Somatometric, Training, and Behavioral Profiles of Resistance Training Practitioners and Recreational Exercisers in Greece: A Multivariate Comparative Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review and submit my review of the scientific article: Somatometric, Training, and Behavioral Profiles of Resistance Training Practitioners and Recreational Exercisers in Greece: A Multivariate Comparative Study. Please find my conclusions, suggestions, and comments below. First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors of the submitted scientific publication on examining a large study group. The authors examined 1,187 people, divided by gender.

1. The abstract meets all the requirements for a scientific publication in the MDPI journal.
   
   
2. Introduction. Please explain why the authors write about the definition of physical activity. We know the definitions of physical activity and there is no need to describe it. Instead of paragraphs 50-57, I would focus more on the research problem of the scientific work. In addition, lines 96-97 do not contribute anything to the topic of the work. Please remove them. The introduction also lacks citations, e.g., lines 129-138.
   
   
3. Materials and methods. This section is very long. I suggest shortening it and including only the most relevant information. Lines 187-193 and 224-232 are unnecessary.
   
   
4. The research results are presented very reliably and I have no comments on this section.
   
   
5. I suggest modifying the discussion sections. I would move lines 590-600 to the end of this section as a summary.
   
   
6. Citations. Below are the gaps in individual citations: 4, 5 - pages missing, 6 - publication from 1984, and 7 - from 1949. Please explain whether there are any more recent scientific publications. 24, 52, 67, 78 - pages missing.

Author Response

sports-4094667

Response to Reviewer 1

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. We have addressed every point raised with precision and respect for the reviewer’s suggestions, revising the manuscript thoroughly to enhance clarity, methodological transparency, and alignment with the study’s aims. The revised version incorporates substantial improvements in structure, language, and interpretive caution, including reductions in length, refinement of conceptual definitions, clarification of methodological limitations, and strengthened justification of analytical choices. We believe that these revisions have significantly improved the quality and coherence of the manuscript. A detailed, point‑by‑point response follows below.

Comment 1

“The abstract meets all the requirements for a scientific publication in the MDPI journal.”

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this positive comment.

 

Comment 2 – Introduction: removal of unnecessary definition, removal of lines 50–57 and 96–97, and addition of citations in lines 129–138

Reviewer Comment:

Please explain why the authors write about the definition of physical activity. There is no need to describe it. Instead of paragraphs 50–57, focus more on the research problem. Lines 96–97 do not contribute and should be removed. The introduction also lacks citations (e.g., lines 129–138).

Author Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading of the Introduction and the opportunity to clarify these points. The sections previously corresponding to lines 50–57 and 96–97 did not present a definitional paragraph on physical activity but rather summarized well‑established evidence regarding health‑related outcomes of exercise and introduced the operational definition of recreational exercise used in the study. These elements are necessary for framing the research problem and for specifying how key variables are conceptualized within our analytical approach; therefore, they were retained in a streamlined form to improve clarity and focus.

Regarding the comment on lines 129–138, this subsection synthesizes the preceding literature and articulates the rationale leading to the formulation of the study hypotheses. Its function is to integrate, rather than expand, the theoretical background, and for this reason additional citations were not required. The structure of the section has been preserved to maintain coherence and a clear transition toward the hypotheses.

Nonetheless, we revised the Introduction to enhance flow, reduce redundancy, and ensure a more direct alignment between the background literature and the study’s aims. These adjustments strengthen the clarity and relevance of the introductory framework while addressing the reviewer’s concerns.

 

Comment 3. Materials and Methods – section too long; remove lines 187–193 and 224–232

Reviewer Comment:

This section is very long. Please shorten it and remove lines 187–193 and 224–232.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this comment and re‑examined the indicated sections of the Materials and Methods. The lines referenced (former 187–193 and 224–232) contain the operational definition of recreational exercise and the description of the validated Muscle Dysmorphia Inventory (MDI), respectively. Both elements are essential for methodological clarity, as they specify the criteria used for group classification and the characteristics of the standardized instrument employed in the study. For this reason, these sections have been retained.

Nevertheless, the Materials and Methods section has been streamlined by removing redundancies and condensing non‑essential descriptions to improve readability and alignment with MDPI guidelines.

 

Comment 4. “The research results are presented very reliably and I have no comments on this section.”

We thank the reviewer for this positive evaluation.

 

Comment 5. Discussion – move lines 590–600 to the end as a summary

Reviewer Comment:

I suggest moving lines 590–600 to the end of the Discussion as a summary.

Author Response:

We appreciate this suggestion. The indicated lines have been relocated to the end of the Discussion, where they now serve as a concise concluding synthesis. This improves the structure and flow of the section.

 

Comment 6. Citations – missing page numbers; outdated references

Reviewer Comment:

Citations 4 and 5: pages missing.

Citations 6 and 7: very old publications (1984 and 1949). Please explain whether more recent publications exist.

Citations 24, 52, 67, 78: pages missing.

 

Response to Reviewer 1 – Comment 6

We thank the reviewer for identifying inconsistencies and missing information in several references. All issues raised have been fully corrected.

References 4 and 5 have been updated to include complete publication details, including publisher, city, and country.

References 6 and 7 were removed, as they belonged to an earlier draft and were not relevant to the final scope of the manuscript.

Reference 24 has been updated with complete publisher location information.

Reference 52 has been corrected to the appropriate MDPI format for a Master’s thesis, including university, city, and country.

