This is an interesting study with a good research question (although increasing repetitions during a mesocycle is a common recommendation for progressive overloading, as increasing the load every week is unrealistic for trained subjects).

I commend the authors for showing individual data points and having a strong statistical analysis which included variables not commonly considered.

However, I have a request for information that somehow is missing from this manuscript, but is essential for the present study and its practical applications.

I haven’t been able to find:

• the average number of repetitions per set at baseline and end for each group
• total load lifted per session/week or volume load at baseline and end for each group

It seems rather odd that a paper describing differences between groups performing either load or repetition progression doesn’t report any variable directly related to the training programs.

In other words, the authors should report the changes in repetitions and load in each group to better understand their results. Without this, it is impossible to determine how much each group progressed during the intervention.

For example, if one group was able to double the amount of repetitions performed with a given load, whereas the other group was only able to increase the load by small amounts while keeping repetitions the same, this would suggest that increasing repetitions is not an efficient way of progression (as both groups displayed similar increases in MT). Conversely, if load was increased significantly more than the number of reps with a given load (ie. higher volume load driven by load progression), then load progression during a mesocycle would be more inefficient than increasing reps. In the absence of volume load data, the interpretation of the results is problematic.

I thank the authors in advance for clarifying the above.