Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract would include the time of the intervention or the number of sessions.

Adjust the way you write (HRQOL) or HRQoL

It would be important to indicate that functional performance is considered by the authors, and to justify the selected tests fit that profile. Some of the assessments are considered functional for older adults, but this population is still at that limit. If functional improvements are sought, they should not be confused with physical condition.

In the objective better without acronyms.

Training and experience of the evaluators, and the validity of the tests for that sample if relevant.

A subjective scale of perceived exertion was used to control intensity on a more individual basis. It is not clear how load control was exercised, for estimating heart rate percentage, or for strength. This aspect needs to be better explained.

Brief Mood Introspection Scale (BMIS). BMIS How are the results interpreted?

Indicate if the pre and post collection were in the same place and under the same conditions.

Looking at the mean values in Table 1, the authors can confirm that between the pre and post of the control group there have been no statistical differences, since the mean values and the ds are of greater difference between records.

In Table 2, in Health perception the decimals of the pre in the CG are missing.

It would be good to indicate that this is a sedentary population that becomes active, that in itself is perhaps guaranteed to improve one's physical condition. Maybe reflect it somewhere.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

Time is a precious resource. We sincerely thank you for giving us your time to read our article, to give us advice.
Please see the attachment.

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

Time is a precious resource. We sincerely thank you for giving us your time to read our article, to give us advice.
Please see the attachment.

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please check the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

Time is a precious resource. We sincerely thank you for giving us your time to read our article, to give us advice.
Please see the attachment.

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I consider that the manuscript has been improved and has responded correctly to the assessments made.