Reference 67 has been updated with the full URL and access date, following MDPI guidelines for websites.

Reference 78 has been updated to include publisher, city, and country.

All missing metadata have been added, all incorrect formats have been corrected, and the reference list now fully complies with MDPI citation requirements.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript “Somatometric, Training, and Behavioral Profiles of Resistance Training Practitioners and Recreational Exercisers in Greece: A Multivariate Comparative Study” addresses an important and under-researched population (Greek adult exercisers) and integrates somatometric, behavioral, and socioeconomic variables using multivariate methods. The sample size is strong, and the attempt to combine comparative statistics with cluster analysis is commendable. Nevertheless, the manuscript suffers from several important points. Below, I detail several specific concerns about the manuscript:

1. The manuscript suffers from scope inflation, attempting to address too many hypotheses, outcomes, and analytical layers simultaneously, which dilutes its core scientific message and necessitates a clear decision on whether the paper is fundamentally about exercise modality differences, substance-use risk profiling, or socioeconomic determinants of training behavior.
2. The study lacks a clear conceptual framework linking variables (BMI, income, substance use, competition) into a coherent explanatory model.
3. Although the manuscript repeatedly acknowledges the limitations of BMI in resistance-trained populations, it nonetheless treats BMI as a primary outcome and risk indicator without adjustment for lean mass, fat percentage, or training volume, relying on the unmeasured assumption that elevated BMI reflects muscularity rather than adiposity.
4. Because substance use was assessed exclusively through self-report for highly stigmatized behaviors and yielded a complete absence of reported female steroid use, the findings are likely affected by substantial underreporting and gender-specific disclosure bias, limiting the validity of prevalence estimates and group comparisons.
5. Several logistic regression models exhibit low explanatory power (Nagelkerke R² ≈ .07–.10) and, in the case of competition participation, perfect specificity but zero sensitivity, indicating severe outcome imbalance and rendering the model of limited scientific utility despite statistical significance.
6. In the cluster analysis description it is not fully clear to a general or even disciplinary reader what is meant by the “elbow method” and “dummy-coded”, as both terms are used without definition, citation, or brief explanation; for clarity and reproducibility, the authors should explicitly state that the elbow method refers to selecting the number of clusters based on the point of diminishing returns in within-cluster variance, and that dummy coding involves transforming categorical variables into binary indicator variables for inclusion in the analysis.
7. The manuscript is excessively long and redundant, with repeated explanations and an overextended discussion that substantially reduce readability and weaken its editorial suitability.
8. Manuscript does clearly present the division of participants into comparison groups, distinguishing between resistance-training practitioners and recreational exercisers, and this classification is explicitly defined and consistently applied throughout the Methods and Results sections; however, the reliance on self-reported training orientation without objective verification or finer gradation of training practices limits the conceptual precision of this grouping and should be acknowledged more critically. It is not sufficiently clear from the manuscript how participants who engage in yoga, Pilates, or functional group training sessions should be classified, as these activities are not explicitly mapped onto either the resistance-training or recreational categories, creating ambiguity in group assignment for subjects whose training does not fit neatly into the stated definitions.
9. The figure is only partially informative, as it visually summarizes the analytical steps or cluster profiles but adds little beyond what is already described in the text, while insufficient labeling, lack of quantitative detail, and absence of effect-size or validation indicators limit its standalone interpretability and scientific value.
10. The reporting of training frequency and training duration lacks clarity, as the manuscript and tables do not consistently specify the units of measurement (e.g., sessions per week, hours per session, minutes per session), making it difficult to accurately interpret and compare training exposure across groups (table 2).
11. The same lack of clarity applies to Table 3, where several variables are presented without explicit specification of their data units or coding scheme, including education level (e.g., what constitutes “University” versus “Master”), weight history (time frame and operational definition), and double training (whether this refers to two sessions per day, per week, or another unit), which undermines interpretability and reproducibility and should be clarified either in the table notes or the Methods section.
12. Figure 2 provides a high-level visual summary of the cluster centers, but its scientific utility is limited because the axes, scales, and underlying metrics are insufficiently explained, making it difficult to interpret the magnitude and practical meaning of differences between clusters. In particular, the use of standardized Z-scores without reporting the original units or variable ranges, the absence of exact cluster means, and the lack of information on cluster stability or validation reduce the figure’s standalone interpretability and risk overinterpretation of descriptive patterns.
13. Several typographical, spacing errors (e.g., missing spaces, inconsistent units, text style and spacing) and citation mistakes are notable (e.g. line 72).
14. The English language is generally understandable and academic in tone, but it contains frequent grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, inconsistent terminology, and overly long sentences, which reduce clarity and readability and indicate the need for thorough professional language editing before publication.
15. The references are generally relevant and up to date, but unfocused, with redundant citations, uneven source quality, and several references that are only weakly aligned with the study’s variables and analyses, indicating a need for pruning and tighter theoretical alignment. I would suggest authors including more recent studies and reviews, particularly those published within the last 5–10 years (just 39 published in 5 recent years). Moreover, not all the references presented according to journal requirements.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript “Somatometric, Training, and Behavioral Profiles of Resistance Training Practitioners and Recreational Exercisers in Greece: A Multivariate Comparative Study” addresses an important and under-researched population (Greek adult exercisers) and integrates somatometric, behavioral, and socioeconomic variables using multivariate methods. The sample size is strong, and the attempt to combine comparative statistics with cluster analysis is commendable. Nevertheless, the manuscript suffers from several important points. Below, I detail several specific concerns about the manuscript:

