Kinematic Characteristics of Snatch Techniques in an Elite World-Record Holder of Weightlifting: A Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The second sequence in the introduction has not a final.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you for giving us a chance to revise and improve the quality of our article.
We have read the reviewers’ and your comments carefully and have made revision which marked in red in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. Here, we would like to explain the changes briefly as follows:
1Q: The second sequence in the introduction has not a final.
Answer: Thanks for you suggestion. We have reorganized and rewrite the introduction in manuscript, please check and see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall the study is interesting.
A deep revision of English language is necessary.
To the title must be added: A Case study.
one author is missing ? (and......)
First sentence in line 25 of the introduction must be deleted.
line 28, and, must be deleted.
line 70, add information and reference about calibration, and about DLT.
is not clear if the lifting was sampled at 25 or 50 Hz. please made it clear.
It is supposed the 6 hz is a Butterworth filter , Please specify. In this sentece the English is not clear.
Add some information about the model. Was it previuosly used elsewhere ? Please add the references. Add informations about the phases. Why you chosed 6.
Missing informations about angles definitions. The definitions must be supported by some previous study.
Table 1 and 2. All parameters must be descibed in the table's caption. The tables must be self-readable. Not kinematic performance but kinematic parameters
It is strange the barbell CG in the last phase does not goes below body CG. Check well this point. It is interesting the barbell CG shift to right. Please provide an hypothesis for this. Maybe the lifter is right handed, please specify it. Please also report BMI and fat mass and fat free mass if you have it.
When you discuss (4.1) the different studies on weighlifters, a distinction must be made according to weight category.
Figure 4. Is not clear what mean Key moments, are they the phases ? I reccomend to use the same terms all along the papers. Make the graphs the same in respect to the headings and construction.
Author Response
Dear reviewers:
We are very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we tried our best to amend the relevant part and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. All of your questions were answered below. And here we list the changes and marked in red in revised paper.
Q1:Overall the study is interesting. A deep revision of English language is necessary.
Answer: We regret there were problems with the English. The paper has been carefully revised by a native English speaker to improve the grammar and readability. Please check it.
Q2:To the title must be added: A Case study.
Answer: We are so grateful for your suggestion. We have added the “ A Case Study” in title. Please check it in our manuscript.
Q3: one author is missing ? (and......)
Answer: We are sorry for this mistake. No author was missing in our manuscript, we have corrected it. Please check the manuscript.
Q4: First sentence in line 25 of the introduction must be deleted.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We have deleted the first sentence in line 25 of the introduction. Please check the manuscript.
Q5: line 28, and, must be deleted.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We have deleted line 28 of the introduction. Please check the manuscript.
Q6: line 70, add information and reference about calibration, and about DLT.
Answer: Thanks very much for your comments, which are very helpful to improve the quality of this article. The motion capture technique we used in this manuscript is in line with Liu et al (2018). They use the same motion capture system and analysis techniques. Therefore, we have added their study as a reference in our manuscript. Please check it in line 81.
Q7: is not clear if the lifting was sampled at 25 or 50 Hz. please made it clear.
Answer: We have paid attention to this issue, and the sample frequency we used have been checked thoroughly. According previous study (Liu et al, 2018), the frequency for motion capture system without markers was set up as 50 Hz. We have corrected it from line 79 to line 81 in our manuscript to make it clearer.
Q8:It is supposed the 6 hz is a Butterworth filter , Please specify. In this sentece the English is not clear.
Answer: We are very sorry for our incorrect writing. We have reorganized this sentence in our manuscript, please check it from line 79 in our manuscript.
Q9: Add some information about the model. Was it previuosly used elsewhere? Please add the references. Add informations about the phases. Why you chosed 6.
Answer: The model we used in this manuscript has been previously used to analyze elite weightlifting athletes. For example, Liu et al (2018), Wu et al. (2021), and Cui et al. (2022) use this motion capture system and analyzed techniques to analyze difference of weighting between different levels, to analyze weightlifter performance, and to monitor and recorrect the unsuccessful snatch techniques. Based on these publications, we choose the same model to analyze athlete performance.
Q10: Missing informations about angles definitions. The definitions must be supported by some previous study.
Answer: We are very sorry for our incorrect writing. We have made correction according to your comments. Please check manuscript.
Q11: Table 1 and 2. All parameters must be descibed in the table's caption. The tables must be self-readable. Not kinematic performance but kinematic parameters
Answer: We are very sorry for our negligence of paper writing. We have added the detailed information on Table 1 and Table 2 in results. Please check it in manuscript.
Q12: It is strange the barbell CG in the last phase does not goes below body CG. Check well this point. It is interesting the barbell CG shift to right. Please provide an hypothesis for this. Maybe the lifter is right handed, please specify it. Please also report BMI and fat mass and fat free mass if you have it.
Answer: Thanks very much for your comments, we have paid attention to this issue. It is really true as reviewer; however, we cannot explain this phenomenon clearly at this moment. Because we completed this motion capture at a real sports competition. According to the competition rules, we are forbidden to get close to athlete and cannot obtain some data about human morphology. Therefore, we decide to put in limitation part. However, we realize that this should be a requestion deserving to pay attention. We are going to design a study combining kinematic and surface EMG to investigate a consequence behind this phenomenon.
We also thanks for your second suggestion, we have put BMI data in method part. Please check the manuscript.
Q13: When you discuss (4.1) the different studies on weighlifters, a distinction must be made according to weight category.
Answer: Thanks very much for your comments, which are very helpful to improve the quality of this article. We have paid attention to this issue, and further review the related research paper. After review, some of previous studies which also assess the performance of weightlifter did not make a clear distinction. For example, Ikeda et al. (2012) assessed the performance of weightlifter at the 2008 Asian Championships. They analyzed 10 female weightlifter whom weight is from 48kg to 75kg. Kipp and Harris (2016) assessed the performance in collegiate-level weightlifters. They recruited 6 male weightlifters as well as did not make a clear distinction on weightlifters according to weight category. Recently, Mastalerz et al. (2019) assessed biomechanical differences between successful and unsuccessful snatch lifts in elite female weightlifters. They investigated14 weightlifters whom weight is from 47.67 kg to 91.28 kg. However, to make better sense of this part, we have reorganize the language to make this part mor logical. We hope that meet with your approval.
Q14: Figure 4. Is not clear what mean Key moments, are they the phases? I reccomend to use the same terms all along the papers. Make the graphs the same in respect to the headings and construction
Answer: Special thanks to you for your good comments. We have adopted ‘phases’ in our manuscription. Please check it in our manuscript.
Once again, we thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you very much for considering your study entitled “ Kinematic Characteristics of Snatch Techniques in an Elite 2 World-Record holder of Weightlifting” to be published on Applied Science.
To make real this possibility, the authors must be improve somethings about the study, as follow:
In general:
The authors have to add legends and explanations on the tables and figures, and to write the meaning of the abbreviations and acronyms.
It is unclear if the study has only one participant, two or twelve. And it is unclear if they are on the same category and /or level.
Abstract:
You have to highlight the background, the material and methods, the results, and the conclusions
Introduction section:
-The authors show the previous studies that have reported (line 35 to line 46) data references about the variables of snatch technique. However, the authors write (line 50-51) contradictory information about that to justify the present study. Please , rewrite these paragraphs.
Material and methods section:
-it is mandatory to add a demographic table of the participants, with number of participants, mean and SD, discipline of each…. And at least, age and BMI.
- due to the height of the participants could have some influence on the results, it is mandatory to add that variable on your demographic table.
-it is mandatory to add a inclusion and exclusion criteria that describes the sample size (questions related to previous injuries , flexibility limitations, etc)
Conclusions:
-the authors write “Therefore, this study recommended that the weightlifter should 244 be tested for lateral muscle volumen” (line 244-245). The conclusion has to be linked with the objectives of the introduction. Please, modify the introduction to be on that way and/or highlight these discovery on your discussion and conclusion paragraph.
-the authors should be clarify the usefulness of the results (to gain on weight lifting, to prevent injuries…)
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you for giving us a chance to revise and improve the quality of our article. We have read the reviewers’ and your comments carefully and have made revision which marked in red in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. Here, we would like to explain the changes briefly as follows:
Thank you very much for considering your study entitled “ Kinematic Characteristics of Snatch Techniques in an Elite World-Record holder of Weightlifting” to be published on Applied Science.
