This study investigated the impact of incorporating a detraining period into a resistance training (RT) program on muscle strength and size development in untrained adults. Two groups were compared: a periodic resistance training (PRT) group, which underwent 10 weeks of training, 10 weeks of rest, and another 10 weeks of training, and a continuous resistance training (CRT) group, which trained for 20 weeks after an initial 10-week control period. Muscle strength and size were measured using one-repetition maximum (1RM) tests and ultrasound imaging, respectively. The study aimed to determine if short-term detraining negatively affects long-term muscle gains. The results showed that both groups achieved similar overall improvements, suggesting that planned breaks in training don't hinder long-term progress.
Description: Figure 4 visually depicts the changes in muscle strength and size over time in both the PRT and CRT groups. It clearly shows the initial gains during the first training phase, the decrease during detraining in the PRT group, and the subsequent regain during retraining. This figure is essential for visualizing the key finding that PRT leads to similar overall gains as CRT despite the detraining period.
Relevance: This figure directly supports the main conclusion by illustrating the similar long-term adaptations in both groups.
Description: Figure 5 provides a detailed view of the changes in muscle strength and size during specific 5-week periods within the training blocks. It highlights the rapid regain in the PRT group during the first 5 weeks of retraining, supporting the concept of "muscle memory".
Relevance: This figure strengthens the finding of rapid regain after detraining and provides further evidence for the muscle memory phenomenon.
This study demonstrated that incorporating a 10-week detraining period into a resistance training program does not hinder long-term muscle strength and size gains in untrained adults. Participants who underwent periodic training regained lost muscle and strength rapidly upon resuming training, suggesting a "muscle memory" effect. While muscle size decreased more than strength during detraining, both were effectively regained within a few weeks of retraining. Future research should explore the underlying mechanisms of muscle memory and investigate the effects of detraining and retraining on functional performance and different populations. These findings have practical implications for recreational weightlifters, suggesting that occasional training breaks of up to 10 weeks can be incorporated without significantly compromising long-term progress, as long as training is resumed consistently and effectively.
This study compared the effects of periodic resistance training (PRT) with breaks, and continuous resistance training (CRT) without breaks, on muscle strength and size in untrained adults. Fifty-five participants were split into two groups. The PRT group did 10 weeks of training, 10 weeks of rest, and another 10 weeks of training. The CRT group rested for 10 weeks, then trained for 20 weeks. Both groups improved similarly in strength and size, showing that short breaks don't hinder overall progress. The PRT group lost some gains during the break but quickly regained them upon resuming training.
The abstract is written in straightforward language, making it easy to understand the study's purpose, methods, and findings even for readers without a strong background in exercise science.
The abstract clearly outlines the study's design, including the number of participants, training schedules for both groups, and the specific measurements used.
The abstract directly presents the key finding that both groups experienced similar improvements, effectively addressing the research question.
While the abstract mentions significant increases, adding specific percentage increases or mean differences for key outcomes would strengthen the impact.
Rationale: Providing specific data points would give readers a more concrete understanding of the magnitude of the observed changes.
Implementation: Include a brief statement like, "Both groups increased leg press 1RM by approximately X% and VL CSA by Y%.
The abstract mentions rapid regain in the PRT group, but quantifying this regain would be beneficial.
Rationale: This would highlight the "muscle memory" aspect and provide a more compelling takeaway.
Implementation: Add a phrase like, "The PRT group regained lost muscle size and strength within the first Z weeks of retraining.
Briefly mentioning the practical implications of the findings for individuals considering breaks in their training routines would enhance the abstract's relevance.
Rationale: This would connect the research to real-world scenarios and make the findings more impactful.
Implementation: Add a concluding sentence like, "These findings suggest that individuals can incorporate short training breaks without significantly compromising long-term strength and muscle growth progress."
This introduction emphasizes the importance of skeletal muscle for overall health and its adaptability to resistance training (RT). It highlights the benefits of RT, such as increased muscle size and strength, improved insulin sensitivity, body composition, and quality of life. However, it also acknowledges that these gains can be lost with discontinued training. The introduction then introduces the concept of muscle memory, suggesting that regaining lost muscle mass and strength might be faster after a period of detraining. Finally, it sets the stage for the current study, which aims to compare the effects of continuous RT versus periodic RT with a detraining period.
The introduction effectively establishes the importance of skeletal muscle and the benefits of resistance training, providing a strong rationale for the study.
The introduction clearly explains the negative consequences of training cessation on muscle strength and size, setting the stage for the study's investigation of periodic training.
The introduction briefly introduces the concept of muscle memory, which is relevant to the study's comparison of continuous and periodic training.
While the introduction mentions the study's aim, it would be beneficial to explicitly state the hypothesis being tested.
Rationale: A clear hypothesis statement would strengthen the introduction and provide a more focused direction for the reader.
Implementation: Add a sentence stating the study's hypothesis, for example, "We hypothesized that continuous resistance training would lead to greater increases in muscle strength and size compared to periodic resistance training with a detraining period."
While the introduction cites several studies, briefly summarizing the key findings of relevant studies on continuous and periodic training would provide more context.
Rationale: A more detailed overview of previous findings would strengthen the background and justify the current study's design.
Implementation: Include a few sentences summarizing the findings of key studies, focusing on the effects of detraining and retraining on muscle adaptations.
The introduction could be strengthened by explicitly stating the potential implications of the study's findings for practical training recommendations.
Rationale: Highlighting the potential impact of the research would make the study more compelling and relevant to readers.
Implementation: Add a sentence or two explaining how the study's findings could inform training practices, for example, "The results of this study will provide valuable insights into the optimal training strategies for maximizing muscle growth and strength, particularly for individuals who may need to incorporate breaks in their training routines."
This section details how the study was conducted, including participant recruitment, study design, and the methods used to measure muscle strength and size. Participants were recruited through advertisements and online questionnaires, with health checks conducted by a physician. The study used a randomized, parallel-group, repeated-measures design, comparing continuous and periodic resistance training. Muscle strength was assessed using 1RM tests for leg press and biceps curl, while muscle size was measured using ultrasound imaging of the vastus lateralis and biceps brachii muscles.
The section provides a thorough account of the recruitment process, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and ethical approvals, ensuring transparency and replicability.
The study design, including the randomization process and the rationale for the chosen approach, is clearly explained, allowing readers to understand the study's structure.
The section provides detailed descriptions of the procedures for measuring muscle strength and size, including equipment, participant positioning, and image analysis techniques.
While the section mentions the target sample size, it would be beneficial to provide a more detailed justification for the chosen number of participants, including a power analysis if conducted.
Rationale: This would strengthen the study's methodological rigor and allow readers to assess the adequacy of the sample size.
Implementation: Include a statement explaining the sample size calculation, such as, "A sample size of N was determined based on a power analysis with X% power to detect a Y% difference in muscle size between groups."
While the section mentions random assignment, it would be helpful to describe the specific method used for randomization (e.g., computer-generated sequence, stratified randomization).
Rationale: This would enhance the transparency and replicability of the study's methodology.
Implementation: Add a sentence specifying the randomization method, for example, "Participants were randomly assigned to either the PRT or CRT group using a computer-generated random number sequence."
If applicable, the section should mention whether any blinding procedures were implemented (e.g., blinding of assessors to group allocation). If blinding was not possible, this should be acknowledged and the reasons explained.
Rationale: Information on blinding is important for assessing the potential for bias in the study's results.
Implementation: Add a sentence addressing blinding, for example, "Assessors were blinded to participant group allocation to minimize bias in the measurement of muscle strength and size." or "Due to the nature of the intervention, blinding of participants and trainers was not possible."
Figure 1 illustrates the experimental design, showing the timelines for both the periodic resistance training (PRT) and continuous resistance training (CRT) groups. It uses icons to represent when muscle size (ultrasound probe) and strength (leg press) measurements were taken. The figure also includes images demonstrating how muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) was assessed for the biceps brachii (BB) and vastus lateralis (VL) muscles using ultrasound. Think of CSA as the area of a slice of muscle, like looking at the circular end of a sausage. The larger the CSA, the bigger the muscle. The images show the placement of the ultrasound probe on the arm and leg. The caption clarifies that the ultrasound image of the leg was taken for illustrative purposes only, as there's no transmission gel, which is normally used to improve image quality.
Text: "The study design is illustrated in Figure 1."
Context: Once the intervention started, measurements for muscle strength and size were performed every fifth week, excluding a 10-week control and 10-week detraining periods to avoid any RT stimulus during those periods. The study design is illustrated in Figure 1.
Relevance: This figure is crucial for understanding the study's timeline and how the researchers measured muscle size and strength. It provides a visual representation of the training and measurement schedules for both groups, making it easier to follow the study's methods.
