Effects of bouncing the barbell in bench press on throwing velocity and strength among handball players

Jørund Løken; Tom Erik Jorung Solstad; Nicolay Stien; Vidar Andersen; Atle Hole Saeterbakken

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0260297

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 4, 2021
19 Oct 2021 Decision Letter - Luca Paolo Ardigò, Editor PONE-D-21-31850Effects of bouncing the barbell in bench press on throwing velocity and strength among handball playersPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Saeterbakken, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== Please, address point-to-point all reviewers' issues. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 03 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Luca Paolo Ardigò, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Please, address point-to-point all reviewers' issues. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Abstract Line 21: Remove the bracket. Introduction Line 77-78: I would suggest adding the term stretch-shortening cycle to this sentence such as for example: “A drop-jump may result in high level of force prior to the ascending phase, WITH A STRETCH-SHORTENING CYCLE TYPE ACTION THAT STORES the elastic energy, …” Methods Participants Since you were using a sample of convenience (two handball teams), then you probably did not calculate a statistical power analysis to determine the appropriate number of subjects to achieve sufficient statistical power. Please calculate a post-test statistical power analysis so the reader knows the extent of statistical power of this study’s measures. Line 119-120: You might want to remind the readers that the handball players were experienced with resistance training and were familiar with their 1RM and thus the self-reported 1RM should have been accurate. Line 125-131: How did you determine or ensure a similar bounce. Although you mention lowering the bar in a controlled manner, it is possible that some individuals would incorporate a far greater bounce than others. Would this not insert a high degree of variability into the training routine? Line 138-142: How was power monitored? Was there a video analysis to monitor bar velocity or was there a line attached from the barbell to a device to monitor velocity? Table 3 illustrates the Watts but I do not see or must have missed where you explained how watts were calculated. Line 162: unsupervised is one word, no hyphen necessary. Line 281-284: I would add an explanation to this information that the individuals in that study may not have had the relative lower body strength to rapidly absorb or stretch the musculotendinous unit and then transition to a propulsive contraction. This would be in alignment with your previous statement that your subjects may not have been strong enough. In addition, it could be speculated that if your subjects had not trained specifically for eccentric strength then perhaps there might have been a specific eccentric strength deficit (i.e., training specificity). With a lack of prior eccentric training, individuals can have a lack of balance between concentric and eccentric strength. Line 336: I have never seen this word before: contrastive; and I have been speaking only English for 64 years. Please change to “In contrast,…”. Line 331-350: The power output differences were not significant as reported in the results (no interaction (F = 0.066 – 2.477, p = 0.142 – 0.802) or main effect for group (F = 0.453 – 1.467, p = 0.254 – 0.513)). This paragraph makes the reader think that something significant did happen. Without significance then the variability was greater than the mean difference and thus essentially there is no real difference. For example, the authors state: “As power is the product of both force and velocity, a possible explanation of the findings could be that the BPT emphasized the subjects’ ability to generate force more than the BPTbounce.” But if there is no significance then there are no sig different findings and this there is no need for an explanation of these non-significant findings. Please remove this paragraph or change the rationale and message of the paragraph to reflect the lack of significant difference. Reviewer #2: This is a well written, reasoned, conducted and analysed study. The hypotheses are clear, the findings are as well, the interpretation is sound and based on the results and appropriate literature, there is no interpretative over-reach, and the limitations are stated. This is a tight study that adds to the body of literature on sport specific power training and i have only minor comments below. Well done. Abstract Instead of stating “no difference” please state no significant difference if it can fit into the abstract word limit. Introduction Line 67-68: please change “creates a momentum to help accelerating” to “creates momentum to help accelerate” Procedures Line 125 please change “barbell in the chest.” to “barbell off the chest.” Results In all cases where you state “no difference” or “no interaction” or similar please change to “no significant difference” or “no significant interaction” Discussion Line 291 please change “no increase” to “no significant increase” ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: David Behm Reviewer #2: Yes:** Eric Helms [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260297.r001
