Influence of Body Composition on Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Metabolic Markers in Physically Inactive Individuals with Insulin Resistance: An Observational Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer’s Comments to the Authors

The work in this manuscript is an attempt to determine the influence of body composition on cardiorespiratory fitness and fat oxidation in physically inactive individuals with condition of insulin resistance. Various related research protocols have been used to collect relevant data.  Among the different types of results obtained in the study, significant correlation was found between fat-free mass and VO2max.  Based on the results, it was concluded that a higher % of FFM is associated with better cardiorespiratory capacity in patients with IR, but no significant correlations were observed between other conditions examined. 

Despite the above findings, this reviewer feels that there are certain concerns that prohibits the manuscript from being recommended for consideration of publication as it stand presently.  The following are the major points of concern in this regard.

-        As rightly pointed out by the authors, the sample size was too small to detect possible significant values with the other parameters assessed.

-        Rather than pulling together data from male and female patients, it may be interesting and insightful if they are considered separately.

-      The study would have benefited more if data were also obtained from healthy individuals (with similar demography) to be used as standard references. 

-       The manuscript is a little confusing or unclear in some instances because of the way it is written and due to some grammatical errors. The introduction is also relatively long.     

Overall, due to the above noted limitations of the research undertaken and the lack of clarity of the manuscript, the contribution of the work to the field under consideration is relatively low.  This precludes the submitted manuscript from being recommended for publication consideration in the journal.

Author Response

Dear reviewers.

Good morning, firstly we would like to thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. Thanks to your comments we improved the quality of the manuscript. In general terms we made improvements in the English wording and provided an editing certificate. We shortened sentences. Regarding the content, we deepened the statistical analyses and verified that in the previous version we omitted information regarding the statistical power of the sample. Also, we expanded on the discussion and conclusions of the study.

            We then proceeded to respond to the reviewers' concerns and requests.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1.     The abstract should be revised with the background of the study

2.     Patient selection criteria should be explained in detail

3.     The statistical method for the power calculation is missing. The authors should clearly explain why the sample size was selected and there are no statistics beyond descriptive being done in this study, as such a power calculation is unlikely to be helpful).

4.     Figures are not readable

5.     The authors have written the statistical analysis in detail but failed to summarize the results. More figures should be incorporated to justify the discussion.

6.     There are many typographical errors which should be corrected before resubmission

Author Response

Dear reviewers.

Good morning, firstly we would like to thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. Thanks to your comments we improved the quality of the manuscript. In general terms we made improvements in the English wording and provided an editing certificate. We shortened sentences. Regarding the content, we deepened the statistical analyses and verified that in the previous version we omitted information regarding the statistical power of the sample. Also, we expanded on the discussion and conclusions of the study.

            We then proceeded to respond to the reviewers' concerns and requests.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Although some attempts have been made to improve the manuscript, basically there is no significant change that can convince the reviewer to recommend it for publication consideration.  That means, the contribution of the work is not that significant.  

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have responded to queries scientifically. Therefore, i am accepting the MS in its present form