Between-Season Changes in the Cycling Power Profile in Relation to Training Volume and Moderate-to-High Intensity in International Junior and U23 Triathletes: A Longitudinal Study

Evolution of the cycling Power Profile and External Training Load in International Junior and U23 Triathletes: a between-seasons Longitudinal Analysis REVIEW

This study aimed to analyse the evolution of mean maximal power in international triathletes and to examine its relationship with external load-based training characteristics.

The longitudinal design and length of the study is its greatest strength, while the sample (its size, representativeness and age) is the greatest strength of the study.

 The topic is important, the method of conducting the study is robust, while the obtained result is important for both sports science and training practice.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive evaluation and for recognizing the value of our work. Their supportive comments are greatly appreciated.

Comments 1: The title "Evolution of the cycling Power Profile and External Training Load in International Junior and U23 Triathletes: a between-seasons Longitudinal Analysis" could be improved if it also mentioned the relationships that are the main findings of the study. Also, I think the term evolution is not completely clear or appropriate.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion and agree that the title could better reflect the main findings. We have changed the title to clarify both the relationships analysed and the longitudinal aspect of the study.

 Comments 2: It is necessary to add some quantitative and clearer qualitative description of the sample to the abstract. We have problem in abstract with information’s about the sample which are missing

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion and have added the requested quantitative and qualitative details about the sample to the abstract.

Comments 3: Some keywords are repeated from the title.

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for the comment and have modified the keywords to avoid repetition with the title.

Comments 4: In introduction, lines 57 – 60, do not provide a complete picture of the research area. In JFMK, last year study “Effectiveness of Prolonged Application of Super High-Intensity Continuous Training—Team Case Study” was published, which provides new insights into the research area. I recommend that authors read it, include it in their introductory discussions, and then compare the results obtained with the results reported there.

Response 4: Thank you for your recommendation. We have reviewed the suggested article (“Effectiveness of Prolonged Application of Super High-Intensity Continuous Training—Team Case Study”, JFMK, 2025) and acknowledge that it provides valuable insights. However, since that study focuses on handball and our research is on triathlon, the sports contexts and physiological demands are different. Therefore, we have not included it in our introduction, as we aimed to discuss studies directly relevant to triathlon.

Comments 5: The methodological section lacks a power analysis as well as precise information on how the sample was designed. Since this is the study's biggest flaw, it is imperative that the authors take this comment seriously.

Response 5: Thank you for your comment. In response, we have added details on the participant inclusion criteria to the Materials and Methods section to clarify how the sample was selected. We believe this addition improves the transparency and rigor of our methodological description.

Due to the limited availability of athletes competing at this level, all eligible international junior and U23 triathletes were included in the study. The sample was relatively homogeneous in terms of competitive level, as all participants competed at the international level.

Comments 6: The results lack quantitative indicators of normality assessment.

Response 6: Thank you for your comment. We have clarified the procedure used to assess normality in the Materials and Methods section.

We consider that reporting this information in the Methods section is more appropriate, as it describes the statistical procedures applied prior to the analysis of the results. Therefore, this information has been incorporated into the Methods rather than the Results section.

Comments 7: For a clear insight, we need a detailed table with descriptive parameters.

 Response 7: Thank you for your comment. To provide a clearer overview of the data, we have added a detailed table including the descriptive statistics of the power profile variables. This table has been included as supplementary material (Annex) to improve the clarity and transparency of the results.

Comments 8: Because the study is longitudinal, it is not clear how the effect of time and natural developmental processes was controlled.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Response 1:

The manuscript presents a longitudinal study aimed at analyzing the evolution of Mean Maximal Power (MMP) in cycling among international junior and U23 triathletes and its relationship with external training load characteristics over three consecutive seasons.

The topic is relevant within the field of exercise physiology and performance monitoring in endurance sports, and the use of real-world training and competition data collected through power meters represents a clear strength of the study. The overall structure of the manuscript is clear and coherent: the introduction adequately establishes the rationale for the research, the methods are sufficiently described, and the results are presented systematically through tables and figures that facilitate the understanding of seasonal changes in performance and training load. Moreover, the longitudinal approach across three consecutive seasons provides valuable insights into performance development in athletes during an important stage of competitive progression.

Despite these positive aspects, several elements could be improved to further enhance the clarity and scientific robustness of the manuscript.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. We appreciate the recognition of the relevance of our study, the use of real-world training data, and the clarity of the manuscript’s structure and presentation. We have carefully considered the suggestions provided and have made revisions where appropriate to further enhance the clarity and scientific rigor of the manuscript.

Comments 1: First, it would be beneficial to clarify more explicitly how differences between male and female athletes were handled in the statistical analyses, since the sample includes participants of both sexes, while the interpretation of the results in the Results and Discussion sections sometimes appears aggregated without an in-depth reflection on potential physiological or performance-related differences between groups.

Response 1: Thank you for this valuable comment. The distribution of participants by sex resulted in relatively small subgroups, which were considered insufficient to perform inferential analyses with adequate statistical power. Conducting separate statistical analyses for male and female athletes would have led to very small group sizes, thereby increasing the risk of unreliable estimates and reducing the robustness of the statistical comparisons.

For this reason, the sex variable was not included as a factor in the inferential analyses, and the statistical procedures were conducted using the aggregated dataset. However, descriptive statistics of the power profile for male and female athletes are provided for their potential informative value. We believe that this approach allows us to present the available data transparently while avoiding potentially misleading interpretations derived from underpowered subgroup analyses.

Comments 2:  Second, the Methods section would benefit from a brief additional explanation regarding the criteria used to identify and remove “anomalous” data during the dataset cleaning process, in order to improve methodological transparency and reproducibility.

Response 2: Thank you for the suggestion. We have clarified in the Methods section that anomalous data were defined as non-progressive increases in relative power near the maximum for each duration of effort, likely reflecting measurement or recording errors, and were manually removed to ensure data quality and reproducibility.

Comments 3: Third, the presentation of the correlations between MMP values and the different power bands, although detailed in the tables, could be accompanied by a clearer interpretative synthesis within the Results section to help readers more easily identify the main patterns emerging from the analyses.

Response 3: Thank you for this comment. In the current version of the manuscript, the paragraphs referring to Tables 1 and 2 were intended to provide a concise synthesis and interpretation of the correlations between MMP values and the different power bands presented in the tables.

However, in response to the reviewer’s suggestion, we have revised and slightly expanded this paragraph in the Results section to make the interpretation of the main patterns emerging from the analyses clearer for the reader.

Comments 4: Finally, in the Discussion and Conclusions sections, a slightly more cautious tone is recommended when interpreting the relationships between training intensity distribution and performance improvements, considering that the correlational nature of the study does not allow causal inferences between the analyzed variables.

Response 4: Thank you for this valuable comment. In response to the reviewer’s suggestion, we have carefully revised the Discussion and Conclusions sections to adopt a more cautious tone when interpreting the relationships between training intensity distribution and performance improvements. Specifically, minor adjustments have been made to the wording in order to avoid causal interpretations and to better reflect the correlational nature of the analyses.