The Effect of the Texture of Two Energy Bars on the Oral Processing of Cyclists: An Exploratory Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thanks!

Please:

We have 3 different aims!

Abstract

Aim1:

“The aim of this study was to analyse how the consumption of two energy bars with different textures (viscous versus hard) influenced kinematic variables during oral processing, pedalling intensity, and the perception of satisfaction among cyclists.”

1. Introduction

Aim2:

“The aim of this current study was to analyse how the consumption of two different energy bars with differing textures influenced the variables of oral processing, pedalling intensity, and perception of satisfaction among cyclists.”

4. Discussion

Aim3:

“The aim of this present study was to investigate the effect of ingesting two different energy bars with different textures in terms of oral processing, pedalling intensity, and the perception of satisfaction among cyclists during a cycle ergometer session.”

 

Introduction

Please:

Add recent studies (2021, 2022)

 

Procedures

Please:

Justify all your options with studies/references), i.e., prove that it is reasonable or necessary.

 

2.2. Studied energy bars

Justify all your options with studies/references), i.e., prove that it is reasonable or necessary.

 

Table 2. Parameters analysed during the kinematics of oral processing.

Please:

Justify all your options with studies/references), i.e., prove that it is reasonable or necessary.

 

2.5. Statistical analysis

Please, insert:

IBM® SPSS® Statistics software (Armonk, USA).

 

Discussion

Please, add recent studies (2021, 2022)

Please, insert practical implications 

 

------“Big limitation”:

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

This study included 10 amateur cyclists, 8 male and 2 female.

n=8-(2)

Please, explain the inclusion criteria (n) for the sample selection.

 

Please, insert future research

 

5. Conclusions

Please:

The conclusion of a research paper restates the research problem, summarizes your arguments or findings.

And..

… provides a clear interpretation of the results of your research in a way that stresses the significance of your study.

 

References

Knechtle, B.; Knechtle, P.; Lepers, R. Participation and Performance Trends in Ultra-Triathlons from 1985 to 2009. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports 2011, 21, xxxx

Bravman, J.T.; Dunn, R.H. Cycling. In Sports-related Fractures, Dislocations and Trauma: Advanced On- and Off-field  Management; Khodaee, M., Waterbrook, A.L., Gammons, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2020; pp. 847–852 319 ISBN 978-3-030-36790-9.

Stellingwerff, T.; Boon, H.; Gijsen, A.P.; Stegen, J.H.C.H.; Kuipers, H.; Loon, L.J.C. van Carbohydrate Supplementation during 334 Prolonged Cycling Exercise Spares Muscle Glycogen but Does Not Affect Intramyocellular Lipid Use. Pflügers Archiv - 335 European Journal of Physiology 2007 454:4 2007, 454, 635–647,

Jeukendrup, A.E. Nutrition for Endurance Sports: Marathon, Triathlon, and Road Cycling. Journal of Sports Sciences 2011, 29, 340 xx

Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; second edi.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988; Vol. 148

Oppenheim, A.V.; Buck, J.R.; Schafer, R.W. Discrete-Time Signal Processing 2001; Vol. 2; Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kerksick, C.M.; Wilborn, C.D.; Roberts, M.D.; Smith-Ryan, A.; Kleiner, S.M.; Jäger, R.; Collins, R.; Cooke, M.; Davis, J.N.; Galvan, E.; et al. ISSN Exercise & Sports Nutrition Review Update: Research & Recommendations. Journal of the International Society 383 of Sports Nutrition 2018, 15, xxxx

Wilson, P.B. ‘I Think I’m Gonna Hurl’: A Narrative Review of the Causes of Nausea and Vomiting in Sport. Sports 2019, 7, 162xxx

(…)

Thanks,

Kind Regards

Author Response

[A] Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We hope the changes introduced in the manuscript satisfy your requirements. We also apologize for the previous mistakes in the manuscript, and for the unclear parts of the document. We have included more information in the document to make the manuscript more understandable. We work hard with two main objectives, the first one is to increase the knowledge to stimulate the safe sport nutrition, as well as to make accessible our small advances to all endurance cyclists when eating sports energy bars. So, any comment that helps us to improve our purpose is always welcome.

Responses to Reviewer 1

[R1] General comments by reviewer

[R1] Please: We have 3 different aims!

[A] Thank you very much for your comment. We have improved the wording of the objective in all three indicated sections (lines 18-21, lines 68-70, 220-222), as follows:

“The aim of this study was to analyse how the consumption of two energy bars with different textures (viscous versus hard) influenced the variables of oral processing, pedalling intensity, and the perception of satisfaction among cyclists.”

[R1] Introduction

Please:

Add recent studies (2021, 2022)

[A] Thank you very much for your suggestion.  Our work provides an exploratory basis for continued investigation about the relationship between the oral processing and the optimisation of endurance sports nutrition. We have included relevant references according to the background of the study, nevertheless we have added recent references as suggested:

- Scheer, V. (2019). Participation trends of ultra-endurance events. Sports medicine and arthroscopy review, 27(1), 3-7.

- Podlogar, T., & Wallis, G. A. (2022). New horizons in carbohydrate research and application for endurance athletes. Sports Medicine, 52(Suppl 1), 5-23.

- Reynolds, K. M., Clifford, T., Mears, S. A., & James, L. J. (2022). A Food First Approach to Carbohydrate Supplementation in Endurance Exercise: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 32(4), 296-310.

- Reinhard, C., & Galloway, S. D. (2022). Carbohydrate Intake Practices and Determinants of Food Choices During Training in Recreational, Amateur, and Professional Endurance Athletes: A Survey Analysis. Frontiers in Nutrition, 9.

- Nishinari, K., Fang, Y., & Rosenthal, A. (2019). Human oral processing and texture profile analysis parameters: Bridging the gap between the sensory evaluation and the instrumental measurements. Journal of Texture Studies, 50(5), 369-380.

[R1] Procedures; 2.2. Studied energy bars; Table 2. Parameters analysed during the kinematics of oral processing.

Please:

Justify all your options with studies/references), i.e., prove that it is reasonable or necessary.

[A] Thank you very much for your comment. There are no previous studies where the effect of chewing energy bars has been analyzed, so it is difficult to justify the choice of our bars based on previous studies. As discussed in the “Studied energy bars” section, both were selected for having a similar nutritional composition but different texture and flavor, which was what was sought to be compared.

Regarding the procedures, there are also very few previous studies where chewing kinematics have been analyzed however, we do rely on a fairly recent previous study to establish our methodology, as indicated in the manuscript:

Rizo, A.; Jimenez-Perez, I.; Camacho-Garcia, A.; Fiszmann, S.; Perez-Soriano, P.; Tarrega, A. Impact of Texture TDS and Flavor TDS Tasks and of Chocolate-Chip Biscuit Characteristics on Oral Processing Features. Food Quality and Preference 2019, 76, 109–117

For this reason, the analysis methodology has been replicated, but with ergogenic bars and in sport context, also taking as study parameters the same as those published in the previous study. Finally, there are no studies with ergogenic bars in similar circumstances (cycling), so the procedures to determine the pedaling protocol have been based on previous experiences to determine a protocol that is as simple as possible. However, information about intensity choice and control has been added (lines 124-129).

[R1] 2.5. Statistical analysis

Please, insert:

IBM® SPSS® Statistics software (Armonk, USA).

[A] Thank you very much for your annotation. We have included it at line 181.

[R1] Discussion

Please, add recent studies (2021, 2022)

[A] Thank you very much for your comment. We have added recent references as suggested:

- Martínez-Sanz, J. M., Fernández Nuñez, A., Sospedra, I., Martínez-Rodríguez, A., Domínguez, R., González-Jurado, J. A., & Sánchez-Oliver, A. J. (2020). Nutrition-related adverse outcomes in endurance sports competitions: A review of incidence and practical recommendations. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(11), 4082.

- Zuhdi, M., & Khairi, A. N. (2022). Analysis of organoleptic properties and consumer acceptance of frozen noodle products. Journal of Halal Science and Research, 3(1), 15-19.

- Stribiţcaia, E., Evans, C. E., Gibbons, C., Blundell, J., & Sarkar, A. (2020). Food texture influences on satiety: systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific reports, 10(1), 1-18.

[R1] Discussion

Please, insert practical implications

[A] Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have included it (see page 8, lines 299 to 304).

[R1] ------“Big limitation”:

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

This study included 10 amateur cyclists, 8 male and 2 female.

n=8-(2)

Please, explain the inclusion criteria (n) for the sample selection.

[A] Thank you very much for your comment. The inclusion criteria for the sample selection are detailed in the page 2 lines 86 to 92. Although, as we commented in the Participants section, a sample of 10 participants has been sufficient to detect large effect sizes, we have considered adding this point as a limitation of the study, as well as the fact of numerical imbalance between men and women studied (see page 9, lines 313-318).

[R1] Please, insert future research

[A] Thank you very much for your comment. Further research about sample enlargement and comparison between sexes has been added (see page 9, lines 313-318).

[R1] 5. Conclusions

Please:

The conclusion of a research paper restates the research problem, summarizes your arguments or findings.

And..

… provides a clear interpretation of the results of your research in a way that stresses the significance of your study.

[A] Thank you very much for your comment. We have reviewed the conclusion section, and we believe that it reflects the main results obtained in the study. If the reviewer is so kind as to indicate the specific argument, we can improve, and we would appreciate it for your consideration.

[R1] References

[A] Thank you very much for your annotation. We have modified the references according to MDPI and ACS Style.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Very interesting topic and unique study design. Some basic comments to consider addressing:

Participants – age 30+/-11yrs is a very large age range. There are sex differences in metabolic rates/factors, perhaps consider eliminating the two females?

Line 84 – any considerations for dental or oral hygiene issues?

Line 101 – would flavor/taste possibly influence participants?

Line 112 – why/how was this intensity chosen? Any consideration for relative intensity? Was any instruction provided on maintaining pedaling cadence? Were participants allowed to use their own shoes/pedals?

Table 4 – with such short times for exercise (15min segments), there likely isn’t enough time for a true ergogenic benefit of consuming carbohydrates.

General comments & thoughts:

Would the results be similar if the participants were just sitting/standing vs riding?

Curious how the EX bar showed lower preference for use and chewing factors, but performance was greater (higher torque & speed).

Author Response

[A] Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We hope the changes introduced in the manuscript satisfy your requirements. We also apologize for the previous mistakes in the manuscript, and for the unclear parts of the document. We have included more information in the document to make the manuscript more understandable. We work hard with two main objectives, the first one is to increase the knowledge to stimulate the safe sport nutrition, as well as to make accessible our small advances to all endurance cyclists when eating sports energy bars. So, any comment that helps us to improve our purpose is always welcome.

Responses to Reviewer 2

[R2] Participants – age 30+/-11yrs is a very large age range. There are sex differences in metabolic rates/factors, perhaps consider eliminating the two females?

[A] Thank you very much for your comment. It is true that the age range is large, as well as the number of men and women is not balanced. Although, as we commented in the Participants section, a sample of 10 participants has been sufficient to detect large effect sizes, we have considered adding these points as limitations of the study, because we believe that further reducing the number of the sample may impair the relevance of our results (see page 9, lines 313-318).

[R2] Line 84 – any considerations for dental or oral hygiene issues?

[A] Thank you very much for your comment. In our study, we only considered as inclusion criteria not to suffer dental injuries and/or discomfort. We think that dental hygiene should not influence the variables we were analyzing if it is not leading to injury or discomfort.

[R2] Line 101 – would flavor/taste possibly influence participants?

[A] Thank you very much for your comment. It is difficult to find a product on the market with similar nutritional properties and the same flavor, but with a completely different texture, because as we have explained in our study, texture and flavor are directly linked to the ingredients used. As you comment, we also consider that flavor/taste is a variable that may have influenced participants, therefore, we have added this point of view as a limitation of our study and to take it into account in future research (see page 9, lines 318-324).

[R2] Line 112 – why/how was this intensity chosen? Any consideration for relative intensity? Was any instruction provided on maintaining pedaling cadence? Were participants allowed to use their own shoes/pedals?

[A] Thank you very much for your comment. A screen was placed in front of the participants to indicate the intensity and that they could stay within the established ranges. Meanwhile, for the cadence no instructions were given and the participants were free to pedal. In addition, all participants used the cycle ergometer pedals with their own sport shoes, to eliminate the effect of using different cleats. In addition, the intensity range was selected taking as a reference ~50% of the values reached by elite cyclists in flat stages. We have included all these information in page 3 lines 128 to 130.

[R2] Table 4 – with such short times for exercise (15min segments), there likely isn’t enough time for a true ergogenic benefit of consuming carbohydrates.

[A] Thank you very much for your comment. Although our study has not focused on analysing the ergogenic benefit, we have used this ingestion period in accordance with the recommendations for the use of carbohydrates during exercise. For example, Cermak, and van Loon (2013) suggest intake carbohydrates at a rate of 60 g·h⁻¹ (~1.0–1.1 g·min⁻¹) to allow for maximal exogenous glucose oxidation rates. In our study, cyclists consumed 26g of CHO each 30-minute period (i.e., 52g·h⁻¹). In addition, we believe that this ingest pattern is used by cyclists in a real context.

Cermak, N.M., van Loon, L.J.C. The Use of Carbohydrates During Exercise as an Ergogenic Aid. Sports Med 43, 1139–1155 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-013-0079-0

General comments & thoughts:

[R2] Would the results be similar if the participants were just sitting/standing vs riding?

[A] Thank you very much for your comment. Our hypothesis is that the results will be different, with an increase in the duration and the number of chews. We believe that the food texture (as seen in this study) and physical demand during sports practices can modify oral processing, and this aspect is explained by the fact that cyclists usually intake solid supplements in the flat areas of the race when the physical demand is lower. In a sitting/standing position, all effort and attention can be dedicated to oral processing and there are no breathing difficulties caused by exercise. On the other hand, we would expect a smaller difference in oral processing between energy bars. It is possible that the time spent on ingestion will be more stable because there is not a physical demand condition.

[R2] Curious how the EX bar showed lower preference for use and chewing factors, but performance was greater (higher torque & speed).

[A] Thank you very much for your observation. Although this trend is appreciated, the differences are not significant. It would be necessary to wait for future studies to provide more robust evidence to draw conclusions from this idea.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Jimenez-Perez et al. present a manuscript that describes an investigation centred on the texture differences between two commercial energy bars and their affect on cyclists in a controlled short-term exercise assessment. The authors identified a significant difference in consumption characteristics between the bars, and non-significant trends for similar parameters. The presented work provides a useful basis for continued investigation in the optimisation of endurance sports nutrition.

There are a few minor comments:

Please provide the version number for the G*Power software used and the corresponding appropriate reference (e.g., Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160.)

The flavour difference between the two bars could be a legitimate confound in their processing and evaluation by the participants. It would have been ideal to have a uniform or similar flavour between the bars, however as an alternative, a discussion of the limitation in the discussion should be sufficient.

Line 135/Fig. 2: It is not immediately clear from the images how the 6 camera system is arranged. If it's necessary to demonstrate the arrangement please annotate the photos with arrows accordingly.

Author Response

[A] Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We hope the changes introduced in the manuscript satisfy your requirements. We also apologize for the previous mistakes in the manuscript, and for the unclear parts of the document. We have included more information in the document to make the manuscript more understandable. We work hard with two main objectives, the first one is to increase the knowledge to stimulate the safe sport nutrition, as well as to make accessible our small advances to all endurance cyclists when eating sports energy bars. So, any comment that helps us to improve our purpose is always welcome.

Responses to Reviewer 3

[R3] Please provide the version number for the G*Power software used and the corresponding appropriate reference (e.g., Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160.)

[A] Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have included the references according to MDPI and ACS Style.

[R3] The flavour difference between the two bars could be a legitimate confound in their processing and evaluation by the participants. It would have been ideal to have a uniform or similar flavour between the bars, however as an alternative, a discussion of the limitation in the discussion should be sufficient.

[A] Thank you very much for your comment. We have included this comment in the limitation section (see page 9 lines 318 to 324).

[R3] Line 135/Fig. 2: It is not immediately clear from the images how the 6 camera system is arranged. If it's necessary to demonstrate the arrangement please annotate the photos with arrows accordingly.

[A] Thank you very much for your comment and we agree regarding the figure and the number of cameras that can be seen in it. Unfortunately, we do not have more photos related to this studio where the 6 cameras can be seen. We think that the image adds value to the manuscript (with the limitations that the reviewer comments). If the reviewer considers it, we could delete the image, since we do not have any more photos. We will take it into account for future studies and we appreciate the comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your work.

Please, change the title to:

The effect of the texture of two energy bars on the oral processing of cyclists: an exploratory study

Kind regards

Author Response

[A] Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable review.  

Responses to Reviewer 1 

[R1] Dear Authors, 

Thank you for your work. 

Please, change the title to: 

The effect of the texture of two energy bars on the oral processing of cyclists: an exploratory study  

[A] We have modified the title as suggest: 

“The effect of the texture of two energy bars on the oral processing of cyclists: an exploratory study” 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx