Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: The effect of brisk walking on postural stability, bone mineral density, body weight and  
composition in women over 50 years with a sedentary occupation: A randomized controlled trial  
 
Version: 1 Date: 02 Jan 2016  
 
Reviewer: Mark Willems  
 
Revie wer's report:  
 
This study examined the effect of a short duration walking program, in which participants only 
received instructions to walk briskly, on bone mineral density and anthropometrical parameters. 
The duration of  the program was very short and not justified. Walking characteristics were only 
quantified by the number of steps.  
The authors need to make clear the novelty of their study. It seems that the study design was 
influenced more by the logistics than justifi ed by the literature to advance our knowledge on 
effects of brisk walking.  
The authors need to refer to work by Ebrahim et al (1997) and Tsuritani et al (1998).  
Was there any dietary control?  
The authors need to provide information how many of the particip ants were postmenopausal and 
for how long?  
The authors need to provide justification why a ~10 week program would effect bone mineral 
density. This could be done also by referring to walking studies of that duration showing an 
effect on bone mineral densit y. 
The authors need to provide at least some information on the walking speed and distance of the 
brisk walks.  
The authors need to provide detailed information when discussing other studies, e.g. what 
duration, what kind of participants, what measurement m ethods etc etc.  
Are the methods appropriate  and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional stat istical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Not suita ble for publication unless extensively edited  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary  from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publicatio n of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declar e that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Acc ess Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal