Review Reports - One Sprinter, Two Olympic Preparations: A Single-Athlete Longitudinal Observational Study of Training-Intensity Distribution and Implications for Future 50 m Events

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comment:

The study, entitled 'One Sprinter, Two Olympic Preparations: A Descriptive Analysis of Training Intensity Distribution and Implications for Future 50 m Freestyle Events", compared the training intensity distribution across two Olympic preparation cycles in a single elite sprinter. Futhermore, the study also investigated whether differences in high-intensity exposure coincide with variations in 50 m freestyle performance.

The manuscript presents a retrospective case analysis comparing the Olympic preparation cycles of an elite 50 m freestyle swimmer, which is a topic of clear relevance given the current interest in high-intensity training for sprint swimming. The paper is well organised, supported by an extensive reference list, and the authors clearly describe the characteristics of the participants, the training intervention and the performance assessments. This provides a coherent framework for understanding the purpose and design of the study. Overall, the work addresses a meaningful issue in sports performance and offers a solid basis for examining practical applications. While the study is well conducted, there is a number of methodological, analytical and structural issues limit its scientific robustness. These issues must be resolved before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Specific comments:

Methods:

Although the authors clearly define the intensity zones, the methodology lacks precision in several crucial areas.
Firstly, the determination of intensity relies on heart rate via carotid palpation, which introduces measurement error and compromises the reliability of the data. There is no discussion of the extent of this error or of why more accurate methods (e.g. heart rate monitors or lactate testing) were not used. This should be included in the study limitations.

Classification of series: it is unclear how mixed-intensity series or those involving progressive speeds were classified as Z1, Z2 or Z3. This aspect should be specified.

Despite the strong emphasis on high-intensity training, no objective measures of fatigue, neuromuscular status or internal load (e.g. HRV, well-being scales or biochemical markers) were used. This is a significant limitation, given the risk of overload in sprint athletes. Therefore, the lack of these parameters should be included in the study limitations.

Results:

Despite the results are complete in terms of data, they should be organised more simply. For example, the main differences between Rio and Tokyo (e.g. percentage change in Z3 and absolute versus relative volume differences) should be summarised more explicitly. Figures could include clearer captions and units to improve readability.
Some information appears redundant in the text, tables and figures.

Discussion:

The discussion section repeats several points that repeat the same concepts (e.g. the advantages of Z3, the limitations of Z1 and the risks of HIIT/SIT). Modify this aspect throughout the discussion.
Furthermore, the conclusion reiterates statements that have already been mentioned. Streamlining these sections would improve readability and scientific rigour.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your effort in improving our manuscript. We tried to address your comments and satisfy your suggestions.

C: Comment

A: Answer

C: The manuscript presents a retrospective case analysis comparing the Olympic preparation cycles of an elite 50 m freestyle swimmer, which is a topic of clear relevance given the current interest in high-intensity training for sprint swimming. The paper is well organised, supported by an extensive reference list, and the authors clearly describe the characteristics of the participants, the training intervention and the performance assessments. This provides a coherent framework for understanding the purpose and design of the study. Overall, the work addresses a meaningful issue in sports performance and offers a solid basis for examining practical applications. While the study is well conducted, there is a number of methodological, analytical and structural issues limit its scientific robustness. These issues must be resolved before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

A: We appreciate your recognition of our manuscript. We addressed your comments point by point, improving our manuscript.

Specific comments:

Methods:

C: Although the authors clearly define the intensity zones, the methodology lacks precision in several crucial areas.
Firstly, the determination of intensity relies on heart rate via carotid palpation, which introduces measurement error and compromises the reliability of the data. There is no discussion of the extent of this error or of why more accurate methods (e.g. heart rate monitors or lactate testing) were not used. This should be included in the study limitations.

A: In the revised version, we have clarified this limitation and the reason why more accurate methods were not utilized in the limitations section (lines 364 – 367 & 358 – 380).

C: Classification of series: it is unclear how mixed-intensity series or those involving progressive speeds were classified as Z1, Z2 or Z3. This aspect should be specified.

A: According to the coach, those kinds of sets were classified according to their HR. Therefore, they have been calculated in the respective zone.

