Motor variability during resistance training: Acceleration signal as intensity indicator

Miguel López-Fernández; Fernando García-Aguilar; Pablo Asencio; Carla Caballero; Francisco J. Moreno; Rafael Sabido

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0307949

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 12, 2024
18 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Danica Janicijevic, Editor PONE-D-24-09826Motor variability during resistance training: acceleration signal as intensity indicatorPLOS ONE Dear Dr. García Aguilar, 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. ============================== Hello dear authors,Two reviewers have positively assessed your manuscript. One of them is asking for changes in the conclusion section and to indicate practical utility of your paper. Please make sure to address all comments. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 02 2024 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, Danica Janicijevic, 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This manuscript is related to a national project funded by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación [PID2019-109632RB-I00]. The contribution of Miguel López-Fernández was funded by the Generalitat Valenciana, Spain [grant number: CIACIF/2021/452]. The contribution of Fernando García-Aguilar was supported by the Generalitat Valencia, Spain [grant number: ACIF/2021/159]. The contribution of Pablo Asencio was supported by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación [PRE2020-091858]. These grants have made it possible to carry out this research.” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “We would like to thank A. Oliver-López for his help in recruiting participants for our study. We would also like to thank D. Barbado for his helpful discussions on these results. This manuscript is related to a national project funded by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación [PID2019-109632RB-I00]. The contribution of Miguel López-Fernández was funded by the Generalitat Valenciana, Spain [grant number: CIACIF/2021/452]. The contribution of Fernando García-Aguilar was supported by the Generalitat Valencia, Spain [grant number: ACIF/2021/159]. The contribution of Pablo Asencio was supported by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación [PRE2020-091858]. These grants have made it possible to carry out this research.” We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “This manuscript is related to a national project funded by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación [PID2019-109632RB-I00]. The contribution of Miguel López-Fernández was funded by the Generalitat Valenciana, Spain [grant number: CIACIF/2021/452]. The contribution of Fernando García-Aguilar was supported by the Generalitat Valencia, Spain [grant number: ACIF/2021/159]. The contribution of Pablo Asencio was supported by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación [PRE2020-091858]. These grants have made it possible to carry out this research.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 6. 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. [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: The research presented by the authors is very interesting and important for the proper motor preparation of players. The authors fulfilled the criteria for scientific works. In the reviewer's opinion, greater care should be taken in the selection of current literature in the future. The authors rightly pointed out the limitations of the research conducted, which will translate into better performance in subsequent studies. Reviewer #2: It is understood that these four methods are important analyses for accurately analyzing variability in load and intensity during strength training. However, for their application to be more understandable and usable, it is necessary to highlight the loads where variability is detected and not detected in the conclusion section. Additionally, the measures to be taken during the application (for example, the lack of difference between 10% and 30% in DFA) should be addressed. In short, how can coaches or athletes shape their strength training practices after reading this paper? This topic needs to be emphasized. In this sense, what should coaches and athletes do with the data provided by these four methods regarding strength variability? Should they train at certain 1RM percentages with more units, or is it unnecessary to spend too much time at certain 1RM percentages? For quick adaptation, what should be considered in light of these four methods? ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [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.0307949.r001
Revision 1
3 Jul 2024 Author Response Authors’ response (AR): We would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful advice and suggestions regarding this manuscript. We found their criticisms and recommendations very constructive. We appreciate the work done in revising this manuscript, and we have responded to your concerns point by point. In the new version of the manuscript, changes have been marked in red. Reviewer 1 The research presented by the authors is very interesting and important for the proper motor preparation of players. The authors fulfilled the criteria for scientific works. In the reviewer's opinion, greater care should be taken in the selection of current literature in the future. The authors rightly pointed out the limitations of the research conducted, which will translate into better performance in subsequent studies. AR: Thank you very much for your kind words and for your appreciation of our work. We are pleased to know that you find our study relevant and important for the scientific field and its applicability. We appreciate your support and are grateful for your positive comments. Reviewer 2 1. It is understood that these four methods are important analyses for accurately analyzing variability in load and intensity during strength training. However, for their application to be more understandable and usable, it is necessary to highlight the loads where variability is detected and not detected in the conclusion section. Additionally, the measures to be taken during the application (for example, the lack of difference between 10% and 30% in DFA) should be addressed. In short, how can coaches or athletes shape their strength training practices after reading this paper? This topic needs to be emphasized. AR: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added your suggestion in the conclusions section in line 277 indicating “The records of IMUs using non-linear measurements (DFA, FuzzyEn, SampEn) indicate an increase in motion complexity with an elevated percentage load (above 30%). However, at low loads (below 30%) in the IMU, no differences are found (although there is the same tendency to increase complexity), as it is more difficult to find differences when the intensity of the task is less challenging for the system. In the records obtained with a force platform, the complexity is observed to decrease, with changes between loads detected by DFA analysis”. 2. How can coaches or athletes shape their strength training practices after reading this paper? This topic needs to be emphasized. In this sense, what should coaches and athletes do with the data provided by these four methods regarding strength variability? Should they train at certain 1RM percentages with more units, or is it unnecessary to spend too much time at certain 1RM percentages? For quick adaptation, what should be considered in light of these four methods? AR: Thank you for this suggestion. In line 283, we have deleted "It appears" and added "These results indicate". In the same paragraph, but in line 284, we have added the following: “indicating that as the intensity of the load increases, the system is more compromised and increases its complexity to overcome the task. Therefore, the use of non-linear measures that analyze the complexity of movement through acceleration can be useful for coaches to know the internal load that the different load intensities used on their athletes place on the system. In this way, they will also be able to know the state in which the athlete measuring complexity with a same load in different days or sessions” to answer your suggestions on the applications of these results for coaches and practical applications. We have also changed the sentence from line 291 onwards and have added “while FuzzyEn and SampEn are sensitive through IMUs, so all these tools are useful for training practice”. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307949.r002
16 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Danica Janicijevic, Editor Motor variability during resistance training: acceleration signal as intensity indicator PONE-D-24-09826R1 Dear Dr. Fernando García Aguilar, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Danica Janicijevic, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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 #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 #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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 #2: Yes ****** 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 #2: Yes ****** 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 #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 #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307949.r003
Formally Accepted
10 Sep 2024 Acceptance Letter - Danica Janicijevic, Editor PONE-D-24-09826R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. García Aguilar, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Danica Janicijevic Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307949.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 .