To make real this possibility, the authors must be improve somethings about the study, as follow:
In general:
Q1: The authors have to add legends and explanations on the tables and figures, and to write the meaning of the abbreviations and acronyms.
Answer: We are very sorry for our negligence of paper writing. We have added the detailed information on Table 1 and Table 2 in results. Please check it in manuscript.
Q2: It is unclear if the study has only one participant, two or twelve. And it is unclear if they are on the same category and /or level.
Answer: Special thanks to you for your good comments. Our study only adopted an elite weightlifting athlete who have keep the world records at 73kg weight category for many years. To make it clear, we add “a case study” in title. Please check it in our manuscript.
Q3: Abstract:
You have to highlight the background, the material and methods, the results, and the conclusions
Answer: Thanks very much for your comments, we have highlighted the background, the material and methods, the results, and the conclusions in abstract part. Please check it in our manuscript.
Introduction section:
Q4: -The authors show the previous studies that have reported (line 35 to line 46) data references about the variables of snatch technique. However, the authors write (line 50-51) contradictory information about that to justify the present study. Please, rewrite these paragraphs.
Answer: Special thanks to you for your suggestions, which are very helpful to improve the quality of this article. We have paid attention to these paragraphs and have rewrite it in introduction part. Please check it in our manuscript.
Material and methods section:
Q5-it is mandatory to add a demographic table of the participants, with number of participants, mean and SD, discipline of each…. And at least, age and BMI.
- due to the height of the participants could have some influence on the results, it is mandatory to add that variable on your demographic table.
-it is mandatory to add a inclusion and exclusion criteria that describes the sample size (questions related to previous injuries , flexibility limitations, etc)
Answer: We have put BMI data in method part. Please check the manuscript. We are sorry for that we cannot express some data in mean and SD in demographic table, because we only recruit an elite athlete in this study. These data are not support to take a demographic table in our manuscript. We are sorry again for this issue.
Conclusions:
Q6-the authors write “Therefore, this study recommended that the weightlifter should 244 be tested for lateral muscle volumen” (line 244-245). The conclusion has to be linked with the objectives of the introduction. Please, modify the introduction to be on that way and/or highlight these discovery on your discussion and conclusion paragraph.
-the authors should be clarify the usefulness of the results (to gain on weight lifting, to prevent injuries…)
Answer: Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and we found the comments are quite helpful. According to these comments, we have reorganized these parts in our manuscript. Please check it in our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been improved according to the suggestions. Now is acceptable for publishing.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We appreciate for your warm work earnestly. Above all, thanks very much for the comments, which are really very helpful to improve the quality of this article.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Best wishes
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you very much for your corrections
Please, on table 1 legend, add the meaning of the acronyms under the column "Index"
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we have read the reviewers’ and your comments carefully and have made revision which marked in red in the paper.
Questions 1: Please, on table 1 legend, add the meaning of the acronyms under the column "Index"
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion, we have added the meaning of the acronyms under the column "Index" from “Table 1. Kinematic performance of the barbell during the snatch (M1 was from start position to the instant of first maximal knee extension angle; M2 was the instant of the knee angle from maximum to minimum; M3 was from the end of M2 to the maximal vertical rising velocity of barbell; M4 was from the end of M3 to the maximal vertical height of barbell; M5 was from the end of M4 to the maximal vertical falling velocity of barbell. M6 was from the end of M5 to squat position” to “Table 1. Kinematic performance of the barbell during the snatch (M1 was from start position to the instant of first maximal knee extension angle; M2 was the instant of the knee angle from maximum to minimum; M3 was from the end of M2 to the maximal vertical rising velocity of barbell; M4 was from the end of M3 to the maximal vertical height of barbell; M5 was from the end of M4 to the maximal vertical falling velocity of barbell; M6 was from the end of M5 to squat position. DT is time of each stage, HB is vertical height of the barbell at the end of each phase, VB is maximal vertical velocity of the barbell in each phase, HA is flexion and extension angles of the hip, KA is flexion and extension angles of the knee, AA is flexion and extension angles of the ankle, HV is angular velocity of hip joint, KV is angular velocity of the knee joint, AV is angular velocity of the ankle joint)” . Please check it from line 142 to 147.
Once again, special thanks to you for your good comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