C: Despite the strong emphasis on high-intensity training, no objective measures of fatigue, neuromuscular status or internal load (e.g. HRV, well-being scales or biochemical markers) were used. This is a significant limitation, given the risk of overload in sprint athletes. Therefore, the lack of these parameters should be included in the study limitations.

A: We agree. With your suggestions, we enriched the limitations section (lines 358-380).

Results:

C: Despite the results are complete in terms of data, they should be organised more simply. For example, the main differences between Rio and Tokyo (e.g. percentage change in Z3 and absolute versus relative volume differences) should be summarised more explicitly. Figures could include clearer captions and units to improve readability.
Some information appears redundant in the text, tables and figures.

A: We have organized the results, moving any interpretation into the discussion section. Also, we converted the units into km where it was necessary. Generally, we tried to depict the coach’s data in a manner that fits the concept of the information. Also, some information has been written in the text (eg, Figures 1 & 2), avoiding expanding the information into 3 or 4 figures. Also, the inclusion of a table inside the figure will repeat the information. In Figure 3, we inserted a label on the horizontal axis, explaining that it refers to the volume (in km). Tables 1, 2, and 3 have very specific information about the weeks of the macrocycles, the hours spent in each training modality, and the finals’ kinematics, respectively.

Discussion:

C: The discussion section repeats several points that repeat the same concepts (e.g. the advantages of Z3, the limitations of Z1 and the risks of HIIT/SIT). Modify this aspect throughout the discussion.

A: We have already ameliorated this repetitive information (lines 251 – 356).

C: Furthermore, the conclusion reiterates statements that have already been mentioned. Streamlining these sections would improve readability and scientific rigour.

A: We have given more aspects, differentiating its content from the discussion (lines 382 – 401).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

One Sprinter, Two Olympic Preparations: Descriptive Analysis of Training-Intensity Distribution and Implications for Future 50-m Freestyle Events

Authors unveil a captivating, pertinent single-case study. It contrasts the training intensity distribution TID of a top male 50m freestyle swimmer over two Olympic prep cycles Rio 2016 versus Tokyo 2021. This subject matter feels very current specially the recent Olympic addition of 50m non-freestyle races. The manuscript is mostly well-organised, and offers valuable uncommon insights into world-class sprinter training. Unfortunately, the study's huge constraints because of its single-case retrospective observational design aren't adequately lessened in the discussion section. Substantial changes needed to boost scientific accuracy, to situate the results in existing research plus ensure findings are framed cautiously and generate hypotheses rather than prescribing.

Major Comments: The abstract's conclusion reads "these observations support the idea that sprint-swim prep for 50-m events maybe benefit from emphasizing Z3 and lower Z1 volume." That’s a too bold statement for just a single-case study. Better rephrase it to highlight that observations hint at potential benefits or suggest the starting point for hypothesis testing in future researches.

Introduction: Introduction serves it's purpose, but last sentence on page 2 gets cut short "... aims to describe side by side the TID. and how, maybe, the alteration".

Do finish this sentence, please.

Consider briefly including a sentence plainly laying out the hypothesis or key research question this descriptive case study seeks answers for.

Methods

Section 2.2.1 Intensity Monitoring: Using manual carotid palpation for heart rate and subjective RPE is a noticeable weak spot, methodologically—as the authors finally admit. This part needs to call out these as limits of retrospective data gathering, right from the beginning.

Section 2.2.2 Statistical Analysis: Describing the kinematic analysis is pretty good. But for a single-subject case study, descriptive statistics basically means the reporting of raw data and numbers, like medians and percentages. Justify using SPSS. Clarify what descriptive analyses went beyond just sums and medians?

Results

Figures 1 & 2: The figures are easy to understand. Double-check that in the final draft, bar labels (Z1, Z2, Z3) link to the bars directly. A legend inside the figure would work.

Page 5 Line ~5: "confirming the track and field coaches’ and setting new aspects." This sentence, it's grammatically… wrong. Change it! (e.g., "confirming the track and field coaches' techniques and proposing fresh aspects.").

Table 2 & Text (Pages 6-7): The talk about Z2 training is interesting but kinda iffy.

The authors differentiate their discoveries from Barbosa et al. 2019, followed by offering a physiological explanation, right? Combining findings with interpretation like that is more fit for the Discussion portion. The Results part ought to simply present the observation like heavy Z2 usage avoiding too much interpretation.

Discussion:

The authors should greatly revise this section. It's really needed! They really ought to really look, explicitly at the single-case study's substantial drawbacks. Phrases like "The Tokyo 2021 macrocycle is usable as a guide for swimming coaches" from page nine is kind of overstated maybe wrong. We should rewrite as: "Though successful for this athlete the Tokyo 2021 macrocycle is more like, a example for further study and must not be blindly used without individualization, cautious monitoring.

Mechanisms are well discussed too (such as neuromuscular adjustments, lactate dynamics) it should be directly linked to supporting sources for sprinters athletes. For examples, talkin' about neuromuscular training cite work focused swimming and/or short-time strength sports like, González-Rave et al. , 2021 your reference 17 or Boccia et al. , 2018 your reference 34.

The Affonso et al. 2019 citation number thirty eight is spot-on. Be sure this mention is complete within the bibliography also since it's missing volume, number, etc.

The "Limitations" section is, at this moment, nestled inside the Discussion on top of Page 10. Let's make it its own formal Section 5: Limitations, distinct and standing alone. Also, this section must be expanded. Key aspects to highlight include these points.

The N=1 design complicates the generalization process, unfortunately. Data from the past can introduce bias, ya know, like in remembering or reporting. Missing from our view is objective monitoring of the body. Like lactate in blood, or tracking kinematics during training using GPS/IMU. Consider the impact of extra variables (athlete growth, tech improvements, competition plan) -- they could skew performance beyond TID effects. Besides that, the method for manually checking HR could have some impact as well.

Concerning the Conclusion, it echoes the abstract in some parts, a bit. To make it stronger, let's succinctly state the main thing we saw (that higher Z3 use in the Tokyo time frame linked to better results). Frame it strongly, like a first clue that starts the ball rolling for future, multi-athlete studies, with control! The very last sentence's good.

And Finally, the references: some in-text citations don't jive with the reference list, a real mess. Citations [26] and [27] on Page 3, ain't there. Must fix this! All citations need a reference entry, and vice-versa--each reference has to be used in the writing.

Minor Comments:

Page 1, Keywords: Add "case study" and "sprint swimming" as keywords.

Page 2, Introduction: "who can only swim 50m events instead of the front crawl." This phrase is unclear. Do you mean "who may now specialize in 50m events in strokes other than freestyle"?

Page 3, Section 2.1: "Concluding," is an odd transition. Use "Finally," or "In addition,"

Page 4, Section 2.3: "Descriptive statistics were implemented..." -> "Descriptive statistics were used..."

Page 5, Figure 1/2 Captions: Specify "Median weekly in-water training volume..."

Page 8, Table 3: The label for the 5th column of split times ("50 m") is missing. The "-" under Tokyo's split differences is confusing; consider removing that row or labeling it "Segment Time" more clearly.

Throughout: Please perform a thorough proofread for minor grammatical errors and article fluency (e.g., "In the only case report," -> "In the sole case report,"; "In the swimmer’s case," -> "For this swimmer,").

This manuscript holds a truly unique, valuable dataset. However, its main flaw is how the authors interpret findings from just one single case study. If the authors carefully soften the language used in the Abstract, Discussion, and Conclusion sections, and also add a dedicated Limitations section with totally accurate methodological descriptions and references the whole work could be transformed to a great strong case study ready for Sports publication, that will helps generating new hypothesis. The recommendations regarding further research are sharp, fitting, appropriate, and spot-on. I vote for Major Revisions, eagerly awaiting a more improved version of the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript needs of a professional proofereding service.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your effort in improving our manuscript. We tried to address your comments and satisfy your suggestions.

C: Comment

A: Answer

C: Authors unveil a captivating, pertinent single-case study. It contrasts the training intensity distribution TID of a top male 50m freestyle swimmer over two Olympic prep cycles Rio 2016 versus Tokyo 2021. This subject matter feels very current specially the recent Olympic addition of 50m non-freestyle races. The manuscript is mostly well-organised, and offers valuable uncommon insights into world-class sprinter training. Unfortunately, the study's huge constraints because of its single-case retrospective observational design aren't adequately lessened in the discussion section. Substantial changes needed to boost scientific accuracy, to situate the results in existing research plus ensure findings are framed cautiously and generate hypotheses rather than prescribing.

A: We appreciate your recognition of our manuscript. We addressed your comments point by point, improving our manuscript.

C: Major Comments: The abstract's conclusion reads "these observations support the idea that sprint-swim prep for 50-m events maybe benefit from emphasizing Z3 and lower Z1 volume." That’s a too bold statement for just a single-case study. Better rephrase it to highlight that observations hint at potential benefits or suggest the starting point for hypothesis testing in future researches.

A: We agree with your comment. We ameliorated our statements throughout the manuscript and specifically in the abstract’s conclusion (lines 28-35).

C: Introduction: Introduction serves it's purpose, but last sentence on page 2 gets cut short "... aims to describe side by side the TID. and how, maybe, the alteration".

Do finish this sentence, please.

A: We modified the aim of the study, providing complete information (lines 92-99).

C: Consider briefly including a sentence plainly laying out the hypothesis or key research question this descriptive case study seeks answers for.

A: Thank you for your suggestion. We have inserted a sentence which describes the hypothesis of our research (lines 95-99)

Methods

C: Section 2.2.1 Intensity Monitoring: Using manual carotid palpation for heart rate and subjective RPE is a noticeable weak spot, methodologically—as the authors finally admit. This part needs to call out these as limits of retrospective data gathering, right from the beginning.

A: We recognize this limitation, and we have discussed it from the beginning of the methodology, where it was depicted for the first time. Moreover, we have extended this part of the methodology, giving more insights into the measurements. Also, we have mentioned it in the limitations of the study at the end of the discussion (lines 132-138, 358 & 380).

C: Section 2.2.2 Statistical Analysis: Describing the kinematic analysis is pretty good. But for a single-subject case study, descriptive statistics basically means the reporting of raw data and numbers, like medians and percentages. Justify using SPSS. Clarify what descriptive analyses went beyond just sums and medians?

A: In the Statistical analyses, we describe in detail the descriptive analyses that we implemented (lines 163 – 169).

Results

C: Figures 1 & 2: The figures are easy to understand. Double-check that in the final draft, bar labels (Z1, Z2, Z3) link to the bars directly. A legend inside the figure would work.

A: Thank you for your consideration of our figures. We believe that an additional table inside will give information that is already depicted in the figure. Therefore, we decided to keep the figures in the present form.

C: Page 5 Line ~5: "confirming the track and field coaches’ and setting new aspects." This sentence, it's grammatically… wrong. Change it! (e.g., "confirming the track and field coaches' techniques and proposing fresh aspects.").

A: Thank you for pointing out this grammatical error. This sentence has been moved to the discussion section as follows (confirming the track and field coaches' training techniques and proposing innovative aspects for swimming coaches who implement exhausting, long-lasting macrocycles) (lines 252-258).

C: Table 2 & Text (Pages 6-7): The talk about Z2 training is interesting but kind of.

A: We appreciate your valuable comment. In the new version, we have modified the results section, and we have moved all of the interpretations to the discussion section (lines 251 – 356).

Discussion:

C: The authors should greatly revise this section. It's really needed! They really ought to really look, explicitly at the single-case study's substantial drawbacks. Phrases like "The Tokyo 2021 macrocycle is usable as a guide for swimming coaches" from page nine is kind of overstated maybe wrong. We should rewrite as: "Though successful for this athlete the Tokyo 2021 macrocycle is more like, a example for further study and must not be blindly used without individualization, cautious monitoring.

A: We appreciate your suggestion. We have modified the Discussion section, ameliorating the phrases that give an absolute answer (lines 251 – 356).

C: Mechanisms are well discussed too (such as neuromuscular adjustments, lactate dynamics) it should be directly linked to supporting sources for sprinters athletes. For examples, talkin' about neuromuscular training cite work focused swimming and/or short-time strength sports like, González-Rave et al. , 2021 your reference 17 or Boccia et al. , 2018 your reference 34.

A: We carefully utilized references that connect sprint ability and the mechanisms that we address. However, because swimming has a limited number of of that kind of studies , we tried to explain the possible mechanisms through more general studies on sprint and its influence on human physiology (lines 291 – 297, 305 – 315 & 334 – 345).

C: The Affonso et al. 2019 citation number thirty eight is spot-on. Be sure this mention is complete within the bibliography also since it's missing volume, number, etc.

A: We refreshed the reference list via Mendeley. So, we have the correct references between the text and the list.

C: The "Limitations" section is, at this moment, nestled inside the Discussion on top of Page 10. Let's make it its own formal Section 5: Limitations, distinct and standing alone. Also, this section must be expanded. Key aspects to highlight include these points.

A: We totally agree. We split the limitations into Section 5, and we expanded its content, considering your guidance. According to the swimmer’s growth, he was an adult. Also, the technique has already been mentioned in the limitations section (lines 358 – 380).

C: Concerning the Conclusion, it echoes the abstract in some parts, a bit. To make it stronger, let's succinctly state the main thing we saw (that higher Z3 use in the Tokyo time frame linked to better results). Frame it strongly, like a first clue that starts the ball rolling for future, multi-athlete studies, with control! The very last sentence's good.

A: We modified the conclusion, differentiating it from the abstract, and we kept the crucial findings and future perspectives of our study (lines 382 – 401).

C: And Finally, the references: some in-text citations don't jive with the reference list, a real mess. Citations [26] and [27] on Page 3, ain't there. Must fix this! All citations need a reference entry, and vice-versa--each reference has to be used in the writing.

A: We refreshed the reference list via Mendeley. So, we have the correct references between the text and the list.

Minor Comments:

C: Page 1, Keywords: Add "case study" and "sprint swimming" as keywords.

A: I have included “case study” and “sprint swimming” as keywords (lines 36 – 37).

C: Page 2, Introduction: "who can only swim 50m events instead of the front crawl." This phrase is unclear. Do you mean "who may now specialize in 50m events in strokes other than freestyle"?

A: Thank you for the clarification. I have modified the sentence in accordance with your suggestion (line 46).

C: Page 3, Section 2.1: "Concluding," is an odd transition. Use "Finally," or "In addition,"

A: Thank you for the suggestion. We have used “in addition” (line 116).

C: Page 4, Section 2.3: "Descriptive statistics were implemented..." -> "Descriptive statistics were used..."

A: We modified the verb (line 163).

C: Page 5, Figure 1/2 Captions: Specify "Median weekly in-water training volume..."

A: We have clarified the captions (Figures 1,2).

C: Page 8, Table 3: The label for the 5th column of split times ("50 m") is missing. The "-" under Tokyo's split differences is confusing; consider removing that row or labeling it "Segment Time" more clearly.

A: We modified the table. Also, we explained under the table what “-“ means (line 246).

C: Throughout: Please perform a thorough proofread for minor grammatical errors and article fluency (e.g., "In the only case report," -> "In the sole case report,"; "In the swimmer’s case," -> "For this swimmer,").

A: Thank you for your valuable contribution throughout our manuscript. We addressed the comments and any other parts that needed modifications.

C: This manuscript holds a truly unique, valuable dataset. However, its main flaw is how the authors interpret findings from just one single case study. If the authors carefully soften the language used in the Abstract, Discussion, and Conclusion sections, and also add a dedicated Limitations section with totally accurate methodological descriptions and references the whole work could be transformed to a great strong case study ready for Sports publication, that will helps generating new hypothesis. The recommendations regarding further research are sharp, fitting, appropriate, and spot-on. I vote for Major Revisions, eagerly awaiting a more improved version of the manuscript.

A: Thank you for believing in the importance of our work and for the opportunity to enhance the manuscript with your valuable comments. We have ameliorated the language throughout the manuscript, and we provided a detailed depiction of its limitations.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editor,

The manuscript presents a unique longitudinal case study comparing two Olympic preparation cycles in an elite sprinter, offering valuable insights but requiring substantial clarification before publication. While the topic is relevant, several methodological issues, particularly in the description of training quantification, ethical approval, and data handling, must be addressed to meet scientifical standards. The presentation of results is generally clear but would benefit from additional variability measures and improved consistency. The conclusions are interesting, yet some interpretations overreach the limits of a single-case design. Overall, the study has merit but necessitates moderate revisions to strengthen scientific rigor and reporting transparency.

Please find below my suggestions.

Page / Line	Suggestions
p.1, l.1–4	Add in the title that the study is a single-athlete longitudinal observational study.
p.1, l.12–29	Include study design, participant characteristics, limitations, and ethics approval.
p.2, l.33–46	Highlight the lack of studies comparing two Olympic cycles in the same athlete.
p.2, l.56–76	Add references supporting immunological and overreaching claims.
p.3, l.87–103	Add inclusion criteria, control of confounders (injury-free, no altitude), and training history.
p.3, l.100–104	Correct the ethics inconsistency; retain only the approved statement (CREC nº 563/2025).
p.3–4, l.110–127	Describe handling of missing data; validate HR and RPE procedures; add reproducible intervention details.
p.4, l.129–138	Add technical specifications for Kinovea, error margins, and reliability (ICC).
p.4, l.139–146	Justify use of descriptive statistics only; explain that inferential tests are unsuitable for single-case design.
p.5, l.151–158	Explain rationale for different macrocycle durations (Olympic calendar constraints).
p.5–6, l.175–188	Add variability measures (min–max or IQR) for training volumes.
p.6, l.189–210	Remove interpretation from the Results section; move to the Discussion.
p.6–7, l.213–223	Strengthen physiological justification for Z2 (Type IIa fibers, oxidative support).
p.7, l.224–248	Standardize units (km, hrs/week); clarify how training sessions were classified.
p.8, l.253–261	Specify whether race data are from semifinals or finals; include technical error of measurement.
p.9, l.262–270	Avoid causal language; replace with hypothesis-based wording (“suggests”).
p.9, l.271–277	Quantify the real increase in Z3 volume between the Rio and Tokyo cycles.
p.10, l.289–300	Add additional references regarding overreaching and physiological overload.
p.10, l.300–309	Clarify that lactate data were not collected in the study and derive values from literature.
p.11, l.322–334	Expand limitations section - measurement error, confounders, biases, and data precision.
p.14, l.462	If confirmed, delete the contradictory phrase “There is no Ethical approval issue” and maintain only the approved ethics statement.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you for your effort in improving our manuscript. We tried to address your comments and satisfy your suggestions.

C: Comment

A: Answer

C: The manuscript presents a unique longitudinal case study comparing two Olympic preparation cycles in an elite sprinter, offering valuable insights but requiring substantial clarification before publication. While the topic is relevant, several methodological issues, particularly in the description of training quantification, ethical approval, and data handling, must be addressed to meet scientifical standards. The presentation of results is generally clear but would benefit from additional variability measures and improved consistency. The conclusions are interesting, yet some interpretations overreach the limits of a single-case design. Overall, the study has merit but necessitates moderate revisions to strengthen scientific rigor and reporting transparency.

A: We appreciate your opinion about our manuscript and thank you for the constructive feedback. We have addressed your comment in detail, following your helpful table.

Page / Line	Suggestions
C: p.1, l.1–4	Add in the title that the study is a single-athlete longitudinal observational study.
A: p.1, l.1–5	Thank you for the suggestion. Now the title has been modified. “One Sprinter, Two Olympic Preparations: A Single-Athlete Longitudinal Observational Study of Training-Intensity Distribution and Implications for Future 50-m Events.”
C: p.1, l.12–29	Include study design, participant characteristics, limitations, and ethics approval.
A: p.1, l.14-35	We addressed your comments in the abstract, clarifying its content.
C: p.2, l.33–46	Highlight the lack of studies comparing two Olympic cycles in the same athlete.
A: p.2 & 3, l.53-54 & 90-91	We addressed your comment, showing the necessity for studies on the topic (l. 54-55) and the lack of studies comparing two Olympic cycles in the same athlete (l. 94-95).
C: p.2, l.56–76	Add references supporting immunological and overarching claims.
A: p.2, l.78 – 79	We have included two more references [25 & 27], explaining our statements.
C: p.3, l.87–103	Add inclusion criteria, control of confounders (injury-free, no altitude), and training history.
A: p.3, l.1011–115	Following your comment, we have included a detailed description of the exclusion criteria and the training data.
C: p.3, l.100–104	Correct the ethics inconsistency; retain only the approved statement (CREC nº 563/2025).
A: p.3 &15, l. 116-120 & 534-536	We have addressed the ethics inconsistency in both methodology and “Ethics Approval”.
C: p.3–4, l.110–127	Describe handling of missing data; validate HR and RPE procedures; add reproducible intervention details.
A: p.3–4, l.135–138	We addressed your comment, enhancing the content of the methodology.
C: p.4, l.129–138	Add technical specifications for Kinovea, error margins, and reliability (ICC).
A: p.4, l.158–161	We inserted technical specifications for Kinovea, addressing the possible error margins and reliability in many of its applications.
C: p.4, l.139–146	Justify use of descriptive statistics only; explain that inferential tests are unsuitable for single-case design.
A: p.4, l.163 – 164	Thank you for the comment. We improved the clarity of the statistical analysis section.
C: p.5, l.151–158	Explain rationale for different macrocycle durations (Olympic calendar constraints).
A: p.8, l.252-258	Thank you for your comment. We inserted a rational explanation for the different macro and mesocycle durations in the discussion section.
C: p.5–6, l.175–188	Add variability measures (min–max or IQR) for training volumes.
A: p.5–6, l.192-193 & 204 – 205	We inserted the min-max, clarifying the variability of the training volumes.
C: p.6, l.189–210	Remove interpretation from the Results section; move to the Discussion.
A: p.4-8, l.172–249	We deleted any interpretation from the results section. Thank you.
C: p.6–7, l.213–223	Strengthen physiological justification for Z2 (Type IIa fibers, oxidative support).
A: p.9, l.305–316	We enhanced the physiological justification for Z2. However, because of the contradictory results, we conclude that the topic needs further clarification.
C: p.7, l.224–248	Standardize units (km, hrs/week); clarify how training sessions were classified.
A: p.4,7 &7	We clarified the classification of the sessions (l. 179-178). Additionally, we converted all values in figures and tables to kilometers (l.234).
C: p.8, l.253–261	Specify whether race data are from semifinals or finals; include technical error of measurement.
A: p.7 &11, l.239 & 372-375	Thank you for your comment. We specify that the race data are from the finals. Also, because the race analysis was for only two events (50m for Rio and Tokyo), we did not conduct any technical error measurement. We inserted it as a limitation of our study.
C: p.9, l.262–270	Avoid causal language; replace with hypothesis-based wording (“suggests”).
A:	Thank you for the important comment. We tried to improve the language throughout the manuscript.
C: p.9, l.271–277	Quantify the real increase in Z3 volume between the Rio and Tokyo cycles.
A: p.8, l.260	We inserted the different Z3 values between the two Olympic games.
C: p.8, l.289–300	Add additional references regarding overreaching and physiological overload.
A: p.9, l.295–297	Thank you for pointing this out. We referred to it in the discussion section, inserting more references.

C: p.10, l.300–309	Clarify that lactate data were not collected in the study and derive values from literature.
A: p.10, l.342–345	Thank you for the comment. We clarified that we did not receive lactate data, and we inserted a range of lactate values for 50 m events.
C: p.11, l.322–334	Expand limitations section - measurement error, confounders, biases, and data precision.
A: p.10 & 11, l.358 – 380	We expanded the limitations section, inserting any additional limitations you kindly noted.
C: p.14, l.462	If confirmed, delete the contradictory phrase “There is no Ethical approval issue” and maintain only the approved ethics statement.
A:p.15 l.534-536	We modified the ethical approval section, including the correct information.