Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please Doc/PDF

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, please kindly refer to the attached Word file for our detailed point-by-point responses and the corresponding revisions made in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled 'Four-Week High-Intensity Interval Training Improves 2000-m Rowing Performance and Tensiomyographic Mechanical Properties in Rowers' investigates the effects of a short-term HIIT intervention on rowing performance and TMG-derived muscle mechanical properties. The topic is relevant to sports science and provides valuable insights into rowing-specific neuromuscular adaptations. However, several methodological and statistical limitations limit the study's impact. Therefore, the following aspects must be addressed.

1) Abstract: The abstract should present a more balanced interpretation of the findings by avoiding mechanistic conclusions that were not directly measured.

2) In addition, reporting effect sizes and/or confidence intervals would strengthen the presentation of the results, while briefly acknowledging the preliminary nature of the study and its limited sample size would provide a more appropriate context for interpreting the findings.

3) Introduction: The Introduction should more clearly define the research gap and explain the scientific novelty of the study. In particular, the authors should better justify why assessing TMG-derived adaptations in the selected muscles provides new insights beyond those reported in previous HIIT studies involving rowers.

4) Materials and methods: The authors should also provide a more detailed description of the overall training load performed by both groups throughout the intervention period, including training volume, intensity, and compliance.

5) Additionally, an a priori power analysis should be reported to justify whether the sample size was sufficient to detect meaningful intervention effects.

6) Results: This section should be strengthened by reporting confidence intervals and standardized effect sizes for each outcome in the tables. Given the large number of TMG variables and muscles analyzed, the authors should also consider applying an appropriate correction for multiple comparisons.

7) Moreover, the practical significance of the observed changes should be discussed, not only their statistical significance.

8) The discussion should more clearly distinguish between the outcomes directly measured in this study and the physiological mechanisms that are only hypothesized. It should consider alternative explanations for the observed adaptations and provide a more critical comparison of their findings with previous TMG- and rowing-related studies, highlighting both agreements and discrepancies in the literature.

9) Figure 2 should be improved to enhance its interpretability. The use of percentage changes alone may overemphasize relatively small effects, while the absence of error bars makes it difficult to assess data variability. In addition, the figure lacks sufficient explanatory information, and the statistical significance indicators are not easily interpretable. 

10) Table 3 should be improved by including the confidence intervals described in the statistical analysis section, as they are currently not reported. Additionally, including standardized effect sizes for pre–post changes would provide a clearer understanding of the magnitude and practical relevance of the observed performance adaptations.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language should be carefully revised throughout the manuscript, as several grammatical, syntactic, and stylistic issues are present.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, please kindly refer to the attached Word file for our detailed point-by-point responses and the corresponding revisions made in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Your manuscript investigates the effects of a high-intensity interval training (HIIT) program performed on a rowing ergometer on 2000-m rowing performance and muscle mechanical properties assessed by tensiomyography (TMG) in rowers. The topic is relevant and timely, both from the perspective of optimizing athletic performance and the development of objective methods for monitoring training-induced neuromuscular adaptations. The integration of sport-specific performance assessment with TMG-derived muscle mechanical properties represents an interesting aspect of the study and may contribute to expanding current knowledge regarding neuromuscular responses to HIIT interventions.

Nevertheless, the manuscript presents several shortcomings, as outlined below:

1. In the Abstract, the conclusions are stated too categorically considering the methodology employed. Statements such as "improved neuromuscular transmission," "optimized muscle contractile efficiency," or "without inducing excessive muscle stiffness" go beyond what can be directly demonstrated by the evaluated TMG parameters. I recommend rephrasing these statements using more cautious wording, such as "may reflect," "may indicate," or "were associated with."
2. Also in the Abstract, the results are presented exclusively through p-values and percentage changes. It would be useful to include effect size estimates and/or confidence intervals for the main outcomes to facilitate the assessment of their practical significance.
3. In the Introduction, I recommend placing greater emphasis on the specific knowledge gap that the study aims to address.
4. Also in the Introduction, the rationale for the use of TMG requires a more balanced presentation. In its current form, several statements implicitly suggest that changes in TMG-derived parameters directly reflect specific neuromuscular adaptations. Although the current literature supports the usefulness of TMG, the physiological interpretation of several parameters remains incompletely understood. I recommend discussing these limitations more explicitly.
5. Furthermore, the argument regarding the novelty of the study could be strengthened. The manuscript states that few studies have investigated the effects of HIIT on TMG-derived muscle mechanical properties in rowers; however, this statement would benefit from a more comprehensive discussion of the existing literature.
6. The study design requires important methodological clarification. Participants are described as being randomized into the two groups, yet the study is later referred to as quasi-experimental. I recommend clarifying the allocation procedure and using consistent methodological terminology throughout the manuscript.
7. The sample size represents one of the major limitations of the study. Only 17 participants were included, yet no sample size justification or statistical power analysis is provided. I recommend including such a justification.
8. In addition, I believe that the participant characterization is insufficient. Important information regarding participants' sex, competitive level, rowing experience, and habitual training volume is missing. These characteristics are essential for assessing the external validity of the findings.
9. The comparability of the groups at baseline requires further discussion. Although no statistically significant differences were identified, relatively large numerical differences exist for certain anthropometric variables. Given the small sample size, this issue deserves acknowledgment.
10. The intervention protocol raises an important concern regarding the control of total training load. The HIIT group completed additional training sessions compared with the control group, making it difficult to distinguish the specific effects of HIIT from those resulting from an overall increase in training volume.
11. The manuscript states that mean power output, peak power output, and RPE scores were monitored throughout the intervention; however, these data are not presented in the Results section. I recommend including them, as they provide important information regarding the actual intensity of the intervention and participant adherence.
12. In the description of the TMG procedures, information regarding the reliability of the measurements performed within the study is lacking. I recommend reporting reproducibility indices or discussing the limitations associated with this aspect.
13. The use of bilateral mean values requires additional justification. In high-performance athletes, muscular asymmetries may have functional relevance. I recommend explaining why the two limbs were not analyzed separately.
14. The statistical analysis requires further clarification. It is not specified whether the assumptions underlying ANOVA were verified, including normality of distribution and homogeneity of variances. Considering the small sample size, I believe this issue is essential.
15. There is an inconsistency between the Methods and Results sections. The authors state that the changes would be reported together with 95% confidence intervals; however, these are not subsequently presented. I recommend correcting this inconsistency.
16. The issue of multiple comparisons is not adequately addressed. Numerous statistical analyses were performed across five muscles and five TMG-derived parameters. I recommend discussing the risk of Type I error and specifying whether any procedures were applied to control for multiple testing.
17. The results regarding 2000-m rowing performance are presented clearly and suggest favorable effects of the intervention. Nevertheless, their interpretation should be made cautiously in light of the differences in total training load between the groups.
18. The reported effect sizes for some TMG variables are very large relative to the sample size. I recommend discussing the possibility of effect size overestimation and interpreting these findings with appropriate caution.
19. In the Discussion section, several interpretations are overly speculative. Changes in TMG-derived parameters are presented as evidence of improved neuromuscular transmission, enhanced motor unit recruitment, or improved contractile efficiency, although the study did not include direct measurements capable of assessing these mechanisms. I kindly ask the authors to address this issue.
20. The interpretation of the Dm parameter requires greater caution. The conclusion that unchanged Dm values indicate the absence of increased muscle stiffness is not fully supported by the current literature and should therefore be presented more cautiously.
21. Several of the proposed physiological mechanisms are presented as likely explanations despite not being directly assessed in the study. I recommend explicitly presenting these mechanisms as explanatory hypotheses rather than as demonstrated mechanisms.
22. In the Limitations section, I recommend further discussing the small sample size, the absence of a statistical power analysis, the lack of strict control over total training load, and the inherent limitations associated with the interpretation of TMG-derived parameters.
23. The Conclusions are generally consistent with the reported findings; however, some statements are overly definitive. Claims regarding improved neuromuscular activation, neuromuscular transmission, or contractile efficiency are not directly supported by the collected data. I recommend using more cautious wording that more accurately reflects the actual findings.

Overall, the manuscript addresses a relevant topic and presents potentially interesting findings for the fields of exercise physiology and athlete monitoring. However, important methodological clarifications, more rigorous statistical reporting, and a more cautious interpretation of the results are required, particularly regarding the physiological significance of TMG-derived parameters and the mechanisms underlying the observed adaptations.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, please kindly refer to the attached Word file for our detailed point-by-point responses and the corresponding revisions made in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see comments and suggestions(2).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewers’ Comments

Reviewer#1

We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the careful re-evaluation of our revised manuscript and for pointing out the remaining inconsistencies in the reference section. We apologize for not fully correcting the DOI format in the previous revision. In the current revision, we have carefully rechecked the reference list and revised the DOI presentation throughout the reference section to ensure consistency with the standard DOI prefix format.

 

Comment 1

Reference chapter:

Unfortunately, I could not help, it was observed that no corrections have been applied, despite the authors' assertion that they have reviewed the references. The DOIs remain unchanged, and the revised text appears identical to the original. Inconsistencies are still present in the references.

Kindly update references 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, and 27 as needed. In addition, please ensure that the title of reference 24 is accurate and properly written. For your convenience, I am also providing the correct title and DOI reference to assist the authors:

“García-Manso, J.M.; Rodríguez-Ruiz, D.; Rodríguez-Matoso, D.; de Saa, Y.; Sarmiento, S.; Quiroga, M. Assessment of muscle fatigue after an ultra-endurance triathlon using tensiomyography (TMG). J Sports Sci. 2011, 29(6), 619-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2010.548822”

Once again, ensure that all references include the standard DOI prefix format consistently throughout the whole reference section.

Response: Thank you very much for this important comment. We sincerely apologize for the incomplete correction of the DOI format in the previous revised version. We agree with the reviewer that the DOI presentation should be standardized throughout the reference section.

In response to this comment, we have carefully rechecked the reference section and made the following corrections:

1. The DOI format of References 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, and 27 has been revised from the inconsistent “doi:” style to the standard DOI prefix format, “https://doi.org/...”.
2. The title of Reference 24 has been corrected to “Assessment of muscle fatigue after an ultra-endurance triathlon using tensiomyography (TMG).”
3. The DOI for Reference 24 has been added as “https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2010.548822”.
4. We have further checked the entire reference section to ensure that DOI formatting is now consistent throughout the manuscript.

Revision made in the manuscript

The following changes have been made in the References section:

- Reference 19: DOI format revised to “https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000191418.37709.81”.

- Reference 21: DOI format revised to “https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1209539”.

- Reference 22: DOI format revised to “https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01249.x”.

- Reference 23: DOI format revised to “https://doi.org/10.52082/jssm.2023.338”.

- Reference 24: Title corrected to include “(TMG)” and DOI added as “https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2010.548822”.

- Reference 25: DOI format revised to “https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2012.06.003”.

- Reference 27: DOI format revised to “https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2016.05.005”.

We appreciate the reviewer’s careful attention to these details. These corrections have improved the accuracy, consistency, and professionalism of the reference section.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The manuscript entitled: Four-Week High-Intensity Interval Training Improves 2000-m Rowing Performance and Tensiomyographic Mechanical Properties in Rowers, has been successfully revised. The authors have addressed all the comments and remarks raised during the review process. Therefore, the manuscript has been improved in terms of methodological clarity and overall scientific quality. I consider that the revised version is suitable for publication, and I recommend accepting the manuscript for publication in its present form.  

Author Response

Response to Reviewers’ Comments

Reviewer#2

We sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for the careful re-evaluation of our revised manuscript and for the positive comments. We are grateful that the reviewer considered the manuscript to have been successfully revised and recognized the improvements in methodological clarity and overall scientific quality. We also appreciate the reviewer’s recommendation that the manuscript is suitable for publication in its present form.

 

Comment 1

The manuscript entitled: Four-Week High-Intensity Interval Training Improves 2000-m Rowing Performance and Tensiomyographic Mechanical Properties in Rowers, has been successfully revised. The authors have addressed all the comments and remarks raised during the review process. Therefore, the manuscript has been improved in terms of methodological clarity and overall scientific quality. I consider that the revised version is suitable for publication, and I recommend accepting the manuscript for publication in its present form.

Response: Thank you very much for your positive evaluation and encouraging comments. We sincerely appreciate your careful review of our manuscript throughout the revision process. We are pleased that the revised version has adequately addressed your previous comments and that the improvements in methodological clarity and overall scientific quality are recognized.

Since no further revisions were requested by Reviewer 2, no additional changes were made to the manuscript in response to this comment. We have maintained the revised version and ensured that the manuscript remains consistent, clear, and ready for editorial consideration. 

Revision made in the manuscript: No additional revision was required in response to Reviewer 2’s comment.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I am satisfied that my concerns have been adequately addressed and have no further comments.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewers’ Comments

Reviewer#3

We sincerely thank Reviewer 3 for the careful re-evaluation of our revised manuscript and for the positive feedback. We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s confirmation that the previous concerns have been adequately addressed.

 

Comment 1

Dear authors,

I am satisfied that my concerns have been adequately addressed and have no further comments.

 

Response: Thank you very much for your positive evaluation and constructive guidance throughout the review process. We sincerely appreciate your careful comments on the earlier version of the manuscript, which helped us improve the clarity, methodological description, interpretation of findings, and overall quality of the paper.

We are pleased that the revised manuscript has adequately addressed your concerns. Since no further comments or specific revision requests were provided, no additional changes were made to the manuscript in response to this comment.

 

Revision made in the manuscript: No additional revision was required in response to Reviewer 3’s comment.