The Effects of Compression Pants on Oxygen Consumption and Heart Rate during Long-Distance Running

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is well presented and the results follows the premises. The main lack of the study is related with the lack of results for a small sample. An analysis of statistical power (or the estimation of the required sample size) is required for the results being conclusive.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I consider the topic relevant, but I recommend changes in the presentation and discussion of results, as well as greater methodological details. Specific notes were made in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study mainly took nine long-distance running enthusiasts as exercise objects and studied the influence of wearing compression garments during 40-minute long-distance running by detecting physiological indexes. The effect of the compression garments was analysed mainly from the oxygen consumption, slow component of oxygen consumption, HR and RPE before and after wearing. The aim is to prove the hypothesis that compression garments have specific benefits for long-distance running. The results showed no physiological benefit of wearing compression garments during long runs. On the whole, the research content of this paper is less, only the study of exercise oxygen consumption and HR. It is recommended that the data and the number of subjects be increased and that the full-text modification be carried out.

1. Line 90：The sample size is small.  Did the author calculate the sample size from a power analysis?

2. Line 98：Compression garments in this paper only select compression pants. Still, this paper studies whether upper body compression garments should be added because exercise oxygen consumption, HR and respiratory movement of the chest are closely related. At the same time, whether the study's conclusion was related to only compression pants. Additional research is recommended.

3. Line 125：The washout period is greater than 24 hours, the 40-minute long-distance running test should be carried out in this experiment, and whether the washout period is too short will affect the subsequent test.

4. Line 130：The choice of the preferred speed is more complicated, whether there is a basis.

5. Overall, there are few test indicators, only three indicators, and only two paragraphs describing the research results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work has been improved, I suggest publication, although I still consider it inappropriate to keep the excerpt “In addition, these five participants reported a VO2 deviation of almost half that experienced during their control condition (i.e., 49.18%)”. - lines 259 and 260 - due to the possibility of inducing the reader to have a high impact, when in absolute terms, the variation observed may have been less than 1mlO2/Kg/min.

Author Response

Thank you for your time and consideration regarding our manuscript submission. We highly appreciate the thoughtful comments you supplied to us and feel our overall article is now much stronger because of them. 

Thank you for your most recent comment and we agree that the overall magnitude of this variable decreasing should be transparent to the reader. To give the reader more context and to allow them to decide the significance of the described data, we have added the following sentence to lines 260-262 of the manuscript.

"The overall difference in VO2 drift between conditions of these five participants was on average 0.5 ml/kg/min and the significance of this difference may be situational."

Thank you for your consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has modified the manuscript based on my suggestions. I have no further questions. I accept the changes made and the work for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your time and consideration regarding our manuscript submission. Your thoughtful comments have strengthened the overall article, and we are grateful for your input.