1. The manuscript suffers from scope inflation, attempting to address too many hypotheses, outcomes, and analytical layers simultaneously, which dilutes its core scientific message and necessitates a clear decision on whether the paper is fundamentally about exercise modality differences, substance-use risk profiling, or socioeconomic determinants of training behavior.
2. The study lacks a clear conceptual framework linking variables (BMI, income, substance use, competition) into a coherent explanatory model.
3. Although the manuscript repeatedly acknowledges the limitations of BMI in resistance-trained populations, it nonetheless treats BMI as a primary outcome and risk indicator without adjustment for lean mass, fat percentage, or training volume, relying on the unmeasured assumption that elevated BMI reflects muscularity rather than adiposity.
4. Because substance use was assessed exclusively through self-report for highly stigmatized behaviors and yielded a complete absence of reported female steroid use, the findings are likely affected by substantial underreporting and gender-specific disclosure bias, limiting the validity of prevalence estimates and group comparisons.
5. Several logistic regression models exhibit low explanatory power (Nagelkerke R² ≈ .07–.10) and, in the case of competition participation, perfect specificity but zero sensitivity, indicating severe outcome imbalance and rendering the model of limited scientific utility despite statistical significance.
6. In the cluster analysis description it is not fully clear to a general or even disciplinary reader what is meant by the “elbow method” and “dummy-coded”, as both terms are used without definition, citation, or brief explanation; for clarity and reproducibility, the authors should explicitly state that the elbow method refers to selecting the number of clusters based on the point of diminishing returns in within-cluster variance, and that dummy coding involves transforming categorical variables into binary indicator variables for inclusion in the analysis.
7. The manuscript is excessively long and redundant, with repeated explanations and an overextended discussion that substantially reduce readability and weaken its editorial suitability.
8. Manuscript does clearly present the division of participants into comparison groups, distinguishing between resistance-training practitioners and recreational exercisers, and this classification is explicitly defined and consistently applied throughout the Methods and Results sections; however, the reliance on self-reported training orientation without objective verification or finer gradation of training practices limits the conceptual precision of this grouping and should be acknowledged more critically. It is not sufficiently clear from the manuscript how participants who engage in yoga, Pilates, or functional group training sessions should be classified, as these activities are not explicitly mapped onto either the resistance-training or recreational categories, creating ambiguity in group assignment for subjects whose training does not fit neatly into the stated definitions.
9. The figure is only partially informative, as it visually summarizes the analytical steps or cluster profiles but adds little beyond what is already described in the text, while insufficient labeling, lack of quantitative detail, and absence of effect-size or validation indicators limit its standalone interpretability and scientific value.
10. The reporting of training frequency and training duration lacks clarity, as the manuscript and tables do not consistently specify the units of measurement (e.g., sessions per week, hours per session, minutes per session), making it difficult to accurately interpret and compare training exposure across groups (table 2).
11. The same lack of clarity applies to Table 3, where several variables are presented without explicit specification of their data units or coding scheme, including education level (e.g., what constitutes “University” versus “Master”), weight history (time frame and operational definition), and double training (whether this refers to two sessions per day, per week, or another unit), which undermines interpretability and reproducibility and should be clarified either in the table notes or the Methods section.
12. Figure 2 provides a high-level visual summary of the cluster centers, but its scientific utility is limited because the axes, scales, and underlying metrics are insufficiently explained, making it difficult to interpret the magnitude and practical meaning of differences between clusters. In particular, the use of standardized Z-scores without reporting the original units or variable ranges, the absence of exact cluster means, and the lack of information on cluster stability or validation reduce the figure’s standalone interpretability and risk overinterpretation of descriptive patterns.
13. Several typographical, spacing errors (e.g., missing spaces, inconsistent units, text style and spacing) and citation mistakes are notable (e.g. line 72).
14. The English language is generally understandable and academic in tone, but it contains frequent grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, inconsistent terminology, and overly long sentences, which reduce clarity and readability and indicate the need for thorough professional language editing before publication.
15. The references are generally relevant and up to date, but unfocused, with redundant citations, uneven source quality, and several references that are only weakly aligned with the study’s variables and analyses, indicating a need for pruning and tighter theoretical alignment. I would suggest authors including more recent studies and reviews, particularly those published within the last 5–10 years (just 39 published in 5 recent years). Moreover, not all the references presented according to journal requirements.

Author Response

sports-4094667

Type Article

Title: “Somatometric, Training, and Behavioral Profiles of Resistance Training Practitioners and Recreational Exercisers in Greece: A Multivariate Comparative Study”

Responses to Reviewer 2.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. We have addressed every point raised with precision and respect for the reviewer’s suggestions, revising the manuscript thoroughly to enhance clarity, methodological transparency, and alignment with the study’s aims. The revised version incorporates substantial improvements in structure, language, and interpretive caution, including reductions in length, refinement of conceptual definitions, clarification of methodological limitations, and strengthened justification of analytical choices. We believe that these revisions have significantly improved the quality and coherence of the manuscript. A detailed, point‑by‑point response follows below.

