Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Colleagues,
the presented paper is structured logically, comprehensible and enjoyable to read.

However, the following minor points should be addressed:
-       Introduction, lines 44-47: I suggest to add other studies representative for young people living in Mediterranean areas such as Grecia, Italy, Portugal etc

• Sample population and study design: please add the years in which the research has been conducted.
• The data reported in this study do not contain information on potential confounders (e.g. socio-economic characteristics regarding the family of adolescents).
• The participants practice or not at least one sport? and /or how many hours in one day? What is the physical activity level? Sedentary, light, moderate….In the study, these informations were not reported.
• In the Discussion section the Authors should better discuss the relationships between MD adherence and weight status, citing recent pubblication such as De Santi et al, 2020, and to include information regarding the possible mechanisms through which components of MD may exert beneficial effects in the prevalence of obesity.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article deals with an interesting issue. The authors want to find out if the association between obesity and PA in children is mitigated by following the Mediterranean diet.

 

However, the specific variable relationship seems unclear. What exactly is the question to be clarified? What depends on what? Or is it a reciprocal relationship? Is PA dependent on obesity, or vice versa? Are adherence to MD and PA each independent variables or merely indicators of one latent variable? The argumentation implies a concrete direction of dependence of the variables. But other directions of effects are also conceivable.

The exact direction of the variable relationship should be clarified more precisely in theory. This should be adjusted accordingly in the introduction.

The statistical methods relate precisely to the hypotheses (note, however, the criticism noted regarding the foundation of the relationship of the variables)

The sample size is appropriate. A cross-section design was selected. However, the limitations of this design are adequately taken into account in the discussion. The test procedures used appear to be appropriate and also plausibly justified. With regard to the scales (PAQ-C; KIDMED), one could report the ranges of values as well as standard values or general averages in order to be able to estimate the values of the results.

 

On the whole, the results are clearly presented.

The criticisms already made about the relationships of the variables should also be taken up again in the discussion. This will ultimately decide which question has now been clarified exactly.

Based on the results, are there practical and concrete suggestions? Is it possible to specifically address a variable or do we only know something about latent variables (e.g. health consciousness), which are merely indicated by the measured variables?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revision - also based on the comments of the other reviewer - clearly improved the quality of the paper.
In my opinion, the revised version now submitted is now suitable for publication.