Revision 1
2 Nov 2021 Author Response We would like to thank the reviewers for your valuable comments and suggestions. We believe they have contributed to improve the quality of the manuscript. Under you will find our point-to-point answers and we have made changes in the manuscript accordingly. Reviewer #1: Abstract Line 21: Remove the bracket. On behalf of all authors, we apologize for this typo. The bracket has been removed. Introduction Line 77-78: I would suggest adding the term stretch-shortening cycle to this sentence such as for example: “A drop-jump may result in high level of force prior to the ascending phase, WITH A STRETCH-SHORTENING CYCLE TYPE ACTION THAT STORES the elastic energy, …” Solid clarification of our point. The sentence has been re-written accordingly. Thank you. Methods Participants Since you were using a sample of convenience (two handball teams), then you probably did not calculate a statistical power analysis to determine the appropriate number of subjects to achieve sufficient statistical power. Please calculate a post-test statistical power analysis so the reader knows the extent of statistical power of this study’s measures. Based on the 7m throwing velocity, we have calculated the statistical power and the sample size needed to detect significant difference between the groups. This has been added in the discussion (ln. 365 – 368) to elaborate on our speculations and limitations of the present study. Briefly, the statistical power was 44% and a minimum of 12 subjects was required in each training group. Line 119-120: You might want to remind the readers that the handball players were experienced with resistance training and were familiar with their 1RM and thus the self-reported 1RM should have been accurate. Good point. The sentence “Of note, the handball players were experienced with resistance training and were tested in 1-RM frequently (e.g., 3 – 5 times) each year” has been added to the manuscript. Line 125-131: How did you determine or ensure a similar bounce. Although you mention lowering the bar in a controlled manner, it is possible that some individuals would incorporate a far greater bounce than others. Would this not insert a high degree of variability into the training routine? It`s good question and difficult to provide an 100% accurate answer as we did not include measurement of the vertical descending displacement for each subject. Importantly, the instructions were “the goal is to generate as high velocity during the ascending phase as possible, with a fast but controlled lowering velocity”. Furthermore, we were more interested in ecological perspective and the “proof of concept”. That being said, we cannot reject the hypotheses of individual differences which has been added as a possible explanation in the discussion (ln 280 -284). By “control” we referred to “not dropping the barbell from the starting position”. One familiarization session was conducted before the pre-test to ensure proper bouncing. Furthermore, one test leader attended as many training sessions as possible given the Covid-19 regulations to make sure a proper bounce was conducted. That being said, we cannot reject your hypotheses that some subjects (greater chest volume, less fear, and greater arching) may generated a far greater bounce. In the pilot test using the same instructions and loads, we measured a 3.6 - 4.7cm longer vertical displacement in the descending phase. Typically, greater loads resulted in less bounce (probably as result of pain and fear). Furthermore, the training load was 40 – 60% of 1-RM (See table 2). We therefore hypothesized that the loading would result in different amount of bounce, but that during the training intervention, the subjects would conduct more similar bouncing across the loads. In the pilot testing, we also included a metronome to control the lowering speed, but experienced that the subjects` attention was towards the metronome and not to conduct a bounce or a maximal explosive bench press throw. Of note, our research group are examining your hypotheses, but not on an individual level but the descending instruction. Using the peak power loads, the subjects (resistance trained men) are being asked to lower the barbell slow, medium, and as fast as possible with and without the bounce. We passed 20 subjects yesterday and are aiming to reach 30. That being said, from these data we could calculate individual variation of the amount of bounce using the three lower velocities. In the manuscript, we have added some sentence in the methods (ln 170-171) and discussion (ln 280-284). Thanks. Line 138-142: How was power monitored? Was there a video analysis to monitor bar velocity or was there a line attached from the barbell to a device to monitor velocity? Table 3 illustrates the Watts but I do not see or must have missed where you explained how watts were calculated. We apologize for this mistake and acknowledge your observant reading skills. We used a linear encoder attached to the barbell to measure the average velocity (e.g., from the start of the ascending phase to barbell`s highest position). Please see ln. 143 – 148 for further details. Line 162: unsupervised is one word, no hyphen necessary. Thank you, changed