Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Effects of prolonged exercise versus multiple short exercise sessions on risk for metabolic  
syndrome and atherogenic index in middle -aged obes e women: A randomised controlled trial  
 
Version: 0 Date: 17 Jun 2016  
 
Reviewer: Martin Sénéchal  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The last sentence in the introduction, the authors build on the exercise participation rates, which 
is a totally new concept in the paper. The author needs to build on this concept or leave it out.    
 
 
 
 
Methods:  
 
With respect to the whole body of evidence o n exercise and metabolic syndrome risks factors, 
why the author did not use a meaningful change in clinical outcomes to measure the effect size 
rather than just a rough overall effect size.  
 
  
 
That would focus the paper and strengthen the manuscript.  
  
Page 5. It says that participants were asked to reduce their intake 300kcal/ day. So the results 
observed are not only because of the two interventions.  
 
  
More information on the protocol for the bio -impedance needs to be provided otherwise this 
measure is quite poor for the body composition.  
  
 
A rational for using this index of AI would improve the manuscript. Some validity information 
would help as well.  
 
  
No information is provided about blinding, randomization, etc., and therefore, suggests high 
quanti ty of biases.  
  
In the stat's analysis, the author only observed main effect with three groups; post -hoc analyses 
are missing and do not allow the authors to conclude than one group is better than the other one.  
  
Did the author adjust in some how for th e weight loss only observed in one group?     
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.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript o r would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written Englis h 
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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 publication 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 declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
N/A 
 
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 a n Open Acces s 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