Acute Effects of a Single-Bout Session of High-Intensity Functional Training and Moderate-Intensity Functional Training on Cognitive Functions, Anxiety, and Stress in Healthy Adults
, Honorato Morente-Oria 4 and José Daniel Jiménez-García 3,4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsthe article has been considerably improved.
Author Response
Francisco Álvarez Salvago, PhD
Paseo de la Alameda Nº 6
Universidad Europea de Valencia, 46010; Valencia, Spain
+34 630 73 43 63
E-mail address
salvagofran@gmail.com
Editorial Reviewer
Applied Sciences
26 December 2024
Dear Reviewer 1,
Please find below the answer to your last contribution
Reviewer Comments
“The article has been considerably improved”.
Author response:
Thank you for your comments and suggestions to improve this manuscript.
The author responsible for correspondence is:
Francisco Álvarez Salvago, PhD
Paseo de la Alameda Nº 6
Universidad Europea de Valencia, 46010; Valencia, Spain
+34 630 73 43 63
E-mail address
salvagofran@gmail.com
Sincerely,
Francisco Álvarez Salvago
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for this compelling research, which delves into the impact of HIFT and MIFT on cognitive functions and psychological responses. While the findings are insightful, in my opinion, there are areas where the manuscript can be strengthened. Below are my detailed comments and suggestions.
Lines 26. While concise, the abstract would benefit from including key statistical results to substantiate claims of significant findings.
Line 103. Did these participants, “Busy (n=5), living too far (n=4),” complete or not complete the intervention? The sentence is not clear.
Lines 133-195: The cognitive and psychological assessments (e.g., Stroop Test, STAI) are appropriate. However, provide additional information about their reliability and validity specific to the studied population.
Line 241-243: The description of effect size thresholds is appreciated, but no effect sizes were reported in the results section. Ensure consistency between the described methods and reported outcomes.
Line 238-241: ANCOVA is noted as the primary analysis method. Yet, ANCOVA results are either absent or inadequately detailed. Explicitly report these results or justify their omission.
Line 225 (Figure 2): The intervention exercises are well described, but no supplemental material or appendix provides further detail. Consider including the exact circuit protocol or heart rate data as supplemental files for replicability.
Lines 298-315: Effect sizes and post-hoc power analyses for non-significant results are not provided. Especially, for non-significant results, please clarify whether a post-hoc power analysis was conducted to evaluate the adequacy of the sample size. Adding these metrics will strengthen the manuscript's statistical rigor.
Figure 3 is good to visualize the results, however, the inclusion of a single figure might limit visual clarity. Did the authors only plot significant results? If so, this should be clarified. Consider plotting all comparisons to provide a comprehensive overview.
Line 400. I appreciate that the authors mentioned several limitations. Wondering, in the future, a follow up test might tell some insights beyond the pre- and post-test design and also the length of the intervention could play a role regarding the intervention effect.
Author Response
Francisco Álvarez Salvago, PhD
Paseo de la Alameda Nº 6
Universidad Europea de Valencia, 46010; Valencia, Spain
+34 630 73 43 63
E-mail address
salvagofran@gmail.com
Editorial Reviewer
Applied Sciences
26 December 2024
Dear Reviewer 2,
Please find below the answer to your last contribution
Reviewer Comments
“Thank you for this compelling research, which delves into the impact of HIFT and MIFT on cognitive functions and psychological responses. While the findings are insightful, in my opinion, there are areas where the manuscript can be strengthened. Below are my detailed comments and suggestions”.
Author response:
First of all, we would like to thank you for your comments. Based on them, we have significantly improved the manuscript.
“Lines 26. While concise, the abstract would benefit from including key statistical results to substantiate claims of significant findings”.
Author response:
Thank you very much for your comment. We have included in the abstract significant results between lines 29 and 31, indicating that the p-values were statistically significant:
“Results: Both groups (HIFT and MIFT) showed significant improvements in executive function, attention, and memory, as well as significant reductions in anxiety and stress after the interven-tion (all p values ranged between p<0.001 and p<0.04)”.
“Line 103. Did these participants, “Busy (n=5), living too far (n=4),” complete or not complete the intervention? The sentence is not clear”.
Author response:
Thank you very much for your appreciation. You are right that it was not entirely clear; however, thanks to your comments, we have improved the section to make everything clearer and avoid any potential misunderstandings by the readers. Thank you again (lines 141-145)
“Out of a total of 71 individuals initially contacted, 57 completed the session and the tests. The reasons for not completing the session and tests were as follows: busy (n=5), living too far away (n=4), did not complete the training (n=2), and did not perform the post-test (n=3). Finally, 28 participants were in the HIFT group and 29 were in the MIFT group”.
“Lines 133-195: The cognitive and psychological assessments (e.g., Stroop Test, STAI) are appropriate. However, provide additional information about their reliability and validity specific to the studied population”.
Author response:
Thank you very much for your comment. We have updated each section within the instruments, adding the Cronbach's alphas for the Stroop Test in addition to the STAI Test, and we have also updated the PSS alpha to make it clearer. Thanks to your feedback, we believe this will substantially improve the manuscript. (Lines 222-224; 273-274; 287-288)
“This test has shown an internal consistency of Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.77 and an average reliability coefficient of r = 0.85”.
“As for the reliability of the questionnaire, Cronbach's alpha scores of 0.90 were observed for trait anxiety and 0.93 for state anxiety”.
“The internal consistency reliability and factorial validity of the questionnaire in its Spanish version are adequate, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.81”
REFERENCES:
Golden CJ. STROOP. Test de Colores y Palabras – Edición Revisada. Ruiz-Fernández B, Luque T, Sánchez-Sánchez F, adaptadores. Madrid: TEA Ediciones; 2020.
Guillén-Riquelme A, Buela-Casal G. Actualización psicométrica y funcionamiento diferencial de los ítems en el State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Psicothema. 2011;23(3):510-5.
Remor E. Psychometric Properties of a European Spanish Version of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). The Spanish Journal of Psychology. 2006;9(1):86–93. doi:10.1017/S1138741600006004
“Line 241-243: The description of effect size thresholds is appreciated, but no effect sizes were reported in the results section. Ensure consistency between the described methods and reported outcomes”.
Author response:
Thank you very much for your appreciation. Regarding the effect size, although it is not explicitly indicated in the tables, the most representative results are narrated throughout the results section (lines 406-408).
“In the attention test, significant differences were observed in concentration after the intervention (p < 0.01), with a large effect size in both groups (HIFT: d = 2.19; MIFT: d = 1.03).”
“Line 238-241: ANCOVA is noted as the primary analysis method. Yet, ANCOVA results are either absent or inadequately detailed. Explicitly report these results or justify their omission”.
Author response:
Thank you very much for your comment. Regarding the ANCOVA, although it is true that we do not have an explicit table of results for it, we do report the significant results related to attention. We would like to point out that, thanks to your correction, we realized an error that we made during the previous manuscript review, where we stated that the significance was p<0.001, when in fact the significance was p<0.01. (lines 406-408).
“In the attention test, significant differences were observed in concentration after the intervention (p < 0.01), with a large effect size in both groups (HIFT: d = 2.19; MIFT: d = 1.03).”
“Line 225 (Figure 2): The intervention exercises are well described, but no supplemental material or appendix provides further detail. Consider including the exact circuit protocol or heart rate data as supplemental files for replicability”.
Author response:
Thank you very much for your appreciation. In the intervention section, we have detailed the entire protocol between lines 301 and 315. For this reason, we did not consider including an annex, as we believe it would result in redundant information. We are confident that the protocol is reproducible with the information already provided; however, if you remain unconvinced, we are open to reconsidering this approach:
“Participants were asked to arrive half an hour early to complete the initial tests. After the initial assessment, they were randomly and simply divided into two groups, participants included in the study were randomly assigned to a high-intensity functional interval training group (HIFT group), to a moderate intensity functional interval training (MIFT group), in a 1:1 ratio using a computer-generated table of numbers. The HIFT group performed 30 minutes of high-intensity functional training (>85% Max. HR), con-sisting of a circuit of functional exercises: lunges, push-ups, jump squats, suspension rows, planks, and burpees (Figure 2). This was divided into 30”-10” blocks, 6 rounds with 1-minute rests between rounds. The MIFT group performed the same circuit as the HIFT group for 30 minutes but at a lower intensity (70-80% max. HR). Both groups were monitored at all times to ensure they reached the target intensity using the Uptivo Bridge Cloud heart rate monitor (Uptivo, S.r.l, Carate Brianza, Italy). This device allowed us to determine whether the participants were within the required % of HR. If they momen-tarily exceeded or fell short of the target, they would be able to adjust the intensity to reach it. Afterward, participants were re-assessed”.
In the case of HR was used as a control variable for intensity and was not considered in the data analysis. We are attaching images of the implementation of the intervention protocol.
“Lines 298-315: Effect sizes and post-hoc power analyses for non-significant results are not provided. Especially, for non-significant results, please clarify whether a post-hoc power analysis was conducted to evaluate the adequacy of the sample size. Adding these metrics will strengthen the manuscript's statistical rigor”.
Author response:
Thank you very much for your comment. We test the hypothesis and we tested the interaction effect in variables analyzed in this study. “A single factor was used to verify the absence of statistically significant differences in pre-intervention measures. When pre-test differences were found, a univariate analysis was conducted using variance, with post-intervention measures as the dependent variable and pre-intervention measures as the covariate. Within-group differences (pre- and post-intervention values) for state and trait anxiety levels, stress, executive function, attention, and memory were assessed using Student’s t-test, following both per-protocol and intention-to-treat principles. Additionally, differences between the MIFT and HIFT groups were examined after adjusting for baseline values of body mass index, age, sex, and initial scores across all analyzed variables using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)”.
“Figure 3 is good to visualize the results, however, the inclusion of a single figure might limit visual clarity. Did the authors only plot significant results? If so, this should be clarified. Consider plotting all comparisons to provide a comprehensive overview”.
Author response:
Thank you very much for your valuable comment. Regarding Figure 3, we have carefully considered your feedback and realized that an error had been made. We have now corrected it, as the results presented in the figure were not significant and were related to a different variable associated with the Stroop Test. As a result of your comment, we have revised the manuscript and, in line 398, repositioned Figure 3 to be related to the ‘mean time per question’. Furthermore, we have updated the figure with the revised means and included the significance values for both groups (lines 433-436). We sincerely appreciate your input, as it will undoubtedly enhance the clarity and comprehension of our manuscript by providing a figure of higher quality. Regarding the inclusion of more figures, we think that with the 2 tables presented added to the 3 figures, with the corresponding correction and update of figure 3 thanks to your comment, it is sufficient in order to guarantee a fluid reading of the manuscript and ensure its understanding.
Please find attached the updated figure.
Figure 3: Comparison of Correct Responses Pre- and Post-Intervention Based on the Type of Training Performed
Abbreviatures: HIFT (High-Intensity Functional Training); HIFT (Moderate-Intensity Functional Training); *p<.005; **p<0.001.
“Line 400. I appreciate that the authors mentioned several limitations. Wondering, in the future, a follow up test might tell some insights beyond the pre- and post-test design and also the length of the intervention could play a role regarding the intervention effect”.
Author response:
Thank you very much for your appreciation. We have added a future research avenue to examine the effects of a longitudinal study on cognitive functions, stress, and anxiety in HIFT and MIFT training programs. (Lines 549-551)
“As for another potential avenue of research, a longitudinal study could be conducted on the effects of HIFT and MIFT training programs on cognitive functions, stress, and anxiety”.
The author responsible for correspondence is:
Francisco Álvarez Salvago, PhD
Paseo de la Alameda Nº 6
Universidad Europea de Valencia, 46010; Valencia, Spain
+34 630 73 43 63
E-mail address
salvagofran@gmail.com
Sincerely,
Francisco Álvarez Salvago
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe title of the article is: “Acute Effect of a Single-Bout HIFT and MIFT Training on Cognitive Functions, Anxiety, and Stress in Healthy Adults”. However, the introduction does not conceptualise HIFT and MIFT. It should elaborate further on the conceptualisation of “cognitive functions,” “anxiety,” and “stress,” as these are the central themes of the article.