accordingly. Line 281-284: I would add an explanation to this information that the individuals in that study may not have had the relative lower body strength to rapidly absorb or stretch the musculotendinous unit and then transition to a propulsive contraction. This would be in alignment with your previous statement that your subjects may not have been strong enough. In addition, it could be speculated that if your subjects had not trained specifically for eccentric strength then perhaps there might have been a specific eccentric strength deficit (i.e., training specificity). With a lack of prior eccentric training, individuals can have a lack of balance between concentric and eccentric strength. Added, as suggested (ln. 297 – 306). Line 336: I have never seen this word before: contrastive; and I have been speaking only English for 64 years. Please change to “In contrast,…”. Google translate has… 😊. Changed to “In contrast, … and later the sentence was deleted…. Line 331-350: The power output differences were not significant as reported in the results (no interaction (F = 0.066 – 2.477, p = 0.142 – 0.802) or main effect for group (F = 0.453 – 1.467, p = 0.254 – 0.513)). This paragraph makes the reader think that something significant did happen. Without significance then the variability was greater than the mean difference and thus essentially there is no real difference. For example, the authors state: “As power is the product of both force and velocity, a possible explanation of the findings could be that the BPT emphasized the subjects’ ability to generate force more than the BPTbounce.” But if there is no significance then there are no sig different findings and this there is no need for an explanation of these non-significant findings. Please remove this paragraph or change the rationale and message of the paragraph to reflect the lack of significant difference. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Yes, there were no interactions or main effects for group, but a main effect for time for some of the loads. Importantly, post hoc tests have only been conducted within a group (pre – post) and not between groups. However, your example “as power is the product of…” we acknowledge that the paragraph needs to be re-written and clarified. Therefore, we have re-written the paragraph, removed major parts of it, and clarified the findings using words as “no significant difference”. Please ln 351 – 362. Thank you for taking the time and sharing your knowledge in this review proses. Your comments and suggestions will be included and kept in mind in future papers. Thank you! Reviewer #2: This is a well written, reasoned, conducted and analysed study. The hypotheses are clear, the findings are as well, the interpretation is sound and based on the results and appropriate literature, there is no interpretative over-reach, and the limitations are stated. This is a tight study that adds to the body of literature on sport specific power training and i have only minor comments below. Well done. Thank you so much! Abstract Instead of stating “no difference” please state no significant difference if it can fit into the abstract word limit. We managed to add “no significant difference” in abstract. Good point, added as suggested. Introduction Line 67-68: please change “creates a momentum to help accelerating” to “creates momentum to help accelerate” Changed, thank you Procedures Line 125 please change “barbell in the chest.” to “barbell off the chest.” Changed, thank you Results In all cases where you state “no difference” or “no interaction” or similar please change to “no significant difference” or “no significant interaction” Added, as suggested. Discussion Line 291 please change “no increase” to “no significant increase” Added, as suggested. Thank you for taking the time and sharing your knowledge in this review proses. Your comments and suggestions will be included and kept in mind in future papers. Thank you! ________________________________________ Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260297.r002
8 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Luca Paolo Ardigò, Editor Effects of bouncing the barbell in bench press on throwing velocity and strength among handball players PONE-D-21-31850R1 Dear Dr. Saeterbakken, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Luca Paolo Ardigò, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Congratulations for the interesting work. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Authors have adequately addressed my concerns. The web site indicates that I need a minimum of 80 characters. This additional explanatory sentence should reach that count or else I could go blah, blah, blah, blah, blah etc. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: David G. Behm Reviewer #2: Yes:** Eric Helms https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260297.r003
Formally Accepted
10 Nov 2021 Acceptance Letter - Luca Paolo Ardigò, Editor PONE-D-21-31850R1 Effects of bouncing the barbell in bench press on throwing velocity and strength among handball players Dear Dr. Saeterbakken: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Luca Paolo Ardigò Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260297.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .