Accelerometry-Measured Physical Activity in Amateur Footballers. Is It Enough to Obtain Health Benefits?
, Sixto González-Víllora 2, Alfonso Valero-Valenzuela 3, Alejandro Anton-Candanedo 1, Juan Andrés Merino-Barrero 4, Juan Vicente Sierra de los Ríos 2 and Miguel Angel López Gajardo 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors did a good job in addressing my previous comments. I still have a few concerns that I hope to authors can address:
- One of the biggest limitation of the study is that it lacks of control group that consists of people who play football for leisure. So, many of the authors' claim is still unclear. For instance, the results show that the amateur football had some symptoms of football addiction. But it is not clear whether they have higher football addiction than typical football players that play for leisure. It will be good if the current study has a control group to compare.
- Second, it will be interesting for the authors to examine the variation between each football clubs. For instance, it is possible that they are huge variation in terms of RPE, motive, intention to play and football addiction between each football club. If it is, then it will be interesting to explain why this variation occur.
- The authors should explain in details how they arrived with each of the hypotheses
Author Response
We would like to thank again the three reviewers for all the comments. They have helped us review the article again and try to improve it. Changes have been highlighted using “green font” (in the first review “red font” was used). The manuscript has been fully reviewed by a native English speaker.
Reviewer 1:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors did a good job in addressing my previous comments. I still have a few concerns that I hope to authors can address:
We thank the reviewer for the positive comment.
- One of the biggest limitation of the study is that it lacks of control group that consists of people who play football for leisure. So, many of the authors' claim is still unclear. For instance, the results show that the amateur football had some symptoms of football addiction. But it is not clear whether they have higher football addiction than typical football players that play for leisure. It will be good if the current study has a control group to compare.
The research design cannot be modified. We followed an exploratory, ex-post facto research design, where there is no need for a control group. We have included it as a “limitation of the study”. As mentioned in the manuscript, there are no other articles on amateur football to be able to compare the results obtained. This study could be considered the first one. We included this sentence in the introduction: “To our knowledge, only one study was conducted in soccer players, and the number of participants was too limited [25]”. No comparisons can be made between our amateur football players and others.
- Second, it will be interesting for the authors to examine the variation between each football clubs. For instance, it is possible that they are huge variation in terms of RPE, motive, intention to play and football addiction between each football club. If it is, then it will be interesting to explain why this variation occur.
Teams could be compared because each one had about 14 players, a very small sample to run statistical analyses and obtain reliable results. This was the reason why we compared regions and discussed results based on the different regions, which included 3-4 teams of the same area (they tend to train similarly). Nevertheless, we have acknowledged differences: “MVPA was significantly different among different groups of participants (it was higher in the players of the central group). This indicated that amateur football training intensities can be very different depending on the coach.”
- The authors should explain in details how they arrived with each of the hypotheses
Ok, we have tried to improve the discussion section.
Reviewer 2 Report
The aim of this study was to investigate the physical and psychological demands of amateur football in Spain. Two hundred players from 16 teams participated, along with coaches. This study presents a big sample size, seems well conducted and deals with a relevant question. All in all, I think there is potential for a nice paper. However, I recommend the authors to work on their manuscript for more clarity overall. The results section requires the most changes. English editing by a native English Speaker would also help improve phrases, word selection and the overall flow of the article. The authors are provided with a list of comments and suggestions to improve their manuscript.
Abstract:
The first sentence stating that amateur football has been scarcely researched is too vague. Please be more specific to show that it is an important topic that deserves more research. Try also to focus to your question of research
Replace “goal” by a the formal “aim of our research”
Define in plain text “MVPA” as you did for RPE
It would be good to see some actual data in the abstract, such as percentages for the highest motive, symptoms of exercise addiction and intentions to continue playing.
L27, replace “to obtain” by “for”
Introduction
Define UEFA and FIFA at first use, then use acronyms, same for WHO
L61, you say that amateur football has been barely investigated. Please be more specific. Explain what in amateur football was not investigated.
L63, replace “Much research” by “Most of the research”
L68, write “as positive as that generated by …”
L70, write “a high percentage of participants”
L76, What do you mean with “mastery”? consider reformulating, it sounds odd
L87, write “60% of adults”
Methods
L114, write 200 in plain text. Always start a sentence with text and not numbers.
L114, add age range is the parentheses.
L133, ex post facto is not the classical term used to describe a research design, please reformulate for more clarity for the general audience
L149, provide full characteristics of accelerometers including manufacturer, city, country
Same request for the stat software you used (L171) Actilife and SPSS. And define SPSS in plain text
Be more specific in the stat section: Clearly explain what you testes. E.g. for the ANOVAs, what did you compare (which groups with which variables). Same question of correlations and regressions. You indicate “certain variables”. What were they?
Results
L181, METS Kcal and Steps are units. Please refer to the main variables and not only their units in the text.
L184, reformulate the sentence with a better structure. E.g. “RPE was considered “fairly light” pre (value) and post training (value) and was not different between players (value) and coaches (value)”.
Table 1: name the first column, and all items in the first column must be renamed up to Players’ RPE, because they are not variables but units. E,g< the variables for kcal is energy expenditure, same for METS…
In table 1, does players’ RPE refer to pre, post training or both? Be more specific
Table 2: add units even if it is AU.
I would add the percentage of players responding to the different questions of table 2 in the text. That would be a good complement to table 2 instead of repeating the information.
L199-203. This information should be presented in the stat section, but not in the results. Please amend accordingly. I would not present F values, as they make the results confusing for a lay audience. I would just keep actual values and/or percentages of change + P values and r values for correlations.
L220-222, this should be in the stats section
Overall, I would try to simplify the results section which is wordy and full of statistical signs. All tables also require more details for a full understanding.
Discussion
Replace goal by aim
L269-271. There are many studies on elite football, so I would nuance your statement and add this information bout higher level football.
L272, replace “showed” by “shown”
Conclusion
I would replace Goal by Aim.
Author Response
We would like to thank again the three reviewers for all the comments. They have helped us review the article again and try to improve it. Changes have been highlighted using “green font” (in the first review “red font” was used). The manuscript has been fully reviewed by a native English speaker.
Reviewer 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The aim of this study was to investigate the physical and psychological demands of amateur football in Spain. Two hundred players from 16 teams participated, along with coaches. This study presents a big sample size, seems well conducted and deals with a relevant question. All in all, I think there is potential for a nice paper. However, I recommend the authors to work on their manuscript for more clarity overall. The results section requires the most changes. English editing by a native English Speaker would also help improve phrases, word selection and the overall flow of the article. The authors are provided with a list of comments and suggestions to improve their manuscript.
We thank the reviewer for the positive notes. We will try to improve the paper based on the comments provided.
Abstract:
The first sentence stating that amateur football has been scarcely researched is too vague. Please be more specific to show that it is an important topic that deserves more research. Try also to focus to your question of research
We apologize for the missing information. The following has been included: “(almost no studies have targeted this sport). There seems to be a need to fill this gap, because it has an impact in these individuals’ health status”.
Replace “goal” by a the formal “aim of our research”
Ok. Made.
Define in plain text “MVPA” as you did for RPE
We are sorry. It has been modified.
It would be good to see some actual data in the abstract, such as percentages for the highest motive, symptoms of exercise addiction and intentions to continue playing.
Ok, we have added them.
L27, replace “to obtain” by “for”
Done.
Introduction
Define UEFA and FIFA at first use, then use acronyms, same for WHO
Done.
L61, you say that amateur football has been barely investigated. Please be more specific. Explain what in amateur football was not investigated.
We apologize for the missing information. The sentence has been changed to link it to the study’s aims: “However, the effects of this type of physical activity on the players’ health or the motives that lead thousands of individuals to play this sport have not been investigated”.
L63, replace “Much research” by “Most of the research”
Done.
L68, write “as positive as that generated by …”
Done.
L70, write “a high percentage of participants”
Done.
L76, What do you mean with “mastery”? consider reformulating, it sounds odd
It is the term used by the authors (psychological term). The following has been added to explain: “(become skilled performig the activity)”
L87, write “60% of adults”
Done.
Methods
L114, write 200 in plain text. Always start a sentence with text and not numbers.
We apologize for the mistake. The following has been added to the sentence: “A total of…”.
L114, add age range is the parentheses.
Ok, age range has been included in the parenthesis.
L133, ex post facto is not the classical term used to describe a research design, please reformulate for more clarity for the general audience.
We disagree with the reviewer. The ex-post facto research design is included in many books and articles on research methods: Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011; Jabota, Tribedi et al., 2020; Simon and Goes, 2013…..).
We have included one reference [26] and more information to show the validity of the design.
L149, provide full characteristics of accelerometers including manufacturer, city, country
We apologize for the missing information. It has been included.
Same request for the stat software you used (L171) Actilife and SPSS. And define SPSS in plain text
Done.
Be more specific in the stat section: Clearly explain what you testes. E.g. for the ANOVAs, what did you compare (which groups with which variables). Same question of correlations and regressions. You indicate “certain variables”. What were they?
We apologize for the missing information. The whole section has been modified, and now it reads: “Several one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted to assess differences among groups of participants in all the variables under study (MVPA, RPE, motives, depressive symptoms, addiction and intention to continue playing) based on a number of grouping variables (i.e., playing position, age, years of experience…). Pearson’s bivariate correlations were calculated among all the previously mentioned variables under study to assess the relationships between them. Finally, the stronger correlations (enjoyment, addiction) were entered into a hierarchical multiple regression analysis to determine the predicting power of certain variables on the Intention to continue playing football.
Results
L181, METS Kcal and Steps are units. Please refer to the main variables and not only their units in the text.
We apologize for the error. The sentence reads now: “Regarding the first hypothesis, participating amateur football players’ physical health parameters (physical activity levels and energy expenditure) are included in Table 1.”
L184, reformulate the sentence with a better structure. E.g. “RPE was considered “fairly light” pre (value) and post training (value) and was not different between players (value) and coaches (value)”.
Thanks for the suggestion. We have used it.
Table 1: name the first column, and all items in the first column must be renamed up to Players’ RPE, because they are not variables but units. E,g< the variables for kcal is energy expenditure, same for METS…
We apologize for the mistake. It has been corrected.
In table 1, does players’ RPE refer to pre, post training or both? Be more specific
Only players’ post-training RPE was recorded. However, it has been included.
Table 2: add units even if it is AU.
There are no units in a questionnaire. Just the scale is needed, and we have included it in the “note”
I would add the percentage of players responding to the different questions of table 2 in the text. That would be a good complement to table 2 instead of repeating the information.
All the participants responded to all the questions in all the questionnaires.
L199-203. This information should be presented in the stat section, but not in the results. Please amend accordingly. I would not present F values, as they make the results confusing for a lay audience. I would just keep actual values and/or percentages of change + P values and r values for correlations.
The information on the F test has been moved to the stat section. However, we believe that the F values should be kept to show the appropriateness of the analyses conducted. It shows other researchers how it should be presented for clarity.
L220-222, this should be in the stats section
Ok, it has been moved.
Overall, I would try to simplify the results section which is wordy and full of statistical signs. All tables also require more details for a full understanding.
We apologize for the confusion. The results section and the tables have been reviewed to try to improve them.
Discussion
Replace goal by aim
Done.
L269-271. There are many studies on elite football, so I would nuance your statement and add this information bout higher level football.
Thanks for the suggestion, we have included new information.
L272, replace “showed” by “shown”
Ok, done.
Conclusion
I would replace Goal by Aim.
Done.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the opportunity of reading this paper.
I have some concerns and comments that I address to the authors.
Page 1, line 17. The purpose of the article is not clear. I cannot see a logical relationship to the paper title.
Page 1, lines 34-35. If the authors want to define the concept of health, they must use the original reference. As it is a widely known concept, it is not necessary to enclose phrases in quotation marks.
Page 1-2, lines 40-67. These paragraphs can be deleted.
Page 2, lines 77-82. It does not make sense to have so many questions in a scientific paper, mainly rhetorical questions.
Page 2, lines 83-86. It does not make sense to have so many questions in a scientific text, mainly rhetorical questions. Furthermore, the recommendations presented here are already out of date.
Page 2, lines 88-90. Please, do not use questions. Authors should write what they wanted to say objectively.
Page 3, line 114. “200 football player”. A sentence must not begin with a number in numerical form.
Page 3, line 136. Exactly mention the name of the university. Don't say "from the first author’s University".
Page 3, line 176. The expression "the main variables" is vague. The authors must be specific in identifying the variables.
Table 1. There is no need to present Kurtosis and Skewness.
Table 1. What does it mean “range”?
Table 4. Why “enjoyment” appears twice in the table?
Page 7, lines 251-252. “which is 150 251 minutes/week of MVPA.” This is not correct. The recommendations for PA are MPA 150 min/week or VPA 75 min/week.
Author Response
We would like to thank again the three reviewers for all the comments. They have helped us review the article again and try to improve it. Changes have been highlighted using “green font” (in the first review “red font” was used). The manuscript has been fully reviewed by a native English speaker.
Reviewer 3
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you for the opportunity of reading this paper.
I have some concerns and comments that I address to the authors.
Page 1, line 17. The purpose of the article is not clear. I cannot see a logical relationship to the paper title.
We apologize for the missing information. The text has been expanded, and now it reads: “The aim of our research was to uncover amateur football players’ physical and psychological traits to understand its impact on their health (i.e., physical, mental and social well-being).
Page 1, lines 34-35. If the authors want to define the concept of health, they must use the original reference. As it is a widely known concept, it is not necessary to enclose phrases in quotation marks.
The original definition of the WHO has been used. This is the reason why it has been enclosed between brackets: it is a “quotation”.
Page 1-2, lines 40-67. These paragraphs can be deleted.
We do not understand why we need to delete this information. It tries to explain what is “amateur football”. It is important to understand what we are trying to study. Other reviewers asked us to expand this section, and we did it.
Page 2, lines 77-82. It does not make sense to have so many questions in a scientific paper, mainly rhetorical questions.
We believe that questions help readers identify the ideas that want are going to be addressed in the paper. They are frequently used in social science research, and this study could be partially included this type of research.
Page 2, lines 83-86. It does not make sense to have so many questions in a scientific text, mainly rhetorical questions. Furthermore, the recommendations presented here are already out of date.
Again, we believe that the questions help readers.
The recommendations used were set by the American College of Sports Medicine, and they are still used in research when dealing with MVPA, because those of the WHO do not include MVPA.
Page 2, lines 88-90. Please, do not use questions. Authors should write what they wanted to say objectively.
We have modified the sentences to hide the “questions”, but we still believe that they help the readers.
Page 3, line 114. “200 football player”. A sentence must not begin with a number in numerical form.
We apologize. “A total of..” has been added.
Page 3, line 136. Exactly mention the name of the university. Don't say "from the first author’s University".
Added.
Page 3, line 176. The expression "the main variables" is vague. The authors must be specific in identifying the variables.
Sorry, it has been changed to “these variables”, because they have been introduced earlier in the sentence.
Table 1. There is no need to present Kurtosis and Skewness.
Table 1. What does it mean “range”?
These scores were demanded by a reviewer. Range represents “width” of the results.
Table 4. Why “enjoyment” appears twice in the table?
Because in a hierarchical regression analysis, the variables are introduced in several blocks/steps to assess, first their individual predictive value, and then, their joined (added) predictive value. This is the reason why “enjoyment” the stronger appears twice: in the first block ad in the second. It is explained in the results section: “The order of entering the independent variables in the hierarchical multiple regression analysis was: in block one, Enjoyment accounted for a significant 25.6 % of the variance in the participants’ Intention to continue playing football: R2= .260, Adjusted R2= .256, F (1, 60.43) = 69.428, p< .001, in block two Addiction accounted for an additional 11.2% of the variance in the participants’ Intentions to continue playing football (36.8% total): R2change= .112, Fchange (1, 43.22) = 35.025, p < .001.”
Page 7, lines 251-252. “which is 150 251 minutes/week of MVPA.” This is not correct. The recommendations for PA are MPA 150 min/week or VPA 75 min/week.
MPA 150 min/week or VPA 75 min/week are WHO recommendations. We have used the ones from the American College of Sport Medicine [19].
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have put a lot of effort in addressing my comments. I don't have any further comment to add
Author Response
Again, we would like to thank the reviewers for the comments. They have been very valuable to improve the article. All changes made in the manuscript have been highlighted using “brown font”.
Reviewer 1:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have put a lot of effort in addressing my comments. I don't have any further comment to add
Thanks.
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall, the authors have provided a good revised manuscript, though additional revisions are required. I also suggest to apply English editing throughout for more clarity.
Abstract
Write 200 in plain text as it is common practices at the beginning of a sentence
L28, what the little star after 6.34 refers to?
Add units for all data presented and range for all scales. E.g. if it was a 0-10 RPE scale, say it, so that readers can understand the results.
Methods
L139 to 142, the two sentences related to the study design are still not clear, please clarify. I would just say that the study was carried out according to a prospective research design with only one group of participants.
Results
In the entire results section, we need units/ranges for the different scales utilised. Please, recall the range of the scales (5 points or 7 points or 1-10…) utilised at the presentation of the first data of each variable, so that the reader can better understand the results
Same remark for tables 1 and 2
Author Response
Again, we would like to thank the reviewers for the comments. They have been very valuable to improve the article. All changes made in the manuscript have been highlighted using “brown font”.
Reviewer 2:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Overall, the authors have provided a good revised manuscript, though additional revisions are required. I also suggest to apply English editing throughout for more clarity.
Ok, the article has been fully reviewed again to improve the English language.
Abstract
Write 200 in plain text as it is common practices at the beginning of a sentence.
Ok, done.
L28, what the little star after 6.34 refers to?
Sorry, it is a mistake taken from Table 2. It has been erased.
Add units for all data presented and range for all scales. E.g. if it was a 0-10 RPE scale, say it, so that readers can understand the results.
We apologize for the missing information. It has been included.
Methods
L139 to 142, the two sentences related to the study design are still not clear, please clarify. I would just say that the study was carried out according to a prospective research design with only one group of participants.
Ok, we have erased “ex-post facto”.
Results
In the entire results section, we need units/ranges for the different scales utilised. Please, recall the range of the scales (5 points or 7 points or 1-10…) utilised at the presentation of the first data of each variable, so that the reader can better understand the results
Ok, we have included it.
Same remark for tables 1 and 2
Units/ranges are included in the “note” at the bottom of each table.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, most of my comments have not been answered.
Author Response
Again, we would like to thank the reviewers for the comments. They have been very valuable to improve the article. All changes made in the manuscript have been highlighted using “brown font”.
Reviewer 3:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors, most of my comments have not been answered.
We hope that there is a "mistake" and that he reviewer really wanted to write that "most of my comments have been answered".
Thanks.
