Evaluating the Asymmetry of Muscle Activation and Strength in Paralympic Powerlifting Athletes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

the manuscript entitled "Evaluating the Asymmetry of Muscle Activation and Strength in Paralympic Powerlifting Athletes" deal the topic about the evaluation of muscle function in paralympic athletes. 

Below some of my concern:

ABSTRACT:

- the sentences "In paralympic powerlifting (PP)asymmetries for the evaluation of activation, and static  force indicators have increased"

"where muscle activation was evaluated through electromyography (EMG) and static indicators of strength and associated asymmetries"

are not clear, please revise.

- the objective doesn't appear explicit enough, it is recommended to provide a detailed purpose.

- in results section the reviewer suggest to provide some numerical data. 

INTRODUCTION:

- the ref. 2 does not appear useful for the sentence "The observation of muscular activity through electromyography has established a reliable relationship with the evaluation of acute training responses".

- the sentence "On the other hand, the presence of asymmetries between the limbs has been studied, with few studies specifically addressing performance" and the ref. 7 not are in line with the purpose of the present study. Bishop, C. et al. has been studied asymmetries in strenght not in EMG signal, in addition surrently the are many paper about asymmtries and performances. 

- about introduction, the reviewer suggest: 1) provide more information with the main focus of introduction on asymmetries and EMG; 2) finalyze this backgrounf with a clear purpose of the study. 

METHODS: 

- without a clear purpose of the study, is not possible to evaluate the design of the study.

- please define any abbreviation before use it;

- the study design is not clear, only the fig. 1 allow the reader the sentence between line 82-86; 

- fig. 1 report "5X5: five sets of five maximum repetitions", while line 84 "and a 5 x 5 protocol of 80% 1RM in the BP" please clarify.

- for the evaluation methods of strenght (line 117-123), the ref. 26-27 does not appear a methodological papers. The reviewer suggest to provide reference about the method.

- for the evaluation methods of MIF (line 124-134) the references (Aidar et al., 2021; Teles et al., 2021) does not appear a methodological papers. The reviewer suggest to provide reference about the method.

- in this section miss the description of the variables used in this study (sEMG %)

RESULTS:

- the values of ES are not shown;

- how the authors explain a values of sEMG around 150%?

- was an evaluation of the asymmetry in sEMG also performed? The results section contains no information.

- please revise line 183-186.

- please revise the values at line 188.

- In general the results section appear poor of information, especially in view of the study protocol presented.

DISCUSSION:

- line 192-194 is not clear. 

CONCLUSION:

- when the authors evaluate the deltoid? Line 285 "there was no asymmetry in terms of deltoid activation and time to MIF."

- the conclusion is not supported from results. 

Author Response

Initially, I hope everyone is well. I would like to thank you very much for the collaborations, which made the manuscript much better. All suggestions were accepted, and we will remain available for further questions or adjustments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

See attached for comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Initially, I hope everyone is well. I would like to thank you very much for the collaboration, which made the manuscript much better. All suggestions were accepted and we remain available for further questions or adjustments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The abstract is a honest summary of a well designed and implemented workout and of its results.

I have only suggestions to improve the list of references, in particular as the potential of muscle imaging to better quantify results of the workout in future research.

Reference 11 is interesting and open the possibility of future collaboration, but a few more references are needed on this topic.

For GENERAL READERS, I suggest to add and discuss a few more references. Specifically:

Recenti M, Ricciardi C, Edmunds K, Jacob D, Gambacorta M, Gargiulo P. Testing soft tissue radiodensity parameters interplay with age and self-reported physical activity. Eur J Transl Myol. 2021 Jul 12. doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2021.9929.

Recenti M, Ricciardi C, Edmunds K, Gislason MK, Gargiulo P. Machine learning predictive system based upon radiodensitometric distributions from mid-thigh CT images. Eur J Transl Myol. 2020 Apr 1;30(1):8892. doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2019.8892. eCollection 2020 Apr 7

Carraro U, Kern H, Gava P, Hofer C, Loefler S, Gargiulo P, Mosole S, Zampieri S, Gobbo V, Ravara B, Piccione F, Marcante A, Baba A, Schils S, Pond A, Gava F. Biology of Muscle Atrophy and of its Recovery by FES in Aging and Mobility Impairments: Roots and By-Products. Eur J Transl Myol. 2015 Aug 25;25(4):221-30. doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2015.5272. eCollection 2015 Aug 24.

Gargiulo P, Helgason T, Ramon C, Jónsson H Jr, Carraro U. CT and MRI Assessment and Characterization Using Segmentation and 3D Modeling Techniques: Applications to Muscle, Bone and Brain. Eur J Transl Myol. 2014 Mar 27;24(1):3298. doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2014.3298. eCollection 2014 Mar 31.

Hamar D. Universal Linear Motor Driven Leg Press Dynamometer and Concept of Serial Stretch Loading. Eur J Transl Myol. 2015 Aug 25;25(4):215-9. doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2015.5281. eCollection 2015 Aug 24.

Sarabon N, Löfler S, Hosszu G, Hofer C. Mobility Test Protocols for the Elderly: A Methodological Note. Eur J Transl Myol. 2015 Sep 23;25(4):253-6. doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2015.5385. eCollection 2015 Aug 24.

 

Cvecka J, Tirpakova V, Sedliak M, Kern H, Mayr W, Hamar D. Physical Activity in Elderly. Eur J Transl Myol. 2015 Aug 25;25(4):249-52. doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2015.5280. eCollection 2015 Aug 24.

 

 

 

A few typos and grammar problems must be cleaned

Author Response

Initially, I hope everyone is well. I would like to thank you very much for the collaboration, which made the manuscript much better. All suggestions were accepted and we remain available for further questions or adjustments

Author Response File: Author Response.docx