Dear Dr. Lee,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Dear Authors:

Overall, the research is well-structured, with clear objectives and a strong methodological framework. However, some areas need further clarification and refinement. Addressing these points will enhance the manuscript’s clarity, rigor, and impact.

• The calculation of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) relies on self-reported data. Were any objective measures (e.g., accelerometer data) considered? If not, discuss the potential biases introduced by self-reported activity levels.
• The study uses self-reported stress levels, but additional details on the validity and reliability of this measure would strengthen the findings. If validated scales were used, cite them appropriately.
• The role of SES is discussed, but the analysis could be expanded. Were any sensitivity analyses conducted to control for potential SES confounders? If not, this should be acknowledged as a limitation.
• In the multinomial logistic regression analysis, please clarify whether adjustments were made for potential confounders such as age and gender.
• The manuscript is well-written, but minor grammatical and typographical errors should be addressed to improve readability.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 09 2025 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.

• 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,

Ozra Tabatabaei-Malazy

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 work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the

National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2021S1A5A8064404)

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. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

4. Please remove all personal information, ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set.

Note: spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.

Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This article highlights the relationship between objective and subjective body composition, or the body fitness concept, which is a major concern and an important component of lifestyle medicine and mental and physical health. Synthesizing the extensive population-base data can provide valuable insights into these issues. I have made some comments to improve this work.

1. Do not use the term “risk” in cross-sectional studies, as we cannot draw causal conclusions in this design due to the unclear temporal precedence. Please review all manuscripts accordingly.

2. This is too long an introduction. Please shorten it into two or three paragraphs related to the main concepts, their relationship or other resulting health issues.

3. You had excluded the non-answers and answered them with “I don’t know”. Please provide more detail on these groups, such as missing tables or charts, to account for any bias or missing patterns in your work

4. What is the reason for excluding underweight people? Did you perform any sensitivity analysis with this group to ensure the validity of your results?

5. Please mention the cut-off point for obesity or overweight in the "Measurement" section in the method; the reference you cite in line 161 does not match the values given in line 185

6. Please clarify more about this definition, “Occupational status (white-collar, blue-collar, pink-collar, not classified),”

7. Lines 189 and 190 are duplicated in the section on method. You have already mentioned this in section 2.1

8. The explanation of the weighting method in the calculation of total activity was misleading, please simplify.

9. In the statistical method, you should explain the independent and dependent variables in the multinomial logistic regression to provide more clarity.

10. According to your results in Table 2, you have little data in these categories, especially in group c, so the chi-square test is not valid and appropriate to assess the transparency between groups in this case.

11. The results reported in Table 3 are very vague as there is no clear methodology for variable selection, adjustments, co-linearity checking and interpretation of the multinomial models. Please revise the results and provide the necessary explanations for more clarity.

Reviewer #2: -The title of the article does not reflect its content and aim

Abstract:

- Abstract should be structured based on journal format

- Numerical values needs to be added to the results

- All abbreviations needs to be defined (e.g OR, HDL, etc.)

Introduction:

- This sections is too long. unnecessary information needs to be removed or summarized.

- line 67: define abbreviations

- line 79: mention the exact number for proportion instead the word "significant"

- What is the gap of knowledge?

Method:

- One of the problems of the method section is that first there is a summary of methodology and then a comprehensive explanation of it. I suggest merging them and do not repeating them. For instance, the authors have explained about ABC categories and then in another section gave a complete explanation about categorization.

- Add proper reference for the first paragraph of 2.1.

- Why didn't the authors use previous cycles of KNHANES data?

- More details regarding physical examinations and data collections and measurements should be added ( height, weight, etc.

- Mention the inclusion and exclusion criteria and add a flow diagram for it.

- line 141: SP < BMI? are you sure?

- what do you mean by white, blue, and pink collar?

- what is the definition of ex-smoker?

- why didn't the author use alcohol volume rather than frequency of drinking?

Results:

- lines 301-321: there is no need to mention X2 values in the main text.

- Table 2: Mention p values rather than X2 values

Discussion: Mention the cross-sectional design of the study as a limitationn for causal relationship

**********

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.

Dear Dr. Lee,

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 submit your revised manuscript by Jun 27 2025 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.

• 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 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,

Ozra Tabatabaei-Malazy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

Reviewer #1: many thanks for this improved revision of the manuscript and that nearly all comments have been addressed:

as I noted in the previous revisions, the introduction was too long and should be shortened and summarized to make it readable for other researchers.

If you report the results of multinomial logistic regression in the form of OR, you must not use the prevalence rate, but use the correct term such as odds or chance of disease.

the exclusion of underweight people is not properly addressed! You simply deleted some sentences in this area of concern during the revision.

Ex-smoking is not yet clearly defined,

Th method of physical activity assessing was not cited as a valid reference. Do you have a question or a valid measure for the method used?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Exploring the Interplay Between BMI, Subjective Body Image Perception, and Health Behaviors: A cross-sectional study

PONE-D-25-05753R2

Dear Dr. Lee,

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,

Ozra Tabatabaei-Malazy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the revised version and for addressing all the required comments. And know ready to publication .

**********

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

**********