In the abstract, it begins with the objective without providing a brief contextualisation of the topic.
In the title, abbreviations such as “HIFT” and “MIFT” are used without clarifying their meaning, which many potential readers may not understand.
Methods
The study states that “The study was conducted in February 2024.” Was it conducted throughout the entire month of February? It should specify the dates, e.g., from the xth of February to the xth of February 2024.
In the phrase “Participants were contacted in person, by phone,” how was the sample selected? Was it randomised?
Instruments
The study utilised the “State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)” and the “Perceived Stress Scale (PSS),” but it does not reference the Cronbach's alpha values.
Discussion
The discussion provides very little analysis of the results regarding Cognitive Functions, Anxiety, and Stress in Healthy Adults, and its relationship with other studies is minimally explored.
Conclusion
The conclusion should be improved by detailing what this study contributed to the field of knowledge and clarifying whether or not the objectives were achieved.
References
The references should be reviewed and formatted according to the required guidelines.
Author Response
Francisco Álvarez Salvago, PhD
Paseo de la Alameda Nº 6
Universidad Europea de Valencia, 46010; Valencia, Spain
+34 630 73 43 63
E-mail address
salvagofran@gmail.com
Editorial Reviewer
Applied Sciences
26 December 2024
Dear Reviewer 3,
Please find below the answer to your last contribution
Reviewer Comments
“The title of the article is: “Acute Effect of a Single-Bout HIFT and MIFT Training on Cognitive Functions, Anxiety, and Stress in Healthy Adults”. However, the introduction does not conceptualise HIFT and MIFT. It should elaborate further on the conceptualisation of “cognitive functions,” “anxiety,” and “stress,” as these are the central themes of the article.”
Author response:
First of all, we would like to thank you for your comments. The introduction section has been modified. We have conceptualized 'cognitive functions,' 'anxiety,' and 'stress,' and later we have also conceptualized HIFT and MIFT. Thank you for your contribution. We believe we have significantly improved the manuscript, as well as provided relevant information and citations in order to contextualize the previously mentioned concepts. (Lines 43-48; 53-59;117-125)
“These cognitive functions involve the mental processes that allow us to receive, select, store, transform, develop, and retrieve information that we have received through ex-ternal stimuli. Functions such as perception, attention, and memory enable us to un-derstand and relate to the world more effectively [4]”.
“In general terms, anxiety is understood as an emotional response to a threat, manifested at cognitive, emotional, physiological, and motor levels [7]. It can have two dimensions: trait anxiety and state anxiety, with the former being a personality trait and the latter representing the current state of the individual [8]. Anxiety is often associated with stress, which arises from the individual's inability to cope with external demands (environment), generated by overwhelming situations, and can sometimes lead to serious psychological disorders [7]”.
“High-Intensity Functional Training (HIFT) and Moderate-Intensity Functional Training (MIFT) are both functional training methods based on exercises that can be adapted to any fitness level, aiming to improve an individual’s functionality and work capacity [22, 23]. Specifically, HIFT differs from High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) in its use of func-tional and varied exercises with differing durations of activity, which may or may not include rest intervals—a feature that is consistently present in HIIT [22]. Regarding the evidence on the effects of HIFT on cognitive functions, studies have shown that it can improve response speed as well as accuracy in cognitive tasks, such as those assessed through the Stroop test [24]”.
REFERENCES:
Zhang J. Cognitive functions of the brain: perception, attention and memory. ArXiv. 2019;abs/1907.02863.
Soriano JG, del Carmen Pérez-Fuentes M, del Mar Molero M, Tortosa BM, González A. Beneficios de las intervenciones psi-cológicas en relación al estrés y ansiedad: Revisión sistemática y metaanálisis. Eur J Educ Psychol. 2019;12(2):191-206
Zsido AN, Teleki SA, Csokasi K, Rozsa S, Bandi SA. Development of the short version of the Spielberger State—Trait Anxiety Inventory. Psychiatry Res. 2020;113223. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113223
Feito Y, Heinrich KM, Butcher SJ, Poston WSC. High-Intensity Functional Training (HIFT): Definition and Research Implica-tions for Improved Fitness. Sports (Basel). 2018 Aug 7;6(3):76. doi: 10.3390/sports6030076.
Peñín-Grandes S, Santos-Lozano A, Pinto-Fraga J, de la Fuente Gómez M, Del Río Solá ML, Martín-Hernández J. Moderate Intensity Functional Training as Adjuvant Treatment in Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Case Report. Ann Vasc Surg. 2022 Feb;79:439.e1-439.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2021.07.038. Epub 2021 Oct 11. PMID: 34648862.
“In the abstract, it begins with the objective without providing a brief contextualisation of the topic”.
Author response:
Thank you very much for your comment. Thanks to it, we have added relevant information to contextualize the topic of the study. Thank you again. (Lines 16-19)
“Currently, it has been observed that the fast-paced lifestyle, along with factors such as work pres-sure, economic and political uncertainty, among others, negatively impacts cognitive functions and increases levels of anxiety and stress in the population. In this context, physical exercise has been shown to be an effective means of alleviating these effects”.
“In the title, abbreviations such as “HIFT” and “MIFT” are used without clarifying their meaning, which many potential readers may not understand”.
Author response:
Thank you very much for your appreciation. Based on your comment, we have updated the title of the manuscript to provide greater clarity and understanding for potential readers: “Acute Effect of a single-bout High-Intensity Functional Training and Moderate-Intensity Functional Training on Cognitive Functions, Anxiety, and Stress in Healthy Adults”.
Methods
“The study states that “The study was conducted in February 2024.” Was it conducted throughout the entire month of February? It should specify the dates, e.g., from the xth of February to the xth of February 2024”.
Author response:
Thank you very much for your comment. We have clarified the date of the intervention in the present manuscript. Thank you again. (Lines 137-138)
“In the phrase “Participants were contacted in person, by phone,” how was the sample selected? Was it randomised?”
Author response:
Thank you very much for your appreciation. We have clarified that all participants in the sample trained at the center. Thank you again. (lines 139-141)
“All participants, who trained at the WftHealthandfitness training center in Pizarra (Málaga, Spain), were contacted in person, by phone (via WhatsApp and phone calls), and through social media”
Instruments
“The study utilised the “State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)” and the “Perceived Stress Scale (PSS),” but it does not reference the Cronbach's alpha values”.
Author response:
Thank you very much for your comment. We have updated each section within the instruments, adding the Cronbach's alphas for the Stroop Test in addition to the STAI Test, and we have also updated the PSS alpha to make it clearer. Thanks to your feedback, we believe this will substantially improve the manuscript. ((Lines 222-224; 273-274; 287-288)
“This test has shown an internal consistency of Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.77 and an average reliability coefficient of r = 0.85”.
“As for the reliability of the questionnaire, Cronbach's alpha scores of 0.90 were observed for trait anxiety and 0.93 for state anxiety”.
“The internal consistency reliability and factorial validity of the questionnaire in its Spanish version are adequate, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.81”
REFERENCES:
Golden CJ. STROOP. Test de Colores y Palabras – Edición Revisada. Ruiz-Fernández B, Luque T, Sánchez-Sánchez F, adaptadores. Madrid: TEA Ediciones; 2020.
Guillén-Riquelme A, Buela-Casal G. Actualización psicométrica y funcionamiento diferencial de los ítems en el State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Psicothema. 2011;23(3):510-5.
Remor E. Psychometric Properties of a European Spanish Version of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). The Spanish Journal of Psychology. 2006;9(1):86–93. doi:10.1017/S1138741600006004
Discussion
“The discussion provides very little analysis of the results regarding Cognitive Functions, Anxiety, and Stress in Healthy Adults, and its relationship with other studies is minimally explored”.
Author response:
Thank you very much for your comment. Due to the specific topic of the manuscript, there is limited evidence in the field we study concerning healthy adults. We made an effort to compare our results with similar and longitudinal studies. However, thanks to your comment, we have included additional nuances throughout the discussion and have emphasized as a strength of the current study that it can serve as a reference for replication by other authors, which would allow further exploration of the topic. (Lines 459-463; 536-539).
