Mechanical Punch Intensity and Its Relationship with Oxygen Uptake and Heart Rate During Repeated Efforts in Elite and Amateur Boxers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors, here you can find some topics that can help you to improve the text.
- The study addresses a relevant and timely research question in the field of Sport Sciences.
- The experimental design is appropriate for the stated objectives.
- The results are consistent and adequately support the authors’ conclusions.
- No major methodological flaws were identified that would compromise the validity of the findings.
- The limitations of the study are appropriately acknowledged and discussed by the authors.
- However, several aspects would benefit from revision before publication: A clearer explanation of the validity, reliability, and practical interpretation of the Intensity Score (IS); Minor improvements in the description of the methodological procedures; Inclusion of graphical representations of the results to facilitate interpretation of the findings; Careful English language editing and reduction of some redundancies within the Discussion section
Main Points Requiring Attention
a. Methodological Transparency of the Intensity Score (IS): The study uses the Intensity Score derived from the Hykso Punch Tracker as its primary mechanical performance variable. However, the manuscript does not provide sufficient detail regarding how this index is calculated, which variables contribute most to the algorithm, and what its practical limitations are. Since it is a proprietary metric, further discussion of its validity and practical interpretation would improve transparency.
b. Small Sample Size: Although the authors acknowledge the pilot nature of the investigation, the sample size is relatively small (n = 20), with only five participants in each subgroup (elite males, elite females, amateur males, and amateur females). This limitation reduces statistical power and restricts the generalizability of the findings.
c. Lack of Graphical Presentation of Results: The results are presented exclusively in tabular form. The inclusion of figures illustrating the progression of IS, heart rate, and VOâ‚‚ across rounds would greatly facilitate the interpretation of the interaction effects related to competitive level, sex, and fatigue.
d. Overly Descriptive Discussion: The Discussion section is generally well supported by the literature; however, some passages are repetitive, particularly those related to fatigue effects and differences between elite and amateur athletes. A more concise discussion would improve readability and strengthen the manuscript.
e. Interpretation of Correlations: The authors emphasize the progressively stronger association between IS and VOâ‚‚ across rounds. However, greater caution should be exercised when interpreting these relationships, as correlation does not imply causation, especially within the context of a cross-sectional and observational study design.
f. Limitations of the RPAT Protocol: Although the RPAT is presented as an ecologically valid boxing-specific protocol, it cannot fully replicate the technical, tactical, psychological, and contextual demands of an actual boxing match. A more detailed discussion of this limitation would strengthen the interpretation of the findings.
7. Scientific English Language Revision
The manuscript is generally understandable and well organized. Nevertheless, some sentences are excessively long and could be revised to improve clarity, readability, and scientific writing quality.
Key revisions recommended:
- Provide a clearer explanation of the calculation, validity, and interpretation of the Intensity Score.
- More explicitly acknowledge the implications of the small sample size.
- Include graphical representations to complement the tables.
- Make the Discussion section more concise and less repetitive.
- Interpret correlations more cautiously.
- Expand the discussion regarding the ecological limitations of the RPAT protocol.
- Perform a thorough scientific English language revision.
Scientific English Language Revision
The manuscript is generally understandable and well organized. Nevertheless, some sentences are excessively long and could be revised to improve clarity, readability, and scientific writing quality.
Author Response
We sincerely thank Reviewer for the positive evaluation of our study and for the valuable suggestions that helped us improve the manuscript. We have carefully considered all suggestions and revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. Reviewer comments are reported in italics, followed by our responses.
Comment 1: A clearer explanation of the validity, reliability, and practical interpretation of the Intensity Score (IS) is required.
Response: Thank you for this important observation. We substantially expanded the description of the Intensity Score (IS) in the Methods section. Specifically, we clarified that IS is a proprietary composite metric derived from punch velocity, acceleration, punch type, and punch frequency measured through wrist-worn inertial sensors. We also explained that the exact computational algorithm is not publicly disclosed by the manufacturer and that IS should be interpreted as a relative indicator of punching activity rather than a direct measure of force or power. Furthermore, we expanded the Discussion section to address the practical interpretation of IS and its limitations, including the currently limited independent validation against gold-standard biomechanical measures.
Comment 2: The sample size is relatively small (n = 20), limiting statistical power and generalizability.
Response: We agree with the reviewer. The limitations related to sample size were further emphasized in the Discussion section. We now explicitly acknowledge the small overall sample (n = 20) and the very small subgroup sizes (n = 5 per subgroup), discussing their implications for statistical power, type II error risk, and generalizability. We also stress that the findings should be considered preliminary and exploratory.
Comment 3: Include graphical representations of the results.
Response: We appreciate this suggestion. To improve data visualization and facilitate interpretation of the interaction effects, we added three figures illustrating the progression of HR, IS, and VOâ‚‚ across rounds according to sex and competitive level.
Comment 4: The Discussion section is overly descriptive and contains redundancies.
Response: The Discussion section has been revised and condensed. Several repetitive passages were removed or merged, resulting in a more focused interpretation of the findings while maintaining the scientific rationale and literature support.
Comment 5: Correlations should be interpreted more cautiously because correlation does not imply causation.
Response: We fully agree. The Discussion was revised to explicitly state that the cross-sectional and observational nature of the study does not allow causal inferences. We now emphasize that the observed associations indicate relationships between variables rather than cause-and-effect mechanisms.
Comment 6: Expand the discussion regarding the ecological limitations of the RPAT protocol.
Response: We expanded the limitations section by discussing in greater detail the differences between the RPAT and actual boxing competition. Specifically, we now acknowledge that the protocol does not reproduce opponent interaction, tactical decision-making, defensive actions, footwork variability, pacing strategies, psychological stress, and other contextual factors that characterize official matches.
Comment 7: Perform a thorough scientific English language revision.
Response: The manuscript underwent comprehensive language editing to improve clarity, readability, and overall scientific writing quality. Several sentences were restructured and simplified to enhance precision and fluency.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study suggests that fatigue and the level of competition are the key factors affecting performance, showing a clear increase in physiological demands as the rounds progress. It also appears that heart rate is not a reliable indicator of the mechanical intensity of punches under intermittent exercise conditions.
The manuscript is well written and appears to have undergone careful editing.
Although this study is part of a broader research project aiming to obtain results through observational tools and non-invasive methods, it would still be valuable to include physiological markers such as lactate (already mentioned in the limitations section) and glucose measurements. Such parameters could also contribute to a more accurate determination of the involvement of aerobic metabolism (lines 264–265).
Considering the purpose of the primary research project, and given that the present study is described as a pilot study, it would be useful to report the number of strokes both per segment and in total.
It would also be beneficial to include a brief discussion regarding whether conducting the test during afternoon or evening hours could have influenced the results.
Based on the authors’ statement, “Specifically, amateur athletes show a more pronounced increase between the first and second rounds, whereas elite athletes exhibit a more moderate and stable pattern,” the inclusion of graphical representations of the results presented in Table 2 could further enhance the visual presentation and facilitate the interpretation of performance parameter variability across gender and group categories, if the authors agree with this interpretation.
Author Response
We thank Reviewer for the constructive comments and helpful suggestions. We have carefully considered all suggestions and revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. Reviewer comments are reported in italics, followed by our responses.
Comment 1: Although this study is part of a broader research project aiming to obtain results through observational tools and non-invasive methods, it would still be valuable to include physiological markers such as lactate (already mentioned in the limitations section) and glucose measurements. Such parameters could also contribute to a more accurate determination of the involvement of aerobic metabolism (lines 264–265).
Response: We agree that these variables could provide additional insight into the physiological mechanisms underlying boxing performance. However, the present investigation was designed as a non-invasive field-based study aimed at preserving ecological validity. Accordingly, biochemical markers were not included. We expanded the limitations section to acknowledge that future studies should incorporate blood lactate, glucose, and additional physiological markers to better characterize metabolic responses during repeated punching efforts.
Comment 2: Considering the purpose of the primary research project, and given that the present study is described as a pilot study, it would be useful to report the number of strokes both per segment and in total.
Response: Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we added a new table reporting the number of punches performed during each RPAT round. The table includes total punches, left-side punches, right-side punches, and the overall number of punches completed throughout the protocol.
Comment 3: Include a discussion regarding whether afternoon or evening testing could have influenced the results.
Response: A statement addressing potential time-of-day effects was added to the limitations section. We clarified that all sessions were conducted in the morning under standardized conditions to minimize circadian influences, although residual effects of testing time cannot be completely excluded.
Comment 4: The inclusion of graphical representations of the results presented in Table 2 could further enhance the visual presentation and facilitate the interpretation of performance parameter variability across gender and group categories, if the authors agree with this interpretation.
Response: We agree and added graphical representations of HR, IS, and VOâ‚‚ responses across rounds. These figures complement the tabular presentation and improve the visualization of differences related to competitive level and sex.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral Comment
The purpose of study was to find relationship between punching ability and physiological demands in boxers. The overall writing quality is very well. The study has simple approach to answer very meaningful questions for practitioners. In the abstract and line 80, the study was mentioned as “pilot”, I strongly recommend taking this out because it should not be pilot study to consider this manuscript. IF this were considered as a pilot study, then authors need to describe how this data and result lead into the next study in more detail.
Line 136-137: About the product, it may be beneficial to have a picture of the device to show to audience. If possible, how does this “intensity score” being calculated? The description is a composite of punch acceleration, velocity, and frequency, so what would be the scale? what is considered good or bad to evaluate actual performance?
Line 141-142: What is the sampling frequency?
Line 166: The word is already being abbreviated in line 110.
Later in the manuscript, the word “heart rate” was not abbreviated, please fix at line 182, 270, 272, 275, 325
Table 3. The format is the table 3. Is this according to the journal guideline (many horizontal line)?
Author Response
We sincerely thank Reviewer for the positive evaluation of the manuscript and for the useful recommendations. We have carefully considered all suggestions and revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. Reviewer comments are reported in italics, followed by our responses.
Comment 1: In the abstract and line 80, the study was mentioned as “pilot”, I strongly recommend taking this out because it should not be pilot study to consider this manuscript. IF this were considered as a pilot study, then authors need to describe how this data and result lead into the next study in more detail.
Response: We appreciate this suggestion. Because the exploratory nature and limited sample size are central characteristics of the investigation, we retained the term “pilot study.” However, we substantially expanded the Discussion section to clarify how the present findings will inform future research. Specifically, we explain that the study provides preliminary effect estimates, supports sample size calculations, helps refine testing procedures, and guides the development of future hypothesis-driven investigations.
Comment 2: Line 136-137: About the product, it may be beneficial to have a picture of the device to show to audience. If possible, how does this “intensity score” being calculated? The description is a composite of punch acceleration, velocity, and frequency, so what would be the scale? what is considered good or bad to evaluate actual performance?
Response: Following the reviewer’s recommendation, we added a figure illustrating the Hykso Punch Tracker system. In addition, the Methods section now contains a substantially expanded description of the Intensity Score, including its components, interpretation, limitations, and the proprietary nature of the underlying algorithm.
Comment 3: What is the sampling frequency?
Response: We carefully reviewed the available technical documentation provided by the manufacturer. Although the device acquires tri-axial acceleration and angular velocity data through embedded inertial measurement units, the exact sampling frequency is not publicly reported in the available documentation. This information has now been explicitly stated in the Methods section to improve transparency.
Comment 4: Line 166: The word is already being abbreviated in line 110. Later in the manuscript, the word “heart rate” was not abbreviated, please fix at line 182, 270, 272, 275, 325.
Response: Thank you for identifying these inconsistencies. The manuscript was carefully revised to ensure consistent use of abbreviations, including the standardized use of HR for heart rate throughout the text.
Comment 5: Please verify whether the formatting of Table 3 complies with the journal guidelines.
Response: The formatting of all tables was reviewed and adjusted according to the journal’s instructions for authors. We will further adapt the final layout if required during the production stage.
