Bioelectrical Impedance Vector and Creatine Phosphokinase Changes Induced by a High-Intensity Training Session in Rink Hockey Players
, Manuel V. Garnacho-Castaño 3, Mercè Castellano-Fàbrega 4, Jorge Castizo-Olier 5, Marta Carrasco-Marginet 1,2, Noemí Serra-Paya 5 and Alfredo Irurtia 1,2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract:
-What does POST mean exactly?
-What are the p values refereeing to? Which statistical tests were used?
-Please define R/h, Xc/h, PhA, and BIVA in the abstract.
-You explain PRE, POST, and POST24H. Then you introduce PRE-POST. What does that mean?
Methods
-Where there any Inclusion/Exclusion criteria?
-Line 145: What does the 1.7 ± 0.4 L mean exactly? In which time frame was this taken?
-I assume the participants were analyzed in different training sessions. Could you please further describe the sessions and if they were very similar or different (the maximum intensity phases ranged from 6% to 17%)
-How was the perimeter of the thigh measured?
Results
-Please provide the sample size in Table 2
-Please indicate in Tab 2 the measure of central tendency and of dispersion
Discussion
- The authors explain the role of CK as a marker for muscle damage and imply that this should be a bad thing. Can muscle damage be desirable to a certain extent?
-Line 351: “Very similar to tri- 351 athletes’ vectors.” This is not a complete sentence
-Line 384: Do you know for sure that this increase is due to edema? Could there be other explanations? (eg, dilation of blood vessels?)
-I would like the idea of having a tool to guide training sessions. However, this concept is very vaguely explained. How could these parameters help to adjust training intensity. For example, are there possible thresholds, which still have to be determined, that will suggest stopping the session? I would like to hear more tangible application areas of the here presented techniques.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Summary
There should be no abbreviations or initials that the meaning has not been indicated (Xc, PhA ...).
Introduction
Miss the review of different creatine kinase measurement protocols, impedance measurement, and data measurement before and after training. For example, having identified different objectives, the time of not ingesting liquids and food prior to weighing would be justified. Two examples would be:
- Campa F, Toselli S, Mazzilli M, Gobbo LA, Coratella G. Assessment of Body Composition in Athletes: A Narrative Review of Available Methods with Special Reference to Quantitative and Qualitative Bioimpedance Analysis. Nutrients. 2021; 13 (5): 1620. doi: 10.3390 / nu13051620
- Kyle UG, Bosaeus I, De Lorenzo AD, et al. Bioelectrical impedance analysis-part II: utilization in clinical practice. Clin Nutr. 2004; 23 (6): 1430–1453. doi: 10.1016 / j.clnu.2004.09.012
The use of one protocol or another in the measurement of impedance could be a bias of this study, in the case that there is no such comparison, this should be indicated in the limitations of the study.
One question that arises for me is, are there currently published articles on the relationship between body composition (weight, fat mass, and fat-free mass), creatine kinase, and exercise? I think the authors should have taken this into account.
The discussion section uses bibliography that should have been used in the introduction.
The paragraph on line 108 causes confusion between the stated objective and what has finally been achieved. I understand that the authors' objective is to measure body composition or / and impedance vectors and creatine kinase changes before and after a hockey training session, which would be well written at the end of this paragraph. But I do not understand how this aspect is related to the bioenergetic approach with the stated objective.
Material and methods
In section 2.3.1 maybe it should be called used measuring instruments and section 2.3.2 maybe it should be called body composition measurement.
Section 2.3.2 should summarize the protocol used to measure impedance and then describe the details that are necessary. Examples of bibliographic references have been suggested in the comments in the introduction section.
In section 2.3.2 the placement of the electrodes could be a bias of this study, review the protocols indicated in the introduction section. If this is not the case, it must be indicated that it has been carried out in the same way as the investigations (reference 49, 53…) and it seems to be the best way to place it. One way or another this must be explained. In the event that it has not been taken into account, it should be indicated as a limitation of the study.
The authors should bear in mind that one of the objectives cannot be to evaluate the precision of the impedance instruments used because they have not been compared with reference instruments as indicated in the following recommended article (Müller, MJ; Braun, W .; Pourhassan, M .; Geisler, C .; Bosy-Westphal, A. Application of standards and models in body composition analysis. Proc Nutr Soc 2016, 75 (2), 181-7. Doi: 10.1017 / S0029665115004206).
Results
I am curious if it was not interesting to take into account the fat mass and fat-free mass, this can probably be found out in the question posed in the previous section (are there currently published articles on the relationship between body composition (weight, fat mass and fat-free mass), creatine kinase and exercise?).
Discussion
In this section it can be seen that using information from here could have clarified several questions of the introduction and I have missed the comparison of the results found in this study with other similar ones.
Conclusions.
Only the information that responds to the definitive objective set should be indicated, as indicated in the introduction.
Bibliography
It seems that the authors have not followed the journal's instructions in the bibliographic standards.
Perhaps you have used an excessive number of references and have found too many citations that have been published before the year 2015.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The current manuscript describes a study that investigates for the first time a relationship between a marker of muscular damage and muscle-localized bioelectrical impedance parameters. Although this result should be considered preliminary, due to the small sample size and the ecological nature of the study, it opens new perspectives in the field of sports science and muscle physiology.
Although interesting and original, the study needs extensive editing before publication. The authors will find detailed comments about the required revisions.
Introduction.
The introduction should be better focused on what is relevant for the current study. In particular, the authors might be more concise regarding the BIA description and be less generic when describing its role in sport assessment. Some references are too generic. For example, in line 54, the authors indicated three reviews. They should refer to the specific studies. In line 52, the authors stated the effects of strenuous exercise. Is the protocol adopted a strenuous one? And if yes, how did the authors make sure it was? In this case, it should be better stated in the material and methods.
Line 98-107. This sentence is also too generic. The authors should introduce the rationale for assessing ML-BIA at the level of the quadriceps in rink hockey players. Why this muscle? What kind of contraction do authors expect should be prevalent in the proposed type of task? What is the effect?
Material and methods
Line 144. What is the motivation for not allowing participants to urinate? It was forbidden from the arrival, during the exercise protocol, or both. Could you please provide a reference?
The exercise protocol needs more details. For example, how much time was dedicated to the warm-up, the central part, and cooling down? What was the content of the main part? For example, were they small-sided games? How many participants per team? A description can be helpful. Alternatively, can the authors provide some parameters of external load?
Why did the authors choose the 15-items borg scale and not the CR10 or the version modified by Foster? They are commonly adopted for intermittent sport like soccer, basket, and futsal, while the 15-items scale is preferred for continuous tasks. If the team's technical staff chose this aspect, the authors should state it. If they consider this aspect a limitation, they should indicate it in the limitation section.
About the temperature, the authors refer to the skin or body temperature? Please, check this aspect in lines 192 and 196.
Results.
One participant had a different trend. It can be seen from figure 2. Did he differ from the other participants for additional variables, including training load? If yes, please, indicate it on the results and comment on the discussion.
Regarding BIVA, I suggest inverting the order in which results are presented. The content in fig. 5 characterizes the sample. Thus, should be presented before changes.
Was phase angle correlation with CK analyzed?
Discussion.
the discussion is well structured. However, some sentences are confusing and I suggest revising it. An aspect that needs to be discussed is why a non-significant change is associated with a significant one and if can be useful in an ecological setting. Considering the small changes detected and the repeatability and accuracy of the BIA-101, can these results be applied on the field? Discussing this aspect can further improve the strength o the study.
Please, revise DOIs because I found some errors.
Some minor revisions are listed below:
line 32: I'm not sure if the verb to dispute is in the correct tense;
line 41-44: this sentence is hard to understand;
Line 108-113: This sentence is difficult to understand. Furthermore, authors should clarify what they mean by "bioenergetic approach" and if appropriate for the current study.
Line 137: is another the correct term in this context?
Line 150: warming phase is relatively uncommon. I suggest warming up. Also, I suggest cooling down instead of recovery.
Line 160: what do authors mean? Maybe chose is not the correct verb in this sentence.
Line 167: in table 1, is the use of the word soft correct? Maybe "light" is more appropriate. Is "relative RPE" an adequate term?
Line 171-174: This sentence is too wordy. Please, edit it.
Line 228: SENIAM must be written in the extended form.
Line 260: Using an asterisc can be helpful to better understand the table due to a large amount of data in the table.
Line 267: In figure one (c), using different colors for pre and post markers can be helpful. Actually, it is named b instead of c.
Line 306. In figure 4, it can be helpful to change markers and lines. For example, the pre-training line is continuous and dark. I would suggest associating the dark marker with pre-training instead of post-training.
Line 332: in figure 6, the variables' order is different from table 2. I suggest following the same scheme.
Line 339-340. This sentence is too wordy.
Line 390. Increasement is very uncommon.
Line 407-408. This sentence is hard to understand.
Line 415-416. This sentence is too wordy.
Line 458-460. This sentence is hard to understand.
Line 470-474. This sentence is hard to understand. I suggest dividing it into two parts.
Line 474-476. This sentence is hard to understand.
Line 479-481. This sentence is hard to understand.
Line 486. The article for sport is wrong.
Line 495-498. Does this sentence refer to the present study or the study of Nescolarde? I suggest rephrasing it.
Line 512. Is the verb assessment adequate to the context?
Line 518. Please, rephrase it.
Line 525-527. This sentence is hard to understand.
Line 698. DOI is wrong.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The comments have been satisfactorily addressed.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, thank you for making the requested changes. Greetings.
