Dear Dr. Knechtle,

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 Aug 29 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,

Ratko Peric, PhD

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. 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.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

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.

[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: Yes

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: General Assessment

This manuscript tackles an ambitious and timely question in ultra-endurance sport by analyzing the largest and fastest Quintuple Iron ultra-triathlon ever held, with 35 finishers (11 women, 24 men). The authors have assembled an impressive dataset to explore how pacing varies across the disciplines (swim, cycling, run) and between sexes. Their findings—especially the record‐breaking female performances—underscore the value of such large‐scale analyses. Although the study has certain limitations (see Limitations section), the insights provided will be of high practical value to athletes, coaches, and exercise scientists investigating human performance in extreme sports.

Major Recommendations

1) Enhance Data Presentation in Figures 1 & 2

Include Raw Data Points: To adhere to the more informative presentation paradigm (Weissgerber et al. 2015), overlay individual data points or violin/box‐and‐scatter combinations behind the bar/line summaries.

Correct Y-Axis Units: Ensure the Y-axis is labeled with the precise unit of time used throughout (e.g., “Time (s)” , as appropriate).

2) p-Values in Table 4

Replace any “0.0” entries in the p-value column with an inequality (e.g., “<0.001”) to avoid implying absolute zero and to conform to standard statistical reporting.

3) Streamline and Augment Table 5

Remove Redundant Comparisons: Omit trivial intra-group comparisons (e.g., “Q1_Male vs. Q1_Male”).

Add Effect Sizes: For each relevant pairwise comparison, include columns for the absolute difference (in seconds) and the relative difference (percentage), which will greatly aid practical interpretation.

4) Figure 4 Adjustments

Add “(%)” to the Y-axis label for clarity. Apply the same data-presentation rules as for Figures 1 and 2 (raw data points plus summary statistics).

Minor Corrections

Line 81 : Change the stated run distance from “41.2 km” to the correct “42.2 km.”

Practical Implications

Although the authors candidly discuss methodological constraints (e.g., potential selection bias, incomplete split data), their analyses offer actionable guidance. Coaches and athletes can refine training plans and pacing strategies based on discipline- and sex-specific trends, and sport scientists will find this dataset a valuable benchmark for modeling human endurance at the limits.

Summary

With the above revisions—particularly improving transparency in figures and tables—the manuscript will achieve a higher level of scientific rigor and practical utility. I look forward to seeing these enhancements in the revised submission.

Reviewer #2: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-25-29597

Manuscript Title: Sex differences in performance and pacing in the greatest Quintuple Iron ultra-triathlon race in history – the IUTA World Championship 2024 in France

The manuscript is interesting and well written, and well-structured, with several strengths. It represents one of the few studies to utilize detailed data on pacing strategies among ultra-triathletes competing in the fastest and largest Quintuple Iron Ultra-Triathlon World Championship ever held. The study offers novel and valuable insights into sex-based performance dynamics in ultra-endurance sport. The findings suggest that female athletes may benefit from specific endurance strategies, potentially contributing to their competitive advantage in such extreme events. This highlights the importance of developing sex-specific training and pacing approaches to optimize performance in ultra-endurance competitions.

Overall, the different sections of the manuscript are well written. I just have a few minor comments to make.

- The unequal sample sizes between men (n=24) and women (n=11) may influence the statistical power ?. I recommend that the authors explicitly mention this in the limitations section.

- Please use consistent terminology throughout the manuscript. Although "sex differences" and "gender differences" are sometimes used interchangeably, the term "sex" is preferred in scientific sports physiology when referring to biological distinctions.

- Line 57: I suggest adding the characteristics of the participants (e.g., age).

- Lines 67 – 37: This paragraph is too long, consider to create small paragraphs.

- Lines 339 – 340: change “there is a significant interaction was found between sex and performance quartiles in cycling but not in running” to “a significant interaction was found between sex and performance quartiles in cycling but not in running”.

**********

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: Yes

**********

[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

Sex differences in performance and pacing in the greatest Quintuple Iron ultra-triathlon race in history – the IUTA World Championship 2024 in France

PONE-D-25-29597R1

Dear Dr. Knechtle,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Ratko Peric, PhD

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

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you for carefully addressing all of the reviewer’s comments in the revised manuscript. The changes are clear, appropriate, and have strengthened the paper’s clarity and rigor.

Congratulations on an interesting and valuable piece of work. I wish you every success with publication and the continuation of this research.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is highly interesting and nicely written. The authors have been well corrected and modified the manuscript according to my comments.

I recommend to accept the manuscript for 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********