Analysis of the Influence of the Angular Position of the Cleat in Kinematics and Kinetics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think this paper is excellent and is an important addition to the literature

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1:

 

Thank you very much for your appreciation and considering our research suitable for publication.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

                                               The study authors

Reviewer 2 Report

I do not observe a clear contribution, it needs to be clarified in the introduction section. In addition, I observed a huge quantity of tables, which are not described in detail, how is usee the ANOVA analysis in these tables?,  has the data analyzed a normal distribution?  Hence, I recommend to the authors improve these sections in order to observe clearly the contribution of your work. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2:

 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our work. We have modified the manuscript according to your suggestions and those made by the reviewers. We include a point-by-point response to the comments and have edited the manuscript accordingly. Changes have been highlighted. We thank you in advance for taking the time to consider our manuscript.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

                                               The study authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall the paper is well-written and organized. Some minor sentences must be reviewed as for completeness and/or grammar.

 

The study adds new information on kinetic and kinematics of the lower limb regarding rotation positioning (rather with a fixed or freedom allowed) Cleat.

 

The introduction and the Materials & Methods sections are easy to understand and well organized.

 

Results Section:

 

Table 1, distinguishing between statistically significant values and non-significant values, should be highlighted for ease of reading. It is not clear "significance of what" is being presented here. Is the difference for each lower limb angle for each fixed angle cleat with respect to the cyclist's own free-moving (rotation angle) one?

 

Table 2: PP is not defined. It is guessed it corresponds to the measurements with each cyclist's individual cleat. Is it ok to average Look Keo and Time? (maybe because they are comparable on freedom angles 4.5 and 5). Is the previous significance calculated with respect to the corresponding averaged PP value here?

 

Table 3: again here, significance values are presented. Are data comparisons are using PP Cleat vs. each specific fix angle?

 

All comments referring to tables should be addressed better in text and in captions. as tables and figures should always be self-contained.

What about the difference in applied force and power output variation with the proposed system at an individual level? The paper implies changes in decreased power applied to the pedal, and it is not further explained. what are the relations between the proposed pedal, needed angle, and physiological variables on an individual cyclist level? how can use a fixed rotation Cleat improves its power output? There seem to be some promising outcomes here.

Discussion and Conclusion sections:

 

There are mainly discussions regarding other's work on all angles obtained others than the rotation freedom, which is new here. There should be more discussion on the obtained results and why they are there relevant.

 

In the before last paragraph, there is something missing between comas before Garcia lopez reference? Also, afterwards is stated: "We have not found investigations which have quantified the frontal plane, it." Is something missing after "it"?

 

The conclusion is really poor. highlight the relevant conclusion points, what kinematics?, what kinetics?, and how does it impact power output.

 

The final discussion and conclusion sections barely support the results presented.

2.14.0.0 2.14.0.0 2.14.0.0

Author Response

Dear reviewer 3:

 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our work. We have modified the manuscript according to your suggestions and those made by the reviewers. We include a point-by-point response to the comments and have edited the manuscript accordingly. Changes have been highlighted. Attached document. We thank you in advance for taking the time to consider our manuscript.

 

Yours faithfully,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I observe that the authors have improved their article; however, I do not encounter a document with the responses to the reviewer's suggestions. I encourage to authors to provide it in order to observe clearly your modifications and explanations.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2:

 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our work. We have modified the manuscript according to your suggestions and those made by the reviewers. We include a point-by-point response to the comments and have edited the manuscript accordingly. Changes have been highlighted. Attached document. We thank you in advance for taking the time to consider our manuscript.

 

Yours faithfully,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf