Track Running Shoes: A Case Report of the Transition from Classical Spikes to “Super Spikes” in Track Running
, Eleonora Montagnani 2,†, Daniel Buttari 3, Luca Paolo Ardigò 4,5,‡, Ionel Melenco 6,‡, Alin Larion 6,‡, Gian Mario Migliaccio 7,‡ and Johnny Padulo 8,*,‡Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting study of two different types of running shoes. The paper is well justified, planned and written, and adds to the running shoes knowledge. The introduction make sense with the topic and is crearle defined. In my opinion, the methodology and results of this study are clear. Conclusions are consistent with the findings. Discussion is interesting and they used actual and adequate references. In my opinion good enough to be published in Applied Sciences.
Author Response
Dear Editor and reviewers,
We thank you for the useful comments and suggestions to our manuscript that has now been revised accordingly. Here below you will find the answers to your comments (page and line numbers refer to the revised version of this manuscript). The changes introduced in the manuscript are highlighted with red color letter.
Reviewer 1
This is an interesting study of two different types of running shoes. The paper is well justified, planned and written, and adds to the running shoes knowledge. The introduction make sense with the topic and is clear defined. In my opinion, the methodology and results of this study are clear. Conclusions are consistent with the findings. Discussion is interesting and they used actual and adequate references. In my opinion good enough to be published in Applied Sciences.
We are very glad that you appreciate our paper. Thanks for your true review.
Reviewer 2 Report
The study is interesting and well-conceived, however, it does not provide any specific answer that will be useful to athletes' coaches. The paper presents the case of an athlete who has his own specifics (serious injury and surgery on the right hamstrings five years prior to this work and of course the specific biomechanics of running that is present in every athlete).
I think the contribution of this study is that it provides a good example of an approach to studying the biomechanics of athlete movement (which many coaches do not do.)
The protocol is, as the authors believe, simple and repeatable, but I believe that the equipment is relatively expensive and that every team, which has this approach to the analysis of trajectories, needs an expert who will be able to explain the obtained results to them, and a large number of clubs cannot afford that. .
For a concrete practical contribution, I believe that the sample of athletes participating in the study should be larger in order to be able to draw some more concrete conclusions. The advantage of this study is the inclusion of a top athlete in the study, which can provide model values in some aspects.
Author Response
Dear Editor and reviewers,
We thank you for the useful comments and suggestions to our manuscript that has now been revised accordingly. Here below you will find the answers to your comments (page and line numbers refer to the revised version of this manuscript). The changes introduced in the manuscript are highlighted with red color letter.
Reviewer 2
The study is interesting and well-conceived; however, it does not provide any specific answer that will be useful to athletes' coaches. The paper presents the case of an athlete who has his own specifics (serious injury and surgery on the right hamstrings five years prior to this work and of course the specific biomechanics of running that is present in every athlete).
I think the contribution of this study is that it provides a good example of an approach to studying the biomechanics of athlete movement (which many coaches do not do.)
Exactly yes, we are pleased that you get precisely our point.
The protocol is, as the authors believe, simple and repeatable, but I believe that the equipment is relatively expensive and that every team, which has this approach to the analysis of trajectories, needs an expert who will be able to explain the obtained results to them, and a large number of clubs cannot afford that.
Thanks for your comment. For coaches is very important to have cheap and easy tools to use directly on the field. You underline that the equipment we used is relatively expensive, it could be true for sensorized insoles but it is not true for the shoes sensors. Sensorized insoles gave us some information about the motion of the foot inside the shoe but the most interesting data for coaches are obtained from the inertial sensors applied on the shoes. The cost of the inertial sensors is relative cheap and sustainable by coaches and clubs.
For a concrete practical contribution, I believe that the sample of athletes participating in the study should be larger in order to be able to draw some more concrete conclusions. The advantage of this study is the inclusion of a top athlete in the study, which can provide model values in some aspects.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The manuscript "Track Running Shoes: A Case Report of the Transition from Classical Spikes to “Super Spikes” in Track Running" by Luca Russo and co-authors discusses the case study of test two different types of spikes (normal and super) by the Olympic-level runner. The structure of the article is clear and logical. The authors described a detailed example of a study for a selected athlete. The kinematics, kinetics and plantar pressure parameters of an Olympic-level running athlete using both the normal spike shoes (NSS) and the super spike shoes (SSS) was determined. However, in my opinion, the article needs several changes, which are detailed below.
Specific remarks/editorial comments/typos:
- In line 63, the Authors use the personal form ("… , we know that the..."). This is not correct in high-quality articles. It suggests modifying this part of the article. Please check the entire article in terms of personal form. The same remark is for line 77, 80 and others.
- line 138, the dot is missing at the end of the Figure caption.
- In addition to the detailed results of the study, the Authors should include in the article's conclusion an attempt to generally characterize the research method and evaluate the results (e.g., in flowchart format), so that the method will be universal and allows for the study of other runners as well.
- Research articles should present the directions of further research. I suggest adding one paragraph in the conclusion chapter.
Minor corrections should be implemented before considering the article for publication. I hope these suggestions can help to improve the quality of this paper.
I wish you all the best.
Author Response
Dear Editor and reviewers,
We thank you for the useful comments and suggestions to our manuscript that has now been revised accordingly. Here below you will find the answers to your comments (page and line numbers refer to the revised version of this manuscript). The changes introduced in the manuscript are highlighted with red color letter.
Reviewer 3
The manuscript "Track Running Shoes: A Case Report of the Transition from Classical Spikes to “Super Spikes” in Track Running" by Luca Russo and co-authors discusses the case study of test two different types of spikes (normal and super) by the Olympic-level runner. The structure of the article is clear and logical. The authors described a detailed example of a study for a selected athlete. The kinematics, kinetics and plantar pressure parameters of an Olympic-level running athlete using both the normal spike shoes (NSS) and the super spike shoes (SSS) was determined. However, in my opinion, the article needs several changes, which are detailed below.
Thank you very much for the appreciation of our paper and for your comments. Your review will enhance surely the quality of our paper. You can find our comments following yours.
Specific remarks/editorial comments/typos:
- In line 63, the Authors use the personal form ("… , we know that the..."). This is not correct in high-quality articles. It suggests modifying this part of the article. Please check the entire article in terms of personal form. The same remark is for line 77, 80 and others.
Done.
- line 138, the dot is missing at the end of the Figure caption.
Done
- In addition to the detailed results of the study, the Authors should include in the article's conclusion an attempt to generally characterize the research method and evaluate the results (e.g., in flowchart format), so that the method will be universal and allows for the study of other runners as well.
Done
- Research articles should present the directions of further research. I suggest adding one paragraph in the conclusion chapter.
Done
Minor corrections should be implemented before considering the article for publication. I hope these suggestions can help to improve the quality of this paper.
I wish you all the best.
We are grateful for the comments and pleased to meet expectations. We appreciate your recommendation. We have modified the text of the statistical analysis and the results in order to make them clearer. In addition, we have added a new figure to the methodological description to present it in a more understandable way.
