMI of 24.1 ± 2.5 kg•m²’. Line 46, remove ‘and not in an acute manner’.
2. Too many abbreviations in this manuscript, abbr such as ‘duration of TFC (DTFC)’ is unnecessary.
3. In the introduction section, line 59, 30%-75%. Line 81, make revise for ‘of activity electric muscular activity’.
4. Line 82, ‘plantar pattern was modified from the hindfoot to the forefoot’. It should be noticed that the change from the hindfoot to the forefoot is the foot strike pattern, not the plantar pattern.
5. In the methods section, ‘activity, aged 20.0 ± 1.5 years, 70.9 ± 10.4 kg body weight, 1.7 ± 0.1 m tall, and a body mass index (BMI) of 24.1 ± 2.5 kg•m-².’ Is the demographic info for men, women or all subjects, please make it revised.
6. Line 118, 134, acute effect protocol, chronic effect protocol
7. Line 120, 126, ‘for’ instead of ‘during’, with a slope of 5%. Line 131, these trials.
8. Line 137, why all participants chose the self-chosen speed in their training sessions?
9. Line 159, I recommend the authors rewrite ‘from the images obtained of the support’ to make it more understandable.
10. Line 183, which t-test was used for the statistical analysis? Effect size. Line 195 the statistical analysis software SPSS.
11. In the results section, line 199-203, remove it from ‘results’ or it can be briefly described in the methods. Was it only 2 people who suffered the sole abrasions and bruises? As on one have previous experience of barefoot running. Line 205-207, should be written in the methods part.
12. I suggest the authors trim down the results section.
13. Please check the language and grammar mistakes throughout the whole article to improve clarity.
14. The reference format needs some adjustments.
15. Full-long lines is needed for table 1,4.
The article presents a clear experimental approach to understanding the adaptations due to barefoot running in a 8 week period. The specific outcomes and conclusions are clear and relevant to the larger knowledge pool.
While in certain sections of the paper, the English could be improved to keep the flow clear, overall the paper is written and presented well.
The design of the experiment is comprehensive and the statistical analysis is sound.
Findings are valid and the statistical analysis carried out is appropriate and detailed.
The language can be improved in certain sections and the meaning of certain phrases can be improved on
Suggested modifications
line 26, at the end 'of' a running
Please clarify the following;
line 38-39, what is meant by "the last evaluation values"
line 77, what "that practice" refers to
line 80, sentence is too long and tends to lose meaning. Simplify sentence
line 88, 'hat' should be' that'
line 97, significance of 8 weeks in the context of this study
line 335-339 Sentence can be written shorter and clearer
Figure 2B Y axis (% label is missing)
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.