Comment 1 – Scope inflation

Reviewer Comment:

The manuscript suffers from scope inflation, attempting to address too many hypotheses, outcomes, and analytical layers simultaneously, which dilutes its core scientific message and necessitates a clear decision on whether the paper is fundamentally about exercise modality differences, substance‑use risk profiling, or socioeconomic determinants of training behavior.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this insightful observation. Following this comment, we re‑examined the structure and thematic focus of the manuscript. The Introduction and Discussion have been reorganized to emphasize the overarching aim of the study, namely the identification of somatometric and behavioral differentiation between resistance training practitioners and recreational exercisers.

To improve coherence, the six hypotheses have been grouped under broader conceptual themes, and redundant explanations have been removed. These revisions streamline the narrative, reduce analytical dispersion, and strengthen the clarity of the manuscript’s central scientific message.

Comment 2 – Conceptual framework

Reviewer Comment:

The study lacks a clear conceptual framework linking variables (BMI, income, substance use, competition) into a coherent explanatory model.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. In response, we added a dedicated paragraph in the Introduction that explicitly articulates the conceptual links among BMI, socioeconomic indicators, substance use, and competition participation. This paragraph clarifies the rationale for examining these variables within a unified analytical structure and strengthens the theoretical coherence of the study.

 

Comment 3 – Use of BMI without adjustment for body composition

Reviewer Comment:

Although the manuscript repeatedly acknowledges the limitations of BMI in resistance‑trained populations, it nonetheless treats BMI as a primary outcome and risk indicator without adjustment for lean mass, fat percentage, or training volume, relying on the unmeasured assumption that elevated BMI reflects muscularity rather than adiposity.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We have clarified in both the Methods and Discussion that BMI was used as a practical somatometric indicator rather than a diagnostic measure of adiposity, and that its interpretation in resistance‑trained individuals is inherently limited. We now explicitly acknowledge that the absence of lean‑mass, body‑fat, or training‑volume assessments restricts the precision of BMI‑based inferences, and we emphasize that elevated BMI values in this sample should be interpreted cautiously.

Comment 4 – Self‑reported substance use and disclosure bias

Reviewer Comment:

Because substance use was assessed exclusively through self‑report for highly stigmatized behaviors and yielded a complete absence of reported female steroid use, the findings are likely affected by substantial underreporting and gender‑specific disclosure bias, limiting the validity of prevalence estimates and group comparisons.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We have expanded the Limitations section to acknowledge the likelihood of underreporting for stigmatized behaviors, particularly among women, and to clarify that the absence of reported female steroid use should be interpreted with caution. We now explicitly note that gender‑specific disclosure bias may affect prevalence estimates and group comparisons, and that the findings reflect self‑reported patterns rather than verified substance‑use behaviors.

Comment 5 – Low explanatory power of logistic regression models

Reviewer Comment:

Several logistic regression models exhibit low explanatory power (Nagelkerke R² ≈ .07–.10) and, in the case of competition participation, perfect specificity but zero sensitivity, indicating severe outcome imbalance and rendering the model of limited scientific utility despite statistical significance.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We have revised the Results and Discussion to clarify that the logistic regression models were exploratory and that their statistical significance should not be interpreted as strong predictive utility. We now explicitly acknowledge that the low explanatory power and the imbalance in the competition‑participation outcome affect model sensitivity and limit interpretability. These limitations are clearly stated to ensure that the findings are understood as descriptive rather than predictive.

Comment 6 – Clarification of the elbow method and dummy coding

Reviewer Comment:

In the cluster analysis description it is not fully clear to a general or even disciplinary reader what is meant by the “elbow method” and “dummy‑coded”, as both terms are used without definition, citation, or brief explanation. For clarity and reproducibility, the authors should explicitly state that the elbow method refers to selecting the number of clusters based on the point of diminishing returns in within‑cluster variance, and that dummy coding involves transforming categorical variables into binary indicator variables for inclusion in the analysis.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. To improve clarity and reproducibility, we have expanded the Data Analysis section to include brief definitions of both terms. We now explain that the elbow method refers to selecting the number of clusters based on the point at which reductions in within‑cluster variance show diminishing returns, and that dummy coding involves converting categorical variables into binary indicator variables for inclusion in the analysis. A citation has been added to support these methodological descriptions.

 

Comment 7 – Excessive length and redundancy

Reviewer Comment:

The manuscript is excessively long and redundant, with repeated explanations and an overextended discussion that substantially reduce readability and weaken its editorial suitability.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this observation. In response, we substantially reduced the length of both the Introduction and the Discussion, removing repeated explanations and condensing overlapping content. These revisions improve narrative clarity, enhance readability, and strengthen the manuscript’s overall editorial suitability.

 

Comment 8 – Classification of participants and ambiguity in training categories

Reviewer Comment:

The manuscript clearly presents the division of participants into comparison groups; however, the reliance on self‑reported training orientation without objective verification or finer gradation of training practices limits the conceptual precision of this grouping. It is also unclear how activities such as yoga, Pilates, or functional group training were classified, creating ambiguity for participants whose training does not fit neatly into the stated categories.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this constructive comment. We have clarified the classification procedure in the Methods section by specifying how activities such as yoga, Pilates, and functional group training were assigned to the recreational‑exercise category. We also acknowledge that reliance on self‑reported training orientation, without objective verification or more detailed categorization of training practices, introduces conceptual limitations. This limitation has now been explicitly noted in the manuscript, and the potential ambiguity in group assignment is acknowledged to ensure greater transparency in the interpretation of the findings.

 

Comment 9 – Limited informativeness of the figure

Reviewer Comment:

The figure is only partially informative, as it visually summarizes the analytical steps or cluster profiles but adds little beyond what is already described in the text. Insufficient labeling, lack of quantitative detail, and absence of effect‑size or validation indicators limit its standalone interpretability and scientific value.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this constructive observation. The figure has been revised to improve clarity and interpretability. We added clearer axis labels, descriptive annotations, and an expanded caption explaining the meaning of the standardized values and the variables included. We also clarified in the text that the figure is intended as a descriptive visualization of cluster patterns rather than an inferential or validation tool. These revisions enhance the figure’s standalone clarity while maintaining its role as a visual summary of the cluster profiles.

 

Comment 10 – Clarity of units for training frequency and duration

Reviewer Comment:

The reporting of training frequency and training duration lacks clarity, as the manuscript and tables do not consistently specify the units of measurement (e.g., sessions per week, hours per session, minutes per session), making it difficult to accurately interpret and compare training exposure across groups (Table 2).

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. We have revised the Methods, Results, and all relevant table notes to ensure that units of measurement are explicitly and consistently reported. Training frequency is now clearly specified as sessions per week, and training duration is reported in minutes per session. These clarifications improve interpretability and allow for accurate comparison of training exposure across groups.

Comment 11 – Clarification of units and coding in Table 3

Reviewer Comment:

The same lack of clarity applies to Table 3, where several variables are presented without explicit specification of their data units or coding scheme, including education level (e.g., what constitutes “University” versus “Master”), weight history (time frame and operational definition), and double training (whether this refers to two sessions per day, per week, or another unit). This undermines interpretability and reproducibility and should be clarified either in the table notes or the Methods section.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. We have revised Table 3 and the corresponding sections of the Methods to clearly specify the coding scheme and units for all variables. Education level is now explicitly defined, distinguishing between undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. The operational definition and time frame for weight‑related history have been clarified, and “double training” is now defined as two training sessions within the same day. These additions improve interpretability and ensure reproducibility of the reported variables.

Comment 12 – Interpretation and clarity of Figure 2

Reviewer Comment:

Figure 2 provides a high‑level visual summary of the cluster centers, but its scientific utility is limited because the axes, scales, and underlying metrics are insufficiently explained. The use of standardized Z‑scores without reporting original units or variable ranges, the absence of exact cluster means, and the lack of information on cluster stability or validation reduce the figure’s standalone interpretability and increase the risk of overinterpreting descriptive patterns.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this detailed and constructive comment. In response, we have expanded both the figure caption and the accompanying text to clarify the axes, scales, and underlying metrics. We now explain the use of standardized Z‑scores and specify the original units and variable ranges in the Results section. Exact cluster means have been added to the text to support interpretation, and we explicitly note that the analysis is exploratory and not validated through external stability indices. These revisions improve the transparency and interpretability of Figure 2 while ensuring that its descriptive nature is clearly communicated.

 

Comment 13 – Typographical, spacing, and citation errors

Reviewer Comment:

Several typographical and spacing errors (e.g., missing spaces, inconsistent units, text style and spacing) and citation mistakes are notable (e.g., line 72).

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for noting these issues. The entire manuscript has been carefully proofread, and all typographical, spacing, and formatting inconsistencies have been corrected. Citation errors, including the one identified in line 72, have also been addressed to ensure full compliance with the journal’s formatting requirements.

 

Comment 14 – English language clarity and consistency

Reviewer Comment:

The English language is generally understandable and academic in tone, but it contains frequent grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, inconsistent terminology, and overly long sentences, which reduce clarity and readability and indicate the need for thorough professional language editing before publication.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this observation. The manuscript has undergone a thorough language revision to improve grammatical accuracy, eliminate awkward phrasing, ensure consistent terminology, and reduce unnecessarily long sentences. These edits enhance clarity, readability, and overall linguistic quality in accordance with the journal’s standards.

 

Comment 15 – Reference list focus, relevance, and formatting

Reviewer Comment:

The references are generally relevant and up to date, but unfocused, with redundant citations, uneven source quality, and several references only weakly aligned with the study’s variables and analyses. The list requires pruning, tighter theoretical alignment, and inclusion of more recent studies from the last 5–10 years. Additionally, several references do not follow the journal’s formatting requirements.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this detailed and constructive feedback. In response, we conducted a complete and systematic revision of the reference list. Redundant citations were removed, including the duplicate entry previously listed as references 2 and 16. All remaining references were reassessed for relevance, theoretical alignment, and contribution to the study’s conceptual and analytical framework. Sources that were only marginally related to the study variables were removed or replaced with more appropriate literature.

To strengthen the reference base, we incorporated additional recent studies and reviews published within the last decade, particularly in areas related to resistance training, exercise behavior, substance use, and cluster‑analysis methodology. Furthermore, all references were corrected to fully comply with MDPI formatting requirements. Missing metadata were added, including publisher information, city and country for books, full details for theses, complete URLs and access dates for websites, and DOIs for all articles where available. Incorrectly formatted entries (e.g., references 4, 5, 6, 7, 24, 52, 67, and 78) were revised accordingly. The final reference list is now more coherent, updated, and methodologically aligned with the aims of the study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Reviewer Comment:

The manuscript contains grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, inconsistent terminology, and overly long sentences, indicating the need for thorough language editing.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this observation. The entire manuscript has undergone a comprehensive language revision to improve clarity, grammatical accuracy, terminology consistency, and overall readability. All sections were carefully edited to ensure precise academic phrasing, elimination of redundancies, and consistent use of technical terminology. The revised version reflects these improvements throughout the text.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aimed to compare the somatometric characteristics, training patterns, and behavioral features of resistance-training-oriented and recreational exercisers among Greek adults, and further to derive profiles based on exercise participation type. The authors employed a relatively large sample size and conducted gender-stratified analyses, which represent notable strengths of the work. However, the scope of the current study appears excessively broad, resulting in a dilution of its core message. Greater clarity of focus would be achieved through the integration of hypotheses or by dividing the work into separate manuscripts. In its present form, these issues are unlikely to be resolved through minor revisions alone and instead require conceptual reorganization and substantial rewriting of the manuscript. Specific comments are provided below.

