International Journal of Endocrinology

International Journal of Endocrinology / 2017 / Article

Comment on “Differences in Ventilatory Threshold for Exercise Prescription in Outpatient Diabetic and Sarcopenic Obese Subjects”

  • Goran Kuvačić | Johnny Padulo |
  •  Article ID 1754215 |
  •  Published 16 Nov 2017

Response to: Comment on “Differences in Ventilatory Threshold for Exercise Prescription in Outpatient Diabetic and Sarcopenic Obese Subjects”

  • Gian Pietro Emerenziani | Maria Chiara Gallotta | ... | Laura Guidetti |
  •  Article ID 7026597 |
  •  Published 19 Nov 2017
  • | View Article

Comment #2 on “Differences in Ventilatory Threshold for Exercise Prescription in Outpatient Diabetic and Sarcopenic Obese Subjects”

  • Goran Kuvačić | Luca Paolo Ardigò | Johnny Padulo |
  •  Article ID 4026463 |
  •  Published 28 Nov 2018
  • | View Article

Response to: Comment #2 on “Differences in Ventilatory Threshold for Exercise Prescription in Outpatient Diabetic and Sarcopenic Obese Subjects”

  • Gian Pietro Emerenziani | Maria Chiara Gallotta | ... | Laura Guidetti |
  •  Article ID 3093208 |
  •  Published 24 Dec 2018
  • | View Article

Letter to the Editor | Open Access

Volume 2017 |Article ID 1754215 | 2 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1754215

Comment on “Differences in Ventilatory Threshold for Exercise Prescription in Outpatient Diabetic and Sarcopenic Obese Subjects”

Academic Editor: Javier Salvador
Received30 Dec 2016
Accepted20 Aug 2017
Published16 Nov 2017

Recently, we read in International Journal of Endocrinology an article entitled “Differences in Ventilatory Threshold for Exercise Prescription in Outpatient Diabetic and Sarcopenic Obese Subjects” on exercise intensity prescription in diabetic, sarcopenic, and control obese subjects [1]. We think that this article promotes a convincing approach, but one worthy of stronger methodological support. Some reflections in this letter point out what is yet necessary to authoritatively suggest the effectiveness of this approach.

In particular, the methodological approach shows some severe flaws, which might undermine the interpretation of the results. Therefore, this letter aims to suggest improvements to achieve stronger conclusions to this study.

In the methods, “Clinical Evaluation” it is stated that “All subjects were evaluated in the morning” without providing any further information for circadian effects (time of day) and seasonal period [2] control. To evaluate body composition, the authors use both DEXA and BIA without justifying this choice, that is, Why both? Why not only one of them? If so, which one? However, they neglect to write that BIA has shown a 5% error [3], which might have reduced the result’s accuracy. And if that were the case, the risk of “signal” to be corrupted by “noise” would be too high for a reliable scientific study [4]. In “2.2. Clinical Evaluation” it is noted that “A low-calorie diet was set at approximately 400 Kcal less than total daily energy expenditure in all patients.” A calorie income decrease, set very similar for all the subjects, that is, not body mass-individualised, has at least to be further clarified given the documented body mass differences; for example, in sarcopenic obese subjects, body mass percent coefficient of variation amounts to 25%.

More information about the “Pulmonary function tests and a resting electrocardiogram” outcome is needed, given that some basic results are not presented. Such information is essential to allow other scientists to replicate the authors’ approach.

In “2.3. Maximal Effort and Individual Ventilatory Threshold,” the authors support the use of the chosen treadmill incremental protocol by means of a self-citation, which might be proper only if the provided self-citation would really describe the protocol. Yet, this is not the case, because the self-citation refers only to an undescribed “modified Balke protocol.” Therefore, the authors should describe the chosen treadmill incremental protocol and provide an original reference (the one used in the self-citation, [27] B. Balke and R. W. Ware, “An experimental study of physical fitness of Air Force personnel,” United States Armed Forces Medical Journal, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 675–688, 1959, would fit well). Furthermore, the authors do not provide any information on correct treadmill use for scientific research, for example, on speed calibration or slope setting [5].

In “Maximal Effort and Individual Ventilatory Threshold,” the authors support the use of the RPE scale by means of a reference validating its use in 18–36-year-old people, while the article’s study participants are ~60 years old [6]. Finally, the authors use one-way ANOVA without disclosing F values, in-so-doing preventing the reader from verifying the study’s power. No matter what may have happened over the submission and revision process, we strongly believe such statistical information must be provided, because it is the main way to allow the readers to check statistical relevance.

In conclusion, we believe that—especially for strengthening the study’s conclusions—the article needs deep revising about the above-explained research method issues. Diabetic patients’ healthcare is really worthy of attention by the scientific community, but scientists have to provide useful practical indications obtained only by means of sound methodological support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this manuscript.

References

  1. G. P. Emerenziani, M. C. Gallotta, S. Migliaccio et al., “Differences in ventilatory threshold for exercise prescription in outpatient diabetic and sarcopenic obese subjects,” International Journal of Endocrinology, vol. 2016, Article ID 6739150, 6 pages, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. H. Shimamoto, Y. Adachi, and K. Tanaka, “Seasonal variation of alterations in exercise-induced body composition in obese Japanese women,” European Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 86, no. 5, pp. 382–387, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. J. Verney, L. Metz, E. Chaplais, C. Cardenoux, B. Pereira, and D. Thivel, “Bioelectrical impedance is an accurate method to assess body composition in obese but not severely obese adolescents,” Nutrition Research, vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 663–670, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. J. Padulo, N. Maffulli, and L. P. Ardigò, “Signal or noise, a statistical perspective,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 111, no. 13, p. E1160, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. J. Padulo, K. Chamari, and L. P. Ardigò, “Walking and running on treadmill: the standard criteria for kinematics studies,” Muscles, Ligaments and Tendons Journal, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 159–162, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. A. C. Utter, R. J. Robertson, J. M. Green, R. R. Suminski, S. R. McAnulty, and D. C. Nieman, “Validation of the adult OMNI scale of perceived exertion for walking/running exercise,” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 1776–1780, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2017 Goran Kuvačić and Johnny Padulo. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

725 Views | 182 Downloads | 4 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly and safely as possible. Any author submitting a COVID-19 paper should notify us at help@hindawi.com to ensure their research is fast-tracked and made available on a preprint server as soon as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted articles related to COVID-19.