Next Article in Journal
The Ballistic Performance of Laminated SiC Ceramics for Body Armor and the Effect of Layer Structure on It
Next Article in Special Issue
Foot Insole Pressure Distribution during the Golf Swing in Professionals and Amateur Players
Previous Article in Journal
Digital Histology by Phase Imaging Specific Biomarkers for Human Tumoral Tissues Discrimination
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comparison of Countermovement and Preferred-Style Jump Biomechanics in Male Basketball Players
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Effects of Complex Functional Strength Training on Balance and Shooting Performance of Rifle Shooters

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(13), 6143; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11136143
by Min-Hao Hung 1,†, Kuo-Chuan Lin 1,†, Chung-Cheng Wu 2, Jia-Hung Juang 3, Yen-Yu Lin 4 and Chi-Yao Chang 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(13), 6143; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11136143
Submission received: 7 April 2021 / Revised: 23 June 2021 / Accepted: 26 June 2021 / Published: 1 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Applied Biomechanics: Sport Performance and Injury Prevention II)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study aimed to explore the effects of a complex functional strength training (whole-body vibration (WBV) + unstable surface training (UST)) for improving rifle 12 shooters’ performance on variables derived from an overall performance, the stability of hold, time 13 on target, and the body sway. The paper is well written; However, the following issue should be clarified.

 

Abstract

 

It was stated that Shooter’s Performance was compared at three-time intervals (pre, post intervention and post detraining). Then, you presented 4 values to describe differences between different times. It is not clear to what belong each values (effect of training or detraining, increase or decrease ?). Please rewrite this section and clearly represent the effect of Training and then of detraining and conclude.

 

The aim of this study (title/text) should not highlight only the effect of training but also detraining as the authors are investigated performance also following 6 weeks detraining

 

Introduction

 

The authors focused more on the effect of training. But the rational of investigating the detraining effect is not clear.

 

Method

8 participants is a very low number of participants. Please add information regarding the sample calculation and the power of your analysis.

Did you checked the normal distrubition of the data, specifically that you have a small sample size.

Please calculate the Effect size and the values in the results sections. Add information about post-hoc analysis.

What was the time of day for both test session. If all training sessions were performed in the same time of Day. Please add the following the following ‘..to minimize biological impact of the TOD, all test session were performed in the morning or afternoon hours  (you can cite the following papers doi: 10.1556/036.103.2016.2.11   and doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001481)

 

Did you control caffeine supplementation during the testing day as previously suggested (https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11050992)? 

 

Results and discussion

Please add effect size  where appropriate.

Please try to reorganize the results session in more simple way

Please summarize the main findings of your study in the first paragraph of the discussion

Discussion

Again the authors focused mainly on discussing the effect of training but not detraining (training cessation)

 

 

Underlying mechanism explaining the effect of training and detraining on shooter’s performance should be more explained.

 

Minor: L117: Muzzle ??

The manuscript should be checked by a native English speaker

Please upload better figures quality

 

Author Response

Many thanks for the reviewer's suggestions. The attachment is the point-by-point response.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

you present the results of reserch focused on specific strength training (WBV+UST) on shooter's performance. Your study sample is very small, and this must be acknowledged as a study limitation. The references you cite are quite old. Moreover, it seems some are missing, or not correctly cited. As you refer to 6 week training, the training protocol should be (better) presented. 

Author Response

Many thanks for the reviewer's suggestions. The attachment is the point-by-point response.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

The changes you introduced to the Manuscript according to suggestions improved the quality of your work. Please be sure you cite the literature appropriately-reference 29.

Author Response

Please be sure you cite the literature appropriately-reference 29.

Ans: We agree with you and have change references.

The changed references are as follows:

L11P370-L11P374:

  1. Hasan, S. S.; Lichtenstein, M. J.; Shiavi, R. G. Effect of loss of balance on biomechanics platform measures of sway: influence of stance and a method for adjustment. J Biomech. 1990, 23(8), 783-789.
  2. Roth, A. E.; Miller, M. G.; Ricard, M.; Ritenour, D.; Chapman, B. L. Comparisons of static and dynamic balance following training in aquatic and land environments. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation 2006,15(4), 299-311.
Back to TopTop