Supervision increases effort and its perception during
resistance training, but real-world behaviour tells a
more complex story

Mathieu Gruet

► To cite this version:

Mathieu Gruet. Supervision increases effort and its perception during resistance training, but real-world behaviour tells a more complex story. Peer Community in Health and Movement Sciences, 2025, 10.24072/pci.healthmovsci.100194. hal-05475110

HAL Id: hal-05475110

https://univ-tln.hal.science/hal-05475110v1

Submitted on 24 Jan 2026

**HAL** is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Supervision increases effort and its perception during resistance training, but real-world behaviour tells a more complex story

**Mathieu Gruet** based on peer reviews by **David Clarke** and 2 anonymous reviewers

James Steele, James Fisher, Tim Dettmann (2025) The effects of supervision on effort during resistance training: A Bayesian analysis of previous observational data and an experimental study of private strength clinic members. sportrxiv, ver. 6, peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Health and Movement Sciences.

https://doi.org/10.51224/SRXIV.521

Submitted: 05 March 2025, Recommended: 12 December 2025

**Cite this recommendation as:**

Gruet, M. (2025) Supervision increases effort and its perception during resistance training, but real-world behaviour tells a more complex story. *Peer Community in Health and Movement Sciences*, 100194.

https://doi.org/10.24072/pci.healthmovsci.100194

Published: 12 December 2025

Copyright: This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Resistance training, while often viewed as an additional rather than an essential component of physical activity in national and international guidelines, continues to gain recognition for its pivotal role in improving multiple aspects of physical fitness and health across the lifespan, both in the general population and in individuals with specific needs (Chaabene et al., 2025; Gruet et al., 2022). Being asked to handle this preprint immediately captured my interest, as any effort to advance our understanding of the implementation of resistance training and the factors and mechanisms underlying its effectiveness is particularly welcome and timely.

Supervision is a key determinant of exercise training effectiveness in both high-performance and health contexts (Candemir et al., 2019; Coleman et al., 2023; Gómez-Redondo et al., 2024). In the context of resistance training, a previous meta-analysis found a moderate effect favouring supervised training for strength gains (Fisher et al., 2022). However, the mechanisms underlying this effect remain insufficiently understood. One possibility is that the lack of supervision may favour less-than-optimal load and effort, reducing strength gains compared to supervised training. Such an assumption, however, lacks empirical evidence.

The study by James Steele and collaborators (Steele et al., 2025) addresses this gap, being the first to assess the
role of supervision on trainee effort in a real-world resistance training context, using a rigorous and innovative
design combining observational and experimental data from several private strength clinics.

The authors examined whether supervised sessions lead to greater training effort (operationalised as time-
under-load (TUL), with longer TUL at a given load indicating greater effort), rating of perceived effort (RPE)
and discomfort compared with unsupervised sessions. First, they retrospectively analysed training records of
members who trained unsupervised ("Core" membership) or supervised ("Assisted" membership) in private
strength clinics (~1000 members training sessions from each membership type). They then performed a
randomised crossover experiment with 45 Core members performing one supervised and one unsupervised
resistance training session using their usual training loads and prescribed to reach momentary failure. The
authors applied Bayesian modeling, using insights from the observational dataset to guide the analysis of the
experimental study. Importantly, the full dataset is openly available, enabling interested readers to explore
the data further.

The authors found no difference in TUL between Core and Assisted sessions in the retrospective observational
study, despite slightly higher RPE during supervision. Overall, trainees likely produced suboptimal effort in
real-world settings regardless of the condition. In contrast, the experimental study showed clear benefits of
supervision. Participants achieved substantially longer TUL under supervision (by ~22 s on average), reported
higher RPE, and experienced greater discomfort. These results suggest that supervision meaningfully increases
trainee effort when external expectations are clear (i.e., when participants are explicitly instructed to reach
momentary failure). Overall, these findings reinforce the rationale for providing supervision during resistance
training, but they also highlight that real-life training behaviour does not fully mirror experimental findings.
The authors clearly mentioned the limitations of the study (e.g., use of different RPE assessment methods
across the observational and experimental studies, lack of direct measures of compliance to prescribed loads,
uncertain generalisation to free-weight exercises where increased technical demands extends the value of
supervision), paving the way for future studies. Ultimately, it remains to determine how modulating effort with
supervision may impact chronic muscle adaptations to resistance training. When I first looked at this preprint,
I was simultaneously impressed and puzzled. On one hand, I was captivated by the originality of the approach,
as real-world strength training studies on such a large scale are quite unique in the scientific literature. On the
other hand, I was somewhat perplexed about its potential dissemination and impact for a broader audience,
given the complexity of the Bayesian statistical approach, which remains largely unfamiliar in the field of
physical activity and sport sciences. I would like to thank the reviewers for their thorough assessments, which,
among other things, helped improve the clarity and readability of the manuscript for a wider readership.
Based on their reports and my own evaluation, it is my pleasure to recommend this preprint. It offers rare
real-world insight into how supervision influences effort during resistance training, and its original design and
methodology are likely to stimulate further progress in the field. **References**

-Candemir, I., Ergun, P., Kaymaz, D., Demir, N., & McCurdy, S. A. (2019). Comparison of unsupervised home-based pulmonary rehabilitation versus supervised hospital outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine, 13(12), 1195-1203.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17476348.2019.1675516

-Chaabene, H., Ramirez-Campillo, R., Moran, J., Schega, L., Prieske, O., Sandau, I., Negra, Y., & Behrens, M. (2025). The Era of Resistance Training as a Primary Form of Physical Activity for Physical Fitness and Health in Youth Has Come. Sports Medicine, 55(9), 2073-2090. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-025-02240-3

-Coleman, M., Burke, R., Benavente, C., Piñero, A., Augustin, F., Maldonado, J., Fisher, J. P., Oberlin, D., Vigotsky, A. D., & Schoenfeld, B. J. (2023). Supervision during resistance training positively influences muscular adaptations in resistance-trained individuals. Journal of Sports Sciences, 41(12), 1207-1217. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2023.2261090

-Fisher, J., Steele, J., Wolf, M., Korakakis, P. A., Smith, D., & Giessing, J. (2022). The Role of Supervision in Resistance Training; an Exploratory Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Supervision in Resistance Training. International Journal of Strength and Conditioning, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.47206/ijsc.v2i1.101
-Gómez-Redondo, P., Valenzuela, P. L., Morales, J. S., Ara, I., & Mañas, A. (2024). Supervised Versus Unsupervised Exercise for the Improvement of Physical Function and Well-Being Outcomes in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. *Sports Medicine*, 54(7), 1877–1906.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02024-1

-Gruet, M., Saynor, Z. L., Urquhart, D. S., & Radtke, T. (2022). Rethinking physical exercise training in the modern era of cystic fibrosis: A step towards optimising short-term efficacy and long-term engagement. *Journal of Cystic Fibrosis*, 21(2), e83