Figure 2 is a flowchart showing how participants moved through the study. Imagine it like a map of a journey. It starts with the initial enrollment and shows how many people were screened, randomized into groups (PRT or CRT), and how many completed each stage. It also shows how many dropped out and why. This helps us understand how many participants were included in the final analysis, ensuring the results are reliable.
Text: "In the second part of the study, four and five participants dropped out from the PRT and CRT groups, respectively (Figure 2)."
Context: In the first 10-week intervention period, four participants dropped out from the 10RT group, whereas all the participants in the control group completed the control period. In the second part of the study, four and five participants dropped out from the PRT and CRT groups, respectively (Figure 2). The compliance rate with the training program was ≥ 92.5% (≥ 37/40 sessions) for the rest of the participants. One participant from the PRT group was excluded from the VL CSA analysis due to poor image quality, and one participant from the CRT group was excluded from the biceps curl 1RM analysis due to forearm pain. The aforementioned participants were included in all the other analyses.
Relevance: This figure is important for understanding participant flow and attrition. It shows how many participants completed the study in each group, which is crucial for interpreting the results and considering potential biases due to dropouts.
Table 1 provides a structured guideline for adjusting weekly training loads based on the number of repetitions achieved in the maximum repetition sets for five different exercises: Leg Press, Knee Extension, Smith Machine Bench Press, Biceps Curl, and Chest-Supported Seated Row. The table uses ranges of repetitions performed (e.g., '<5', '6-7', '8-10', etc.) to determine whether the load should be increased or decreased for the following week. For instance, if someone performs fewer than 5 repetitions in their maximum set of leg press, the load should be reduced by 7.5 kg the next week. Conversely, if they perform more than 20 repetitions, the load should be increased by 10 kg. This table is crucial for personalizing the training program and ensuring progressive overload while minimizing the risk of injury or overtraining.
Text: "A more detailed description of the training load adjustments is shown in Table 1."
Context: The number of repetitions was then used to adjust the training loads for the following week. If the number of performed repetitions was more than 10, the loads were increased, and if the repetitions were less than eight, the load was decreased. A more detailed description of the training load adjustments is shown in Table 1. Every fifth week, the second training session was replaced with the 1RM tests, which resulted in a decreased total volume load during those weeks and, therefore, also served as a small volume deload. All training sessions were conducted at the faculty laboratory, and the sessions were instructed and supervised by a trainer to ensure correct training techniques.
Relevance: This table is essential for understanding how the training loads were adjusted throughout the study. It demonstrates the practical application of the progressive overload principle, a fundamental concept in resistance training where the stimulus is gradually increased to promote continuous adaptation. By providing specific load adjustments based on repetition performance, the table ensures that the training is tailored to each individual's progress, maximizing gains while minimizing the risk of plateaus or injuries.
This section presents the findings of the study, starting with the confirmation that 10 weeks of resistance training (RT) effectively increases muscle size and strength. It then reveals that there were no significant differences in adaptations between the periodic resistance training (PRT) group (with a detraining period) and the continuous resistance training (CRT) group. Both groups showed similar improvements in muscle strength, size, and countermovement jump height. The PRT group did experience a decrease in muscle size and strength during the detraining period, but these losses were regained within the first 5 weeks of retraining, with even greater gains observed compared to the CRT group during the same timeframe.
The results are presented in a logical and organized manner, starting with the effectiveness of the RT protocol and then focusing on the comparison between PRT and CRT.
The section provides detailed statistical information, including p-values, effect sizes, and confidence intervals, allowing readers to assess the significance and magnitude of the findings.
The section includes data on training volume load, ensuring that differences in outcomes are not attributed to variations in training load between groups.
While the text descriptions are clear, including figures or graphs would enhance the presentation and make it easier for readers to visualize the changes over time.
Rationale: Visualizations can effectively communicate complex data and improve the overall readability of the results section.
Implementation: Create line graphs showing the changes in muscle strength and size for both PRT and CRT groups over the course of the study. Include error bars representing standard deviations or confidence intervals.
While the section mentions the decrease in muscle strength and size during detraining, it would be beneficial to provide a more in-depth analysis of these changes, including the magnitude of the decreases and their statistical significance.
Rationale: A more detailed analysis of the detraining effects would provide a clearer understanding of the impact of the training break.
Implementation: Expand on the description of the detraining effects, providing specific percentage decreases and p-values for each variable. Consider adding a table summarizing these changes.
While the section focuses on changes relative to the first training period, it would be helpful to also compare the post-detraining and post-retraining values to the baseline (pre-training) values.
Rationale: Comparing to baseline values would provide a more complete picture of the overall training effects and the extent of regain after detraining.
Implementation: Include a comparison of the post-detraining and post-retraining values to the baseline values for each variable. This could be done in the text or by adding a column to the suggested table in the previous suggestion.
Table 2 presents data on muscle strength, size, and countermovement jump (CMJ) height at baseline and after a 10-week intervention period. It compares a 10-week resistance training (10RT) group to a non-training control group. The table shows the average starting values (baseline) and the values after 10 weeks for several measurements. These measurements include how much weight participants could lift once (1RM) in a leg press and bicep curl, the cross-sectional area (CSA) of their vastus lateralis (VL) and biceps brachii (BB) muscles (think of CSA as the area of a slice of muscle, like the end of a sausage), and how high they could jump (CMJ). The table also shows the percentage change (Δ%) from baseline to week 10 for each measurement. It also includes a statistical comparison (Group x Time interaction) to see if the changes over time were different between the two groups. An asterisk (*) marks values that are statistically different from baseline, meaning the change is likely not due to random chance.
Text: "We found a significant group-by-time interaction favoring 10 weeks of RT (p < 0.001) in leg press 1RM, biceps curl 1RM, VL CSA, BB CSA, and CMJ height (Table 2)."
Context: To first understand whether the present 10 weeks of RT increases performance and muscle size, we compared 10-week RT to a similar length control period (see Figure 1). We found a significant group-by-time interaction favoring 10 weeks of RT (p < 0.001) in leg press 1RM, biceps curl 1RM, VL CSA, BB CSA, and CMJ height (Table 2). No significant sex-by-time interactions (p ≥ 0.192) were observed for the leg press and biceps curl 1RM, VL and BB CSA, or CMJ.
Relevance: This table is important because it shows the effectiveness of a 10-week resistance training program. By comparing the training group to a control group, it demonstrates that the changes in muscle strength, size, and jump height are likely due to the training and not just random variation or other factors. This helps establish that the training program used in the study is effective at producing positive changes.
Figure 3 shows the total weekly training volume load (in kilograms) for both the periodic resistance training (PRT) and continuous resistance training (CRT) groups over the 30-week study period. Training volume load is a way to measure how much total weight was lifted each week. It's calculated by multiplying the number of sets, repetitions per set, and the weight lifted. The figure uses a line graph, where the x-axis represents time (in weeks) and the y-axis represents the weekly volume load. The PRT group's data is shown in blue, and the CRT group's data is in red. You'll notice dips in the lines every 5 weeks; these dips occur because strength tests replaced one of the regular training sessions those weeks, reducing the overall volume load. The graph also shows the different phases of the study: Control/No-RT, RT1 (first 10-week training period), DT/No-RT (detraining period), and RT2 (second 10-week training period).
Text: "The total training volume load (Sets x Repetitions Per Set x Loads) during the 20 weeks of RT did not differ between the groups (PRT: 862 275 ± 187 295 kg vs. CRT: 891 115 ± 183 946 kg, p = 0.618) (Figure 3)."
Context: Our sample size calculations are based on earlier studies in our laboratory indicating that 10-20 participants per group are sufficient for between-group comparison of 10RT and control in both muscle size and strength [28, 29] with the power of 80% and two-tailed p < 0.05, thus allowing a potential detraining effect to be investigated. To limit possible problems with statistical power, a large sample size as feasible for the current study setting was adopted to account for potential missing data. Normality of the data was tested using Shapiro-Wilk test. Between-group differences were examined with a two-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) using sex and baseline values as a covariate. Within-group comparisons were examined with repeated measures ANOVA. In post hoc analysis, t-tests were used with correction for multiple testing by Holm-Bonferroni method [30]. Within-group effect sizes (ES) were calculated by the following formula: mean change divided by the sum of pre- and postvalues divided by 2. Percentage changes were calculated by the following formula: (postvalue minus prevalue) divided by prevalue and multiplied by 100. Between-group differences from the physical activity questionnaires were examined with independent-samples Mann-Whitney U test and within-group comparisons were examined with related-samples Wilcoxon signed rank test. Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS software (version 28.0, IBM Corp) and Microsoft Excel (version 2406), and figures were made with GraphPad Prism software (version 10.0, GraphPad Software Inc). 3 | Results 3.1 | Ten Weeks of RT Increases Muscle Size and Strength To first understand whether the present 10 weeks of RT increases performance and muscle size, we compared 10-week RT to a similar length control period (see Figure 1). We found a significant group-by-time interaction favoring 10 weeks of RT (p < 0.001) in leg press 1RM, biceps curl 1RM, VL CSA, BB CSA, and CMJ height (Table 2). No significant sex-by-time interactions (p ≥ 0.192) were observed for the leg press and biceps curl 1RM, VL and BB CSA, or CMJ. 3.2 | No Differences in the Adaptations Between PRT and CRT 3.2.1 | Training Load The total training volume load (Sets x Repetitions Per Set x Loads) during the 20 weeks of RT did not differ between the groups (PRT: 862 275 ± 187 295 kg vs. CRT: 891 115 ± 183 946 kg, p = 0.618) (Figure 3). Both groups increased the training volume load from the first 10-week training block to the second 10-week training block (p < 0.001), and there was no significant difference between the groups in the volume load in the first (p = 0.893) or in the second 10-week training block (p = 0.424) or increases from the first to second 10-week block (PRT, 18% ± 10% vs. CRT, 23% ± 11%, p = 0.116). Every 5 weeks, we also calculated the relative training loads from the 1RM tests. There was no difference between the groups in the average relative training load for the 20 weeks of RT in leg press (PRT, 81.1% ± 3.9% vs. CRT, 82.6% ± 3.7%, p = 0.220) or biceps curl (PRT, 62.7% ± 5.3% vs. CRT, 63.7 ± 3.9, p = 0.464).
Relevance: This figure is important because it visually demonstrates that the total training volume load was similar between the PRT and CRT groups over the 20-week training period. This helps control for a potential confounding variable: if one group had done significantly more work, it would be difficult to isolate the effect of the training schedule (continuous vs. periodic) on the outcomes. By showing similar volume loads, the researchers can be more confident that any differences in muscle strength and size are due to the training schedule itself.
Table 3 presents participant characteristics (age, height, body mass) and their muscle strength, size, and jump height measurements over the course of the study. It compares the Periodic Resistance Training (PRT) group with the Continuous Resistance Training (CRT) group. The table shows the mean and standard deviation (SD) for each measurement at different time points (weeks 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30). It also shows the difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) between each time point and the pretraining value. Think of the CI as a range where the true value likely falls. Asterisks (*) indicate statistically significant differences from the pretraining value. For example, if the leg press 1RM at week 10 is significantly higher than at week 0, it would have an asterisk. The table is split into two parts due to its length.
Text: "Ten Weeks of RT Increases Muscle Size and Strength"
Context: To first understand whether the present 10 weeks of RT increases performance and muscle size, we compared 10-week RT to a similar length control period (see Figure 1). We found a significant group-by-time interaction favoring 10 weeks of RT (p < 0.001) in leg press 1RM, biceps curl 1RM, VL CSA, BB CSA, and CMJ height (Table 2). No significant sex-by-time interactions (p ≥ 0.192) were observed for the leg press and biceps curl 1RM, VL and BB CSA, or CMJ.
Relevance: This table is crucial for understanding the changes in muscle strength, size, and jump height in both the PRT and CRT groups over time. It allows for a direct comparison of the effects of the two training protocols and helps determine whether periodic training with a detraining period is as effective as continuous training.
Figure 4 shows how muscle strength and size changed over time in both the PRT (periodic resistance training) and CRT (continuous resistance training) groups. Parts A and B show changes in strength, measured as 1RM (one-repetition maximum, the most weight lifted once), for leg press and biceps curl. Parts C and D show changes in muscle cross-sectional area (CSA, like slicing through a muscle and measuring the area) for the vastus lateralis (VL, a thigh muscle) and biceps brachii (BB). Think of 1RM like how much you can lift and CSA like how big the muscle is. The lines on the graphs show the average change, and the asterisks indicate statistically significant differences within each group over time. The shaded areas represent the different training phases (RT1, detraining/no RT, RT2). Parts E and F show example ultrasound images of VL and BB muscles, with the white dotted lines outlining the muscle area measured.
Text: "When comparing PRT and CRT during their 20 weeks of RT (i.e., PRT from Week 0 to Week 30 and CRT from Week 10 to Week 30), no statistically significant (p ≤ 0.150) Group × Time differences were observed (Figure 4)."
Context: When comparing PRT and CRT during their 20 weeks of RT (i.e., PRT from Week 0 to Week 30 and CRT from Week 10 to Week 30), no statistically significant (p ≤ 0.150) Group × Time differences were observed (Figure 4). To examine whether the effect of different intervention lengths (30 weeks of PRT and 20 weeks of CRT) explained the results, we also conducted the group-by-time analysis from 0 to 30 weeks in CRT, and the results remained unchanged (Table S1).
Relevance: This figure is central to the study's results, directly comparing the effects of PRT and CRT on muscle strength and size. It visually represents the key finding that both training methods led to similar overall improvements, despite the detraining period in PRT.
Figure 5 zooms in on the changes in muscle strength and size during specific 5-week periods within the first (RT1) and second (RT2) resistance training blocks. Each graph (A-D) shows the percentage change from the previous measurement. For example, if leg press 1RM increased from 100kg to 110kg in 5 weeks, the change would be +10%. The scatter plots show individual data points, the bars represent the average change, and the asterisks indicate statistically significant differences between the PRT and CRT groups during those 5-week periods. This figure helps us see how quickly each group adapted during different training phases.
Text: "Further analysis showed that the greater gains were explained by the first 5 weeks of the second 10-week RT period in the PRT group (leg press 1RM, VL CSA, and BB CSA: p ≤ 0.004) (Figure 5)."
Context: Further analysis showed that the greater gains were explained by the first 5 weeks of the second 10-week RT period in the PRT group (leg press 1RM, VL CSA, and BB CSA: p ≤ 0.004) (Figure 5).
Relevance: This figure provides a more detailed look at the training responses, highlighting the rapid regain in the PRT group during the initial weeks of retraining. It supports the idea of 'muscle memory,' where the body quickly re-adapts to training after a break.
This study found that a 10-week break from resistance training (detraining) did not negatively impact overall muscle strength and size gains compared to continuous training over 20 weeks. Participants who took a break regained their lost muscle mass and strength quickly, especially in the first few weeks after resuming training. This suggests that occasional breaks from training, up to 10 weeks, won't necessarily hinder long-term progress in untrained individuals. The study also found that muscle size decreases more than strength during detraining.
The discussion effectively summarizes the main findings of the study in a clear and accessible way, highlighting the key takeaway that detraining did not negatively impact long-term gains.
The discussion effectively connects the study's findings to previous research on detraining and retraining, providing context and supporting the conclusions.
The discussion goes beyond simply reporting the results and explores the practical implications of the findings for recreational weightlifters, offering valuable insights for training practices.
While the discussion mentions muscle memory, it could be strengthened by delving deeper into the potential underlying mechanisms, such as myonuclear number, epigenetic modifications, or neural adaptations.
Rationale: A more detailed discussion of the mechanisms would provide a more complete understanding of the observed rapid regain phenomenon.
Implementation: Expand the discussion on muscle memory by incorporating more recent research and exploring the relative contributions of different mechanisms.
While the discussion mentions some limitations (e.g., lack of nutrition control), it would be beneficial to address these limitations more directly and discuss their potential impact on the study's findings.
Rationale: A more explicit discussion of limitations would strengthen the study's rigor and transparency.
Implementation: Devote a separate paragraph to discussing the study's limitations and their potential influence on the results. Explain how future research could address these limitations.
While muscle memory is a plausible explanation for the rapid regain, the discussion could be enhanced by considering alternative explanations, such as resensitization of muscle to training stimuli after a break.
Rationale: Exploring alternative explanations would demonstrate a more nuanced understanding of the findings and encourage critical thinking.
Implementation: Include a paragraph discussing alternative explanations for the rapid regain, such as resensitization, and discuss how future research could differentiate between these possibilities.
This section simply indicates that additional supporting information for the study can be found online.
The section clearly and concisely states the availability of supporting information online.
While the section mentions supporting information, it would be more helpful to briefly list the types of materials available online (e.g., tables, figures, datasets, code).
Rationale: Specifying the types of supporting information would give readers a better understanding of what to expect and make it easier for them to find the information they need.
Implementation: Replace the current text with a more specific description, such as, "Supporting information including supplementary tables, figures, and the study dataset can be found online."
Including a direct link or DOI to the online supporting information would make it much easier for readers to access.
Rationale: A direct link or DOI would eliminate the need for readers to search for the supporting information, improving accessibility and user experience.
Implementation: Add a direct link or DOI to the online supporting information after the current text, for example, "DOI: [insert DOI here]"
If space permits, briefly describing the most important supplementary materials would further enhance the section.
Rationale: Highlighting key supplementary materials would give readers a better understanding of the scope and depth of the supporting information and encourage them to access it.
Implementation: Add a brief description of key supplementary materials, such as, "Key supplementary materials include a detailed breakdown of the training program and a comprehensive analysis of individual participant responses."