An Update to a Comprehensive Assessment of the Methods and Effectiveness of Resistance Training in Normobaric Hypoxia for the Development of Strength and Muscular Hypertrophy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

The aim of this study is to compile the evidence and update the methods and effectiveness of the training against resistance in simulated hypoxia for the development of strength and muscular hypertrophy. There are some specific changes and suggestions that should be made to improve the quality of the paper. 

Best regards.

Author Response

Dear Editor and reviewers:

We have carefully considered all reviewers' recommendations for the paper (Manuscript ID: applsci-2050215) entitled "A five-year update to a comprehensive assessment of the methods and effectiveness of resistance training in normobaric hypoxia for the development of strength and muscular hypertrophy”. Please find enclosed our detailed answers to reviewers' queries. The authors declare that the manuscript is original and has not been considered for publication elsewhere. Additionally, the authors had approved the paper for release and agree with its content.

Please find all corrections in red inside the manuscript.

Reviewer 1

Dear authors,

The aim of this study is to compile the evidence and update the methods and effectiveness of the training against resistance in simulated hypoxia for the development of strength and muscular hypertrophy. There are some specific changes and suggestions that should be made to improve the quality of the paper. 

Best regards.

R/ We appreciate the comments of the reviewer of the manuscript, unfortunately we cannot access them due to the lack of availability of the reviewed manuscript according to the editors.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks to the authors for submitting this manuscript and the editors for the opportunity to review this work. The title of the study is “A five-year update to a comprehensive assessment of the methods and effectiveness of resistance training in normobaric hypoxia for the development of strength and muscular hypertrophy”.

The study aimed to compile the evidence and update the methods and effectiveness of the training against resistance in simulated hypoxia for the development of strength and muscular hypertrophy.

Overall, you had a good and interesting review manuscript. Your introduction and methods were sound. The results section is well organized, and the strongest parts are the discussion and practical applications. I would like you to add more interpretation or clarification about this part in the title “A five-year update”, despite the fact that the study analyzed the articles from 2000 to 2021 and selected those starting from 2003.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Thanks to the authors for submitting this manuscript and the editors for the opportunity to review this work. The title of the study is “A five-year update to a comprehensive assessment of the methods and effectiveness of resistance training in normobaric hypoxia for the development of strength and muscular hypertrophy”.

The study aimed to compile the evidence and update the methods and effectiveness of the training against resistance in simulated hypoxia for the development of strength and muscular hypertrophy. 

R/ We thank the editor for his time and dedication in the review of this manuscript

Overall, you had a good and interesting review manuscript. Your introduction and methods were sound. The results section is well organized, and the strongest parts are the discussion and practical applications. I would like you to add more interpretation or clarification about this part in the title “A five-year update”, despite the fact that the study analyzed the articles from 2000 to 2021 and selected those starting from 2003.

R/ we thank the reviewer for the opportunity to clarify this issue. the title has been modified according to those indicated for greater clarity. We consider this review an update, not necessarily of only five years as noted by reviewer.

Reviewer 3 Report

The work reviews papers on the effect of resistance training on normobaric hypoxia. The review methodology was well employed, with a clear description of the methods. However, I think that the work could revise the description of the introduction, as well as the comparison with findings in other reviews on the subject.

Title - the work proposes an upgrade from the last five years. More articles are used in the review, and I do not think that the focus of the work was only in these years, although it shows that there has been a recent growth in the number of publications.

Introduction - I thought It was too early to present specific results of works in the introduction since the paper's purpose is to discuss them. I suggest presenting more general concepts. As this work proposes an update, it could be interesting to mention previous reviews and the main conclusions obtained. The introduction could be more focused on the motivation of the work, showing where your contribution lies.

I thought there was some confusion throughout the text regarding efficiency and efficacy. It could clarify the definitions of each term applied to a muscle and review its use throughout the text.

line 36 - "review will be carried out", and line 133 - "The full text will be read to verify", - the work has already been done.

Figure 1 -> I didn't find a reference to the figure in the text.

line 137 - Figure 3. Shows -> Figure 3 shows ...

line 160 - 27.37 ± 30.22 -> 30.22 is the standard deviation? Isn't this number too large?

Table 1 - Column 1 says it will have Author and year, but it doesn't.

I did not find a citation of the reference [4].

Author Response

Reviewer 3

The work reviews papers on the effect of resistance training on normobaric hypoxia. The review methodology was well employed, with a clear description of the methods. However, I think that the work could revise the description of the introduction, as well as the comparison with findings in other reviews on the subject.

R/ We thank the editor for his time and dedication in the review of this manuscript

Title - the work proposes an upgrade from the last five years. More articles are used in the review, and I do not think that the focus of the work was only in these years, although it shows that there has been a recent growth in the number of publications.

R/ we thank the reviewer for the opportunity to clarify this issue. the title has been modified according to those indicated for greater clarity. We consider this review an update, not necessarily of only five years as noted by reviewer.

Introduction - I thought It was too early to present specific results of works in the introduction since the paper's purpose is to discuss them. I suggest presenting more general concepts. As this work proposes an update, it could be interesting to mention previous reviews and the main conclusions obtained. The introduction could be more focused on the motivation of the work, showing where your contribution lies.

R/ We thank the reviewer for his recommendation. We have added to the introduction section evidence from previous studies, especially from reviews in which the results of past efforts to summarize the available evidence can be explored in a general way. Additionally, we have clarified the differentiating factor of this MS.

I thought there was some confusion throughout the text regarding efficiency and efficacy. It could clarify the definitions of each term applied to a muscle and review its use throughout the text.

R/We decided only to use the term effectiveness, considering that we want to refer to the effectiveness of the method to present improvements

line 36 - "review will be carried out", and line 133 - "The full text will be read to verify", - the work has already been done.

R/We have solved these issues in the text.

Figure 1 -> I didn't find a reference to the figure in the text.

R/We added the reference in the text. Thank you for highlighting this issue.

line 137 - Figure 3. Shows -> Figure 3 shows ...

R/We have changed the sentences for clarity

line 160 - 27.37 ± 30.22 -> 30.22 is the standard deviation? Isn't this number too large?

R/The SD is that large because the elderly people of some studies were included.

Table 1 - Column 1 says it will have Author and year, but it doesn't.

R/The column 1 has been modified by reference

I did not find a citation of the reference [4].

R/ The reference was added in the citation.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Overall comments for the authors:

I commend you on your submission, and thank you for your efforts.    This is a systematic review without meta analysis on the papers related to hypoxic training for strength increase and muscle hypertrophy. To my literature review, I do not see a recent systematic review on this specific topic, so the idea seemed novel. Additionally, the authors have followed all prisma guidelines for systematic review and the manuscript seems well done in that regard. The conclusions are also well founded.

The authors highlight the heterogeneity of studies available on this topic, and they do not perform that analysis given the heterogeneity, which I think is perfectly reasonable. I think a call for more systemization of these types of studies is excellent coming in this paper has merit just in that regard.

So in short, I do feel that this manuscript warrants publication. My one concern with the manuscript is that there are a lot of English language translation issues. The manuscript should be combed through with a fine tooth comb to enhance the writing quality. I have highlighted a number of the issues below, but this is not comprehensive. If all of these changes are made, I feel that the manuscript can be published.

Line by line issues and manuscript critique:

TITLE: Does the title clearly portray the subject and purpose of the study?

Title is good

    ABSTRACT: Doers the abstract accurately reflect the study? Are all pertinent finds included?

Line 29 - I wouldn't use “due to” twice in this line, I would just clean up the writing a little bit.

Line 33- why is Normoxia capitalized?

    INTRODUCTION: What is the authors' original research question, and does their study support or fulfill it?

Line 69 - what is the face of genes?

Line 71 - this sentence doesn't read well, it may be a run on or incorrect use of the word because. I would change up this sentence.

    METHODS: Was the research method or study design appropriate? Is it presented sufficiently so that other researchers can duplicate them? Are the sample sizes adequate? Are the statistical analyses appropriate and correct?

Line 111 - what does maintain the line of studies mean?

Line 113 - use something other than on the other hand.

Otherwise, the methods appear really thorough and they have followed all the prisma guidelines and all the steps necessary to conduct an excellent systematic review.

    RESULTS: Do the results answer the original research questions, as demonstrated in the Results section and tables and figures?

The results are really well presented and I commend the authors on all these tables and figures which greatly help the reader quickly understand the overall outcomes of these studies. Really nice job.

    DISCUSSION: Is the Discussion balanced? Does it put the results in context? Do the authors acknowledge the limitations of the study?

The following lines have just been poorly translated from the native language into English, they need to be rewritten for enhanced readability for an English reader.

Line 225 – needs to be rewritten

Line 230 – needs to be rewritten

Line 284 – needs to be rewritten

Line 293 – needs to be rewritten

Line 311-313 -- the translation is very poor and makes almost no sense.

    CONCLUSIONS: Are the conclusions supported by the study findings? Does the study provide new, unique, or confirmatory findings? Will the findings be of interest to clinicians or to the public?

Line 322 - again needs to be rewritten

Overall, the conclusions are good. The authors highlight the heterogeneity of studies available on this topic, and they do not perform that analysis given the heterogeneity, which I think is perfectly reasonable. I think a call for more systemization of these types of studies is excellent coming in this paper has merit just in that regard.

    TABLES AND FIGURES: Are all data presented in the text and tables and figures consistent? Do the tables clearly present information not easily summarized in the text of the paper? Are all of the tables necessary? Are the figures necessary and appropriate? Are they of high quality and clearly labeled? Can any be deleted?

As mentioned above, all tables and figures are really very excellent and really add a lot to the paper.

    REFERENCES: Is the References section complete, or is it excessive? Does it include all of the necessary current, relevant sources

The references all appear fine

Author Response

Reviewer 4

Overall comments for the authors:

I commend you on your submission, and thank you for your efforts. This is a systematic review without meta analysis on the papers related to hypoxic training for strength increase and muscle hypertrophy. To my literature review, I do not see a recent systematic review on this specific topic, so the idea seemed novel. Additionally, the authors have followed all prisma guidelines for systematic review and the manuscript seems well done in that regard. The conclusions are also well founded.

The authors highlight the heterogeneity of studies available on this topic, and they do not perform that analysis given the heterogeneity, which I think is perfectly reasonable. I think a call for more systemization of these types of studies is excellent coming in this paper has merit just in that regard.

So in short, I do feel that this manuscript warrants publication. My one concern with the manuscript is that there are a lot of English language translation issues. The manuscript should be combed through with a fine tooth comb to enhance the writing quality. I have highlighted a number of the issues below, but this is not comprehensive. If all of these changes are made, I feel that the manuscript can be published.

R/ We thank the reviewer for his time and dedication in reviewing this manuscript. Your opinion and recommendations are important to improve it.

Line by line issues and manuscript critique:

TITLE:

Title is good

R/Thank you

    ABSTRACT:

Line 29 - I wouldn't use “due to” twice in this line, I would just clean up the writing a little bit.
R/This issues was solved

Line 33- why is Normoxia capitalized?

R/This was also solved.

    INTRODUCTION:

Line 69 - what is the face of genes?
R/The sentence was change for clarity.

Line 71 - this sentence doesn't read well, it may be a run on or incorrect use of the word because. I would change up this sentence.

R/The whole sentence was change considering the recommendation.

    METHODS:

Line 111 - what does maintain the line of studies mean?

R/ We change the sentence: ¨ and are framed within the objective of this review. ¨

Line 113 - use something other than on the other hand.

R/Thank you for the opportunity to clarify, this was changed as requested.

Otherwise, the methods appear really thorough and they have followed all the prisma guidelines and all the steps necessary to conduct an excellent systematic review.

    RESULTS:

The results are really well presented and I commend the authors on all these tables and figures which greatly help the reader quickly understand the overall outcomes of these studies. Really nice job.

R/ We thank the reviewer for his opinion on the manuscript.

    DISCUSSION:

The following lines have just been poorly translated from the native language into English, they need to be rewritten for enhanced readability for an English reader.

Line 225 – needs to be rewritten

R/Sentences rewritten.

Line 230 – needs to be rewritten

R/Sentences rewritten.

Line 284 – needs to be rewritten

R/Sentences rewritten.

Line 293 – needs to be rewritten

R/Sentences rewritten.

Line 311-313 -- the translation is very poor and makes almost no sense.

R/Sentences rewritten.

    CONCLUSIONS:

Line 322 - again needs to be rewritten

Overall, the conclusions are good. The authors highlight the heterogeneity of studies available on this topic, and they do not perform that analysis given the heterogeneity, which I think is perfectly reasonable. I think a call for more systemization of these types of studies is excellent coming in this paper has merit just in that regard.

    TABLES AND FIGURES:  

As mentioned above, all tables and figures are really very excellent and really add a lot to the paper.

 
R/ We are pleased with your confirmation about the quality of the figures and tables.

    REFERENCES:  

The references all appear fine

R/We give our appreciation for the reviewers dedication on this MS.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors for the significant improvement of the manuscript. The same is a contribution to science.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear Authors,

First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors for the significant improvement of the manuscript. The same is a contribution to science.

Best regards

R/We really appreciate your effort on reviewing this MS and we are confident that your commentaries and recommendations really improve the final version of this paper

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors included all the issues raised. In my opinion, the article may be considered for publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The authors included all the issues raised. In my opinion, the article may be considered for publication.

R/ We much appreciate your time spent studying this manuscript, and we are convinced that your suggestions will help this paper's final form.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you to the authors for their attempt on revision of this manuscript. I commend the authors on a valid attempt. However, there are still far too many English language errors to accept the manuscript as is. The manuscript still requires significant revision. Examples of some sentences which do not read correctly are as below:

“Research on hypoxia in sports has managed to improve some variables corresponding to skeletal muscle” – this doesn’t make sense.

“Besides, Previous reviews have highlighted that the particularities in the sample, methods, exercise programming, and even the level of hypoxia do not allow”

“update the methods and effectiveness of the training against resistance” — how are you going to update the effectiveness? Doesn’t make sense

“Besides, studies were excluded if: (1) the full text was not available; (2) the measurement protocol and key methodological aspects were not specified in hypoxia conditions  (e.g., simulated altitude, intensity” — besides is not the right word…

Discussion remains fragmented, a bunch of tiny paragraphs, poorly written. 

The above list is nowhere near comprehensive. Again, as I mentioned in the previous review, I think this article warrants publication and certainly is of interest. It just cannot be accepted as currently reads. I will be happy to re review once the manuscript has been edited.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Thank you to the authors for their attempt on revision of this manuscript. I commend the authors on a valid attempt. However, there are still far too many English language errors to accept the manuscript as is. The manuscript still requires significant revision.

R/ We appreciate the time and dedication in reviewing this article. We have considered all your recommendations to improve the final version.

“Research on hypoxia in sports has managed to improve some variables corresponding to skeletal muscle” – this doesn’t make sense.

R/This sentence was rewritten.

“Besides, Previous reviews have highlighted that the particularities in the sample, methods, exercise programming, and even the level of hypoxia do not allow”

R/This sentence was rewritten based on your considerations.

“update the methods and effectiveness of the training against resistance” — how are you going to update the effectiveness? Doesn’t make sense

R/This sentence was rewritten considering your suggestion.

“Besides, studies were excluded if: (1) the full text was not available; (2) the measurement protocol and key methodological aspects were not specified in hypoxia conditions (e.g., simulated altitude, intensity” — besides is not the right word…

R/This sentence was rewritten for clarity.

Discussion remains fragmented, a bunch of tiny paragraphs, poorly written. 

R/ the way to structure the methodology was recommended by two other reviewers and has been separated into the two review variables. The reviewers have been clear that this synthetic way of presenting this section seemed better to them.
Despite this, we have made adjustments for clarity based on your recommendations.

The above list is nowhere near comprehensive. Again, as I mentioned in the previous review, I think this article warrants publication and certainly is of interest. It just cannot be accepted as currently reads. I will be happy to re review once the manuscript has been edited.

R/ The manuscript has been reviewed by a grammar and language edit service and the corresponding corrections have been made in this regard.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx