Review Reports - Relationships Between Dry-Land Load—Velocity Parameters and In-Water Bioenergetic Performance in Competitive Swimmers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks you for let me review your manuscript. Below I detail some specific comments that authors should address to improve the quality of their work:

Introduction

line 48. Add reference

paragraph 2: there are a low references and sentences about resistance training and the effect in swim performance. the author known the work of Muniz-Pardos "Nonspecific Resistance Training and Swimming Performance: Strength or Power? A Systematic Review" or Sadowsky et al. "Transfer of Dry-Land Resistance Training Modalities to Swimming Performance". In my opinion there are a lack of references about resistance training (dry-land).

Participants

Is it possible add the tier of swimmers¿? Justify the performance level of them.

2.3. load test

Indicate the velocity attained for 80%RM in bench press in smith machine, this velocity differs between poblations of sports. All participants lifted the same number of loads¿? Explain the decision to increment load between lifts (10kgs, 5kgs...).
2.4 Pool test
20 minutes between time trials, was there any re-warm up¿?

Limitations line 228

Maybe these correlations could be more significant if ballistic bench press load-velocity relationship were analyzed. It should be noted that in the neuromuscular profile evaluated, the bar slows down during part of the lifting motion. In other words, the propulsive phase of the lift does not represent 100% of the range of motion during attempts with light and moderate loads (<80% 1RM). This could be a potential area for future research.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer (1) – Detailed Report

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough analysis and constructive comments provided on our manuscript entitled “Relationships Between Dry-Land Load–Velocity Parameters and In-Water Bioenergetic Performance in Competitive Swimmers.”

We have carefully considered all remarks and revised the manuscript accordingly.

Below, we present a point-by-point response, clearly indicating the modifications made. All changes in the manuscript text were highlighted in yellow.

Reviewer Comments and Authors’ Responses

Introduction

Comment 1: “line 48. Add reference”

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this relevant remark. An additional reference has been included to support the argument presented at the corresponding line.

Modification implemented: addition of the reference Muniz-Pardos et al., 2021.

Participants

Comment 3: “Add the tier of swimmers and justify their performance level.”

Response:

We added a precise description of the swimmers’ performance tier. Participants were classified as regional to national level, in accordance with Tunisian and international standards for swimmers aged 15–17 years.

A justification of their performance level was incorporated into the Participants section, specifying: their official best race times; their training frequency (≥5 sessions/week); their regular participation in federation-sanctioned competitions.

Section 2.3: Load Test

Comment 4 : “Indicate the velocity attained at 80%RM; justify load increments (10 kg, 5 kg...) and whether all participants lifted the same loads.”

Response:

We clarified these aspects in Section 2.3.

The mean velocity at 80% 1RM was added (new sentence in the Methods section).

Load increments were systematically adjusted according to each participant’s strength level to maintain the validity of the load–velocity relationship: +10 kg when bar velocity remained >0.8 m·s⁻¹; +5 kg when velocity dropped below this threshold.

Participants did not lift identical absolute loads but rather the same relative loads expressed as percentages of their estimated 1RM, which is now explicitly stated.

Limitations (line 228)

Comment 6: “Correlations could be more significant if ballistic bench press velocity profile was used… bar slows down… propulsive phase not 100% ROM… consider as future research.”

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this very pertinent remark. A statement was added to the Limitations section, proposing future research using a ballistic bench press or bench throw protocol.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Background was sufficient to rationalize the need for this research; a clear, explicit purpose statement was provided. Methods was well organized but more information is needed in stats analysis section. Results, discussion, and conclusion were consistent with study purpose; more information is needed in results. Caution needs to be exercised related to conflating associations and cause/effect. Several word choice and word tense errors need to be attended to. See specific comments in the pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer (2) – Detailed Report

We have carefully considered all remarks and revised the manuscript accordingly.

Below, we present a point-by-point response, clearly indicating the modifications made. All changes in the manuscript text were highlighted in green.

Comments 1.

Response to Reviewer Comments

Thank you for your rigorous evaluation of our manuscript and for your comments that raise essential methodological points.

I wish to provide the following clarifications regarding your two main remarks:

Concerning "more information is needed in results."

We believe that the Results section currently presents all the fundamental statistical information required for a correlational study of this type. We report:

Descriptive statistics (mean ± SD) for all key variables (Table 1).

Pearson correlation coefficients (*r*) with their exact p-value for each tested relationship (Table 2).

The coefficient of determination (R², presented as the percentage of explained variance) from the linear regression models.

Figures illustrating the significant linear relationships.

These elements allow the reader to fully assess the strength, direction, and significance of the observed associations. The addition of further information (such as confidence intervals) could be considered, but we believe the presented data are complete and clear within the framework of our analytical objectives.

Concerning "Caution needs to be exercised related to conflating associations and cause/effect."

We entirely agree with the fundamental principle you raise. Our study is explicitly designed and presented as a cross-sectional and correlational study. At no point do we infer or claim a causal relationship.

Our language in the manuscript has been carefully chosen to reflect this limitation:

Title and Abstract: We use the term "Relationships," which is the standard term for describing correlational analyses.

Purpose: We clearly state that the study aims to "investigate the relationships" and "examine the relationships".

Analysis: We use exclusively correlational (Pearson) and regression analyses to describe associations.

Discussion: We primarily use language of association ("was strongly correlated with", "showed no significant association", "are associated with"). Mechanistic interpretations (e.g., the role of maximal force in supramaximal effort) are phrased as plausible interpretations based on existing literature and the observed relationships, and not as evidence of causality. We introduce them with phrases such as "This suggests that..." or "This aligns with...", which is a common and appropriate practice in the discussion of correlational studies.

The main conclusion of our work is that specific neuromuscular parameters are associated with specific physiological determinants of swimming performance. This conclusion is directly and strictly supported by our results. It paves the way for recommendations for future experimental research (as mentioned in our limitations) aimed at testing causal hypotheses, for example via targeted training protocols.

Comments 2.

Several word choice and word tense errors need to be attended to. See specific comments in the pdf.

Response to Reviewer Comment

We have carefully implemented all the necessary language revisions throughout the manuscript.

Thank you for helping us improve the clarity and precision of our writing.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for all the changes maded.

Author Response

Thank you for revising the manuscript

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All issues have been adequately addressed.

Author Response

Thank you for revising the manuscript