Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review is very interesting, the paper is well written. It would be more if you would add more images or graphs.

Author Response

The review is very interesting, the paper is well written. It would be more if you would add more images or graphs.

 

Thank you – we have added several figures

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is a review study about strength-endurance continuum (S-EC) and adherence to principles of Dynamic Correspondence.

The authors support the available evidence does substantiate existence of this continuum from two aspects. Indeed, the S-EC exists, particularly if work is equated as a high load low repetition scheme at one end (strength stimulus) and high volume (HIEE stimulus) at the other. However, there is also some evidence that supports the continuum as a repetition paradigm with high-load, low repetition at one end (strength stimulus) and a high repetition, low load at the other end. The second paradigm is most apparent under three conditions:

1) ecological validity – in the real world, work is not equated,

2) use of absolute loads in testing and

3) a substantial difference in the repetitions used in training (for example 2-5 repetitions versus ≥ 10 repetitions).

 

The manuscript is well written and present interesting findings. However, some modifications are required:

The rational of conducting such review paper requires more development in the Introduction.

Add the aims of the paper at the end of the Introduction

Could the authors present the methods used for the research of the studies:

-          Keywords

-          Languages

-          Etc.

Some tables are needed to presented the data of the literature.

Author Response

The paper is a review study about strength-endurance continuum (S-EC) and adherence to principles of Dynamic Correspondence.

 

The authors support the available evidence does substantiate existence of this continuum from two aspects. Indeed, the S-EC exists, particularly if work is equated as a high load low repetition scheme at one end (strength stimulus) and high volume (HIEE stimulus) at the other. However, there is also some evidence that supports the continuum as a repetition paradigm with high-load, low repetition at one end (strength stimulus) and a high repetition, low load at the other end. The second paradigm is most apparent under three conditions:

 

1) ecological validity – in the real world, work is not equated,

 

2) use of absolute loads in testing and

 

3) a substantial difference in the repetitions used in training (for example 2-5 repetitions versus ≥ 10 repetitions).

 

 

 

The manuscript is well written and present interesting findings. However, some modifications are required:

 

Thank you for the review

 

The rational of conducting such review paper requires more development in the Introduction.

Add the aims of the paper at the end of the Introduction

Added: Please see bold typing in the Introduction

Could the authors present the methods used for the research of the studies:

 

-          Keywords

 

-          Languages

 

-          Etc.

 

Added – Please see bold additions in the Methods

 

Some tables are needed to presented the data of the literature.

 

As this is a narrative review (and not a meta-analysis for example)  we do not believe tables would add to our arguments

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I suggest that this version is suitable for publication.