Supramaximal Eccentric Training for Alpine Ski Racing—Strength Training with the Lifter
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Work carefully prepared in the field of:
- justifications for the construction of the training machine
- description of the structure of the training machine and how to perform the exercises
In this respect, the work is correct and requires no additions.
Conclusion 230-231 - the term "other methods of training" should be specified
The thesis is missing a part required in the works submitted to Applied Sciences (ISSN 2076-3417) As reported in Aims: “Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. “
According to the above information, the work cannot receive a positive evaluation.
In this work there is still no experimental data
Author Response
To Reviewer 1
quote from email from the editors of this special issue
- Optimization of sports equipment to increase performance and/or decrease the risk of injury
- Innovations for sports performance, health, and load monitoring
We then thought that this manuscript would be appropriate for this issue.
Thank you,
Carson Patterson
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised manuscript has been much improved.
The following comments should be revised in your final manuscript.
Line 47 FIS points: please describe what FIS stands for?
Line 123 “The IML is a safe automated mechatronic SME device,…” How this is proved?
Line 182 number is missing? It seems to be 4.6 Training with the simulation bar?
Or you can renumber as follows; it would be much better organization for reading
4.1 Training mode
4.1.1(or 4.1.a) Free barbell mode
4.1.2(or 4.1.b) Spotter mode
4.1.3(or 4.1.c) Eccentric only mode
4.1.4(or 4.1.d) Concentric only mode
4.1.5(or 4.1.e) Throw or jump mode
4.2 Training with the simulation bar
4.2.1(or 4.2.a) Isokinetic mode
4.2.2(or 4.2.b) Simulated load mode
4.3 Measuring strength with the simulation bar
4.3.1(or 4.3.a) Isokinetic measurement
4.3.2(or 4.3.b) Isometric measurement
Author Response
Thank you for your review.
Thank you for your time .
sincerely,
Carson Patterson
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your interesting comment. Before I can recommend its publication, please carefully address the following issues:
Major issues:
- line 246: No results of intervention studies or similar are presented in your technical comment. Hence, “Properly planned strength training programs can benefit from SME…” is a conclusion not supported by your data. Please revise.
- You should at least mention the system 1080 Quantum Synchro and compare your system to it.
Minor issues:
- line 29: quasi-isometric *phase* (word missing)
- line 51, 120: replace "velocity" by "speed"
- line 15: "The athlete can be...": There seems to be a verb missing. Meaning of sentence remains thus unclear
- line 156: formatting error (caption on last line)
- lines 158-180: partially poor English, please revise that section
Best regards
Your reviewer
Author Response
Response to reviewer 3:
Thank you for your time and comments.
Line 246: We have now included an intervention, of course this is only a case study but it is an example of real world training and real world results.
We have added a brief discussion of the 1080 Quantum Synchro. Unfortunately we are not very familiar with this device, and therefore cannot say very much about it.
We will be hopefully soon in possession of the 1080 Sprint model, which we will be using with our athletes.
Thank you for your other comments; we believe that we have addressed them in the revised text. The
English has been edited in the section lines 158 – 180.
Reviewer 4 Report
The title of the article “Supramaximal eccentric training for alpine ski racing - strength training with the Lifter” suggests that the manuscript is a research paper on eccentric training for alpine skiers. As it turns out, the authors of the article describe only the "Intelligent Motion Lifter" training device for strength exercises, showing its construction and potential. The design of the presented training device seems very original and useful for people practicing strength training, not only skiers. However, it is not clear what, apart from the presentation of the device, is the purpose of the article, because it has not been clearly specified. There is no research element that would significantly increase the value of the study. In the current version, the article is only a description (manual) of the device. It is worth noting that the "Intelligent Motion Lifter" has already been described by other authors: Tinwala, F.; Cronin, J.; Haemmerle, E.; Ross, A. Eccentric strength training: a review of the available technology. Strength Cond J 2017, 39, 32-47. Therefore, I recommend supplementing the article with research on, for example, the effectiveness of training on the device or user opinions.
Author Response
Response to reviewer 4:
Thank you for your comments. We have now included a case study with training data from an athlete, who used the device to prepare for her sport, not as a study subject. We believe that this adds credibility to our stance, but we acknowledge that this is not a study in the classical sense.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors did not make any additions to the text that I suggested. The introduced changes are of a cosmetic nature and do not add any new content. The work is not of a research nature. It is a technical description of a training device. It is difficult to talk about applied sciences in this case. We do not have any research procedure at work. No subjects, no test results, no statistical analysis. It cannot be assessed whether the proposed training device is effective. What effect is obtained after using it? There is no training methodology for this device. It upholds all the allegations made in the first review to the scientific level of the work. I do not recommend publication
Author Response
Reply to reviewer 1:
Thank you for your comments; we appreciate your candid critique. We have added a case study of a worldclass
athlete using the device to get stronger. It is not an experiment in the classic sense, but one can read
the methods of training and the results of the training. We hope that we have at least partially satisfied your
request for methodology and data. This has greatly increased the length of the paper, which we hope is not a
problem.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your revision. Now I can recommend the publication of your article.
Yours
Reviewer
Reviewer 4 Report
Taking into account the corrections made by the authors, I recommend the manuscript for publication.