“We would like to highlight that, throughout the discussion, due to the scarcity of scientific evidence from studies similar to the present manuscript, we will compare and contrast with similar studies in different populations or comparable populations, as well as with interventions related to the theme of the manuscript”.
“Another strength of the manuscript is that it is a pioneering study, which can serve as a reference for other authors to further explore the topics and methodologies addressed throughout the study”.
Conclusion
“The conclusion should be improved by detailing what this study contributed to the field of knowledge and clarifying whether or not the objectives were achieved”.
Author response:
Thank you very much for your comment. We have clarified that the objectives of the study have been fulfilled, namely, to analyze the acute effects of single-bout high-intensity functional training (HIFT) and moderate-intensity functional training (MIFT) on cognitive function, stress, and anxiety. Subsequently, we have concluded by discussing the contributions of the study to the field of knowledge. Thank you very much for your comment again. (Lines 549-551)
“After stating the main findings of the study, we can say that we have fulfilled the objective set. Finally, the present study opens a new avenue for the scientific community to compare the effects of HIFT and MIFT on cognitive functions, stress, and anxiety in young adults”.
References
“The references should be reviewed and formatted according to the required guidelines”.
Author response:
Thank you very much for your appreciation. References have been improved and added thanks to your comments and those of other reviewers.
The author responsible for correspondence is:
Francisco Álvarez Salvago, PhD
Paseo de la Alameda Nº 6
Universidad Europea de Valencia, 46010; Valencia, Spain
+34 630 73 43 63
E-mail address
salvagofran@gmail.com
Sincerely,
Francisco Álvarez Salvago
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks to the authors for making revisions. It is a better version.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI consider the modifications made suitable for the publication of the research article.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study investigated the acute impact of high- and moderate-intensity exercise on cognition, anxiety, and stress in healthy adults. The authors provided findings that a single bout of exercise at high intensity led to greater benefits for the outcome measures. While the study deals with an interesting topic, the manuscript firm rationales for the study subject and design. The authors also address a broad range of topics without providing conceptual or operational definitions of various terms. More critically, significant flaws and incomparability are found in the statistical analysis and results because the described statistical analyses did not test the hypotheses, which makes the findings questionable. Specific comments are as follows.
Abstract: Several important pieces of information about the experimental design and analytic approach are missing in the abstract.
- Background: ‘analyze’ and ‘compare’ would be redundant.
- Methods: I am not sure if the study location and time are worth to be included in the abstract.
- Methods: What variables do you mean to assess? Consider using a specific or different term such as ‘dependent variables’ or ‘outcome measures.’
- Methods: When exactly did you assess cognition, stress, and anxiety? Was it before, during, or after the exercise session? Also, in which order did you assess all those outcomes? If you assessed those outcomes twice (pre and post) in each group, how did you control potential practice effect?
- Methods and Results: Which statistical tests did you run to test your hypothesis? Did you test the interaction effect? Describe your analytic approach and present results accordingly.
- Conclusions: What do you mean by enhancing anxiety and stress? Did they increase or decrease?
Terminology: The authors address a broad range of topics without conceptual or operational definitions of various terms.
- Function and performance are not synonyms, but you use cognitive function and cognitive performance interchangeably. Please justify your terminology and make it consistent throughout the paper.
- Please consider not using terms like ‘program’ or ‘intervention’ that are usually unused in experimental studies with a single session of exercise. Please also make sure to add ‘acute’ before ‘effects’ throughout the manuscript. Otherwise, the readers can be misled.
- Explain your terminology: HIFT and MIFT. Your approach seems much like the traditional interval training, but a different terminology is used here. How do you define ‘functional training’ and how is it different from interval training?
- Variables are typically a statistical term. Consider replacing psychological “variables” with another term that represents the construct rather than statistics.
Introduction
- Some sentences are grammatically incorrect and thus difficult to understand (e.g., Line 32-34, Line 36-37).
- The sentences in each paragraph are loosely connected. For example, in the first paragraph, you introduced aging as a factor influencing cognition in the second sentence and then jumped straight to the benefits of physical activity in the next sentence.
- The introduction is not well written, lacking proper rationale for this study. For example, modern lifestyle has exacerbated mental and physical health problems in women, children/adolescents, and older adults. Then, why didn’t you study one of these populations?
- A broad range of topics are addressed in the intro, but proper conceptualization of the topics and rationale are lacking.
- Instead of introducing a broad range of topics, consider explaining the prior studies on a similar topic in more detail. The current description is very vague (e.g., Lines 76-80).
Methods
- What do you mean by “they were randomly and simply divided into two groups?” Also, how did you randomize participants? Did you consider any factors (age, gender, etc.) for randomization?
- HIFT and MIFT seem to consist of the same exercises in the same blocks, rounds, and resting periods. How could those two groups exercise at different HRmax? Did you simply ask the HIFT group to work harder? Describe your experiment in more detail.
- If you always monitored HR, provide HR data to corroborate your manipulation.
- You did not test your hypothesis by conducting Student’s t-test. You may need to conduct two-way mixed ANOVA or one-way ANCOVA to properly test the hypothesis that HIFT will improve cognitive function, anxiety, and stress in healthy adults, compared to MIFT.
I defer my review of results and discussion because critical flaws were found in the rationale and analytic approach.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author aimed to analyze the effects of an acute high-intensity functional training program (HIFT) and moderate-intensity functional training (MIFT) on cognitive, stress, and anxiety factors. The research results showed significant improvements in executive function, specifically in the mean response time in both programs, although only the HIFT group showed significant improvements in correct responses. No significant differences were observed in other executive function variables.This is a very interesting study that deserves to be published, but the participant flowchart recruited 71 people and only 57 ended up completing the study, which personally I think should be mentioned in the discussion section.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors had the next objective.
The objective of this study is to analyze and compare the acute effects of a 14 High-Intensity Functional Training (HIFT) program versus a Moderate-Intensity Functional 15 Training (MIFT) program on cognitive functions and psychological variables such as anxiety and 16 stress.
One of the strengths of the study is the intervention.
In the introduction, the paragraph on the benefits of physical activity on the study variables should be strengthened and a couple of intervention articles should be added.
There are changes to the size and font in the format.
The methodology and results are clearly described.
I suggest strengthening the discussions with more studies.
Limitations are clearly described.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI thank the authors for giving me the opportunity to read this manuscript.
I think the introduction needs to be expanded in light of the latest scientific literature.
I find the methodological design of the research lacking, in fact there is no control group and the sample is inhomogeneous, e.g. in terms of age, gender and frequency of sports training.
As for the results, they are very much affected by the baseline, in fact the two groups are inhomogeneous in the various surveys carried out. Perhaps the two groups should also have been standardised on the basis of the baseline data.
The experimental time is not indicated: it would appear that data were taken on the same day about 30 minutes apart.
The presentation of the results appears unclear, especially with regard to Table 2 concerning the difference between the two groups.
We know from the scientific literature that physical activity helps people both physically and psychologically. This improvement depends very much on the individuals' age, gender and frequency of training. Constant sports training allows for the lowering of anxiety levels and the improvement of executive functions in general.
The conclusions must be revised in light of the possible modification of the experimental design, with the evaluation
Overall, I find this manuscript to be a good start to assessing the improvement of certain personal variables of individuals performing high-intensity activity. I also appreciate the use of objective instruments that allow variables to be measured objectively.
Below you can find some suggestions for changes to be made in the manuscript:
1. in paragraph 2.1 indicate the numerosity of the two groups;
2. it should be indicated which type of T-Test is used, imagine both for dependent samples;
3. in paragraph 3 line 237 the average age of the sample would appear to be higher than in the two experimental groups;
4. lines 255-256 would seem to belong to the paragraph of the STROOP test, therefore moved after line 247;
5. lines 257 and 273 should be rechecked for mean and standard deviation values;
6. in the indication of significance, p<0.001 should be indicated instead of p=0.000;
7. the description of the data in table 2 should be improved by separating the cognitive from the psychological aspect, so anxiety and stress should be moved to a new table. It would also be clearer to add a column with the t-value and possibly cohen's d.
Kind regards.