1. The current abstract enumerates several analytical results but does not clearly convey the primary aim of the study or the central message it seeks to advance. In particular, the distinctive aspects of the study—such as the profiling of exercise participants and the systematic differences associated with exercise orientation—are not sufficiently emphasized in an integrative manner. The abstract should be restructured to move beyond a simple summary of results and to clearly articulate the study’s main contribution.

2. Similarly, the conclusion references multiple findings but fails to clearly highlight the key discoveries of the study. The parallel presentation of cluster analysis outcomes, predictors of competition participation, and patterns of substance use weakens the coherence of the concluding message. The conclusion would benefit from a more concise and focused synthesis centered on the study’s principal contributions.

3. The manuscript addresses a total of six hypotheses and simultaneously incorporates group comparisons, predictive analyses, and cluster-based profiling within a single paper. This broad analytical scope disperses the focus of the study and limits the depth of discussion for each analytical component. Integrating the hypotheses under higher-order concepts or separating the work into multiple manuscripts according to the nature of the research questions would likely enhance the clarity and persuasiveness of the findings.

4. In Table 3, the results for the variables Weight and History appear to be duplicated.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This study aimed to compare the somatometric characteristics, training patterns, and behavioral features of resistance-training-oriented and recreational exercisers among Greek adults, and further to derive profiles based on exercise participation type. The authors employed a relatively large sample size and conducted gender-stratified analyses, which represent notable strengths of the work. However, the scope of the current study appears excessively broad, resulting in a dilution of its core message. Greater clarity of focus would be achieved through the integration of hypotheses or by dividing the work into separate manuscripts. In its present form, these issues are unlikely to be resolved through minor revisions alone and instead require conceptual reorganization and substantial rewriting of the manuscript. Specific comments are provided below.

1. The current abstract enumerates several analytical results but does not clearly convey the primary aim of the study or the central message it seeks to advance. In particular, the distinctive aspects of the study—such as the profiling of exercise participants and the systematic differences associated with exercise orientation—are not sufficiently emphasized in an integrative manner. The abstract should be restructured to move beyond a simple summary of results and to clearly articulate the study’s main contribution.

2. Similarly, the conclusion references multiple findings but fails to clearly highlight the key discoveries of the study. The parallel presentation of cluster analysis outcomes, predictors of competition participation, and patterns of substance use weakens the coherence of the concluding message. The conclusion would benefit from a more concise and focused synthesis centered on the study’s principal contributions.

3. The manuscript addresses a total of six hypotheses and simultaneously incorporates group comparisons, predictive analyses, and cluster-based profiling within a single paper. This broad analytical scope disperses the focus of the study and limits the depth of discussion for each analytical component. Integrating the hypotheses under higher-order concepts or separating the work into multiple manuscripts according to the nature of the research questions would likely enhance the clarity and persuasiveness of the findings.

4. In Table 3, the results for the variables Weight and History appear to be duplicated.

Author Response

sports-4094667

Type: Article

Title: Somatometric, Training, and Behavioral Profiles of Resistance Training Practitioners and Recreational Exercisers in Greece: A Multivariate Comparative Study

 

Responses to Reviewer 3

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. We have addressed every point raised with precision and respect for the reviewer’s suggestions, revising the manuscript thoroughly to enhance clarity, methodological transparency, and alignment with the study’s aims. The revised version incorporates substantial improvements in structure, language, and interpretive caution, including reductions in length, refinement of conceptual definitions, clarification of methodological limitations, and strengthened justification of analytical choices. We believe that these revisions have significantly improved the quality and coherence of the manuscript. A detailed, point‑by‑point response follows below.

Comment 1 - Clarity and focus of the abstract

Reviewer Comment:

The current abstract enumerates several analytical results but does not clearly convey the primary aim of the study or the central message it seeks to advance. The distinctive aspects of the study, such as the profiling of exercise participants and the systematic differences associated with exercise orientation, are not sufficiently emphasized in an integrative manner. The abstract should be restructured to move beyond a simple summary of results and to clearly articulate the study’s main contribution.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this constructive comment. In response, the abstract has been fully revised to present a clearer and more integrated articulation of the study’s primary aim and central contribution. The revised version emphasizes the distinctive elements of the work, including the comparative examination of resistance‑training‑oriented and recreational exercisers and the derivation of participant profiles based on multivariate patterns. Rather than listing isolated analytical outcomes, the abstract now synthesizes the key findings into a coherent message that reflects the overarching purpose of the study and its contribution to understanding somatometric and behavioral differentiation across exercise orientations.

Comment 2 - Focus and coherence of the conclusion

Reviewer Comment:

Similarly, the conclusion references multiple findings but fails to clearly highlight the key discoveries of the study. The parallel presentation of cluster analysis outcomes, predictors of competition participation, and patterns of substance use weakens the coherence of the concluding message. The conclusion would benefit from a more concise and focused synthesis centered on the study’s principal contributions.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this constructive comment. The conclusion has been rewritten to provide a more concise and coherent synthesis of the study’s principal contributions. Instead of presenting multiple analytical results in parallel, the revised conclusion highlights the central findings regarding somatometric and behavioral differentiation between resistance‑training‑oriented and recreational exercisers, and the broader implications of these patterns. The cluster analysis, predictors of competition participation, and substance‑use findings are now integrated into a unified narrative that reflects the overarching aims of the study, thereby strengthening the clarity and focus of the concluding message.

 

Comment 3 - Breadth of analytical scope and integration of hypotheses

Reviewer Comment:

The manuscript addresses a total of six hypotheses and simultaneously incorporates group comparisons, predictive analyses, and cluster‑based profiling within a single paper. This broad analytical scope disperses the focus of the study and limits the depth of discussion for each analytical component. Integrating the hypotheses under higher‑order concepts or separating the work into multiple manuscripts according to the nature of the research questions would likely enhance the clarity and persuasiveness of the findings.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful and important comment. In response, we reorganized the manuscript to improve conceptual coherence and reduce analytical dispersion. The six hypotheses have been grouped under broader thematic constructs that reflect the overarching aim of examining somatometric and behavioral differentiation between resistance‑training‑oriented and recreational exercisers. This restructuring allows the analytical components to be presented within a unified framework rather than as parallel, independent strands.

While the study’s design integrates comparative, predictive, and exploratory analyses, the revised manuscript now presents these components in a more streamlined manner, with clearer transitions and a more focused narrative. This approach enhances the clarity and persuasiveness of the findings while maintaining the integrity of the original research questions.

 

Comment 4 - Apparent duplication of variables in Table 3

Reviewer Comment:

In Table 3, the results for the variables Weight and History appear to be duplicated.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for identifying this issue. The table has been carefully re‑examined, and the duplication resulted from a formatting error during table preparation. The entries for Weight and History have now been corrected to ensure that each variable is presented once, with the appropriate coding and values. The revised version of Table 3 accurately reflects the intended variables and eliminates the duplication.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Reviewer Comment:

No specific comments were provided regarding the quality of the English language.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for the implicit attention to language quality. Although no specific issues were noted, we have nevertheless undertaken a careful review of the manuscript. Three members of the author team hold advanced English language certifications (C2‑level proficiency), and we have collectively ensured that all grammatical, syntactic, and stylistic issues identified by the reviewers have been addressed. Particular attention was given to clarity, consistency of terminology, and overall academic readability. The revised manuscript reflects these improvements throughout.

We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback, which has contributed to a clearer and more focused manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved their article according to my comments, although there are still some places for improvement:

1. Although the classification of resistance-training practitioners and recreational exercisers is now clearer and consistently defined, and the reliance on self-reported training orientation is acknowledged, the manuscript still lacks transparent criteria for categorizing mixed or hybrid activities (e.g., yoga, Pilates, functional training), leaving some ambiguity in group assignment.
2. Despite methodological improvements, the manuscript still suffers from conceptual overextension. The scientific contribution would be strengthened by explicitly prioritizing one central analytical focus (e.g., training orientation vs. recreational exercise) and reframing other analyses as secondary or exploratory.
3. Although low Nagelkerke R² values are reported, their implications for interpretability and practical relevance are not sufficiently discussed. The authors should more explicitly state that these models have limited predictive utility and are primarily descriptive.
4. Several tables still require clearer self-contained descriptions. Units of measurement and operational definitions should be explicitly stated in table notes to ensure standalone interpretability.
5. Despite revisions, the manuscript remains overly long and repetitive. Substantial condensation—particularly in the Introduction and Discussion—is recommended, along with professional English-language editing and reference pruning.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors have improved their article according to my comments, although there are still some places for improvement:

1. Although the classification of resistance-training practitioners and recreational exercisers is now clearer and consistently defined, and the reliance on self-reported training orientation is acknowledged, the manuscript still lacks transparent criteria for categorizing mixed or hybrid activities (e.g., yoga, Pilates, functional training), leaving some ambiguity in group assignment.
2. Despite methodological improvements, the manuscript still suffers from conceptual overextension. The scientific contribution would be strengthened by explicitly prioritizing one central analytical focus (e.g., training orientation vs. recreational exercise) and reframing other analyses as secondary or exploratory.
3. Although low Nagelkerke R² values are reported, their implications for interpretability and practical relevance are not sufficiently discussed. The authors should more explicitly state that these models have limited predictive utility and are primarily descriptive.
4. Several tables still require clearer self-contained descriptions. Units of measurement and operational definitions should be explicitly stated in table notes to ensure standalone interpretability.
5. Despite revisions, the manuscript remains overly long and repetitive. Substantial condensation—particularly in the Introduction and Discussion—is recommended, along with professional English-language editing and reference pruning.
6.  

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

General Introductory Note

We thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive feedback. All comments were carefully considered, and every point has been addressed in the revised manuscript. Revisions were implemented exactly as requested, with the aim of improving clarity, coherence, and methodological transparency. All changes are marked in the tracked‑changes version for ease of verification.

Below, we provide a detailed, point‑by‑point response to each comment. All revisions made in the manuscript are clearly indicated in the tracked‑changes version (with blue color).

 

1. Clarification of mixed or hybrid activities

Reviewer comment:

The manuscript lacks transparent criteria for categorizing mixed or hybrid activities.

Response:

We appreciate this observation. We have now added explicit clarification in the Methods section describing how mixed and hybrid activities were classified. Classification was based strictly on participants’ self‑reported primary training orientation, consistent with the exploratory design. Hybrid activities were not treated as separate analytical categories because the study focused on self‑identified orientation rather than activity taxonomy.

Revision implemented:

A new explanatory paragraph has been added to Section 2.1 (Participants).

 

2. Conceptual overextension and central analytical focus

Reviewer comment:

The manuscript would benefit from a clearer central analytical focus.

Response:

We agree. We revised the Introduction to explicitly state the primary analytical aim and to clarify that additional analyses (e.g., logistic regression, cluster analysis) are exploratory. This improves conceptual coherence and aligns the structure with the reviewer’s recommendation.

Revision implemented:

Two clarifying sentences were added to the end of the Introduction.

 

3. Interpretation of low Nagelkerke R² values

Reviewer comment:

The implications of low R² values require further discussion.

Response:

We have expanded the Discussion to explicitly acknowledge the limited predictive utility of the logistic regression model and to clarify that the model is descriptive. This addition improves interpretative transparency.

Revision implemented:

A new explanatory paragraph has been added to the Discussion.

 

4. Table clarity and self‑contained descriptions

Reviewer comment:

Several tables require clearer notes and explicit units.

Response:

We fully agree. All table notes have been revised to include units of measurement, operational definitions, and clarifications regarding self‑reported variables. Each table is now fully self‑contained.

Revision implemented:

All table notes have been expanded and standardized.

 

5. Manuscript length, repetition, and language refinement

Reviewer comment:

The manuscript remains long and repetitive.

Response:

We conducted a targeted review of the manuscript and removed minor redundancies, particularly in the Discussion. Several sentences were refined for clarity and flow. These adjustments improve readability without altering the scientific content.

Revision implemented:

Targeted condensation and stylistic refinement were applied to the Introduction and Discussion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors appear to have made substantial revisions throughout the manuscript in response to the comments raised in this review. Improvements in clarity and interpretative caution are evident across several sections, including the abstract, discussion, and conclusion.
Nevertheless, the overall scope and volume of content remain relatively extensive, which continues to dilute the central message of the study. In particular, the six exploratory hypotheses presented at the end of the introduction contribute to an expansion of the study’s focus. This issue was also raised in the initial review.
If the removal of hypotheses or changes to the analytical structure are not feasible at this stage, the manuscript could still be improved by more clearly articulating the conceptual relationships among the hypotheses or by briefly introducing higher-level research questions. Such adjustments would help strengthen coherence and readability without requiring substantive analytical changes.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors appear to have made substantial revisions throughout the manuscript in response to the comments raised in this review. Improvements in clarity and interpretative caution are evident across several sections, including the abstract, discussion, and conclusion.
Nevertheless, the overall scope and volume of content remain relatively extensive, which continues to dilute the central message of the study. In particular, the six exploratory hypotheses presented at the end of the introduction contribute to an expansion of the study’s focus. This issue was also raised in the initial review.
If the removal of hypotheses or changes to the analytical structure are not feasible at this stage, the manuscript could still be improved by more clearly articulating the conceptual relationships among the hypotheses or by briefly introducing higher-level research questions. Such adjustments would help strengthen coherence and readability without requiring substantive analytical changes.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

General Introductory Note

We thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive feedback. All comments were carefully considered, and every point has been addressed in the revised manuscript. Revisions were implemented exactly as requested, with the aim of improving clarity, coherence, and methodological transparency. All changes are marked in the tracked‑changes version for ease of verification.

Below, we provide a detailed, point‑by‑point response to each comment. All revisions made in the manuscript are clearly indicated in the tracked‑changes version (with blue color).

1. Scope and central message

Reviewer comment:

The manuscript remains extensive, which dilutes the central message.

Response:

We revised the Introduction to more clearly articulate the overarching research aim and to foreground the primary comparison. This strengthens the central message and improves coherence.

Revision implemented:

A concise statement of the central aim was added to the final paragraph of the Introduction.

 

2. Role of the six exploratory hypotheses

Reviewer comment:

The hypotheses expand the study’s focus; clearer conceptual relationships are recommended.

Response:

We added a brief explanatory note clarifying that the hypotheses are exploratory and directly aligned with the measurable variables. A short bridging statement was also added to outline their conceptual coherence.

Revision implemented:

A linking statement was added to Section 1.5.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed the comments from the previous review round. The revised manuscript shows improvements in methodological transparency, clarification of the analytical focus, and clearer table descriptions. The discussion has been refined and the study limitations are now more clearly acknowledged. Overall, the manuscript has improved substantially and is suitable for publication in its current form.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors have adequately addressed the comments from the previous review round. The revised manuscript shows improvements in methodological transparency, clarification of the analytical focus, and clearer table descriptions. The discussion has been refined and the study limitations are now more clearly acknowledged. Overall, the manuscript has improved substantially and is suitable for publication in its current form.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made reasonable revisions in response to the concerns raised in the previous review. The central purpose of the study is clearer, and the connections among the hypotheses are better explained within the existing analytical structure. While the manuscript remains somewhat broad in scope, it has been revised to a reasonable extent. I have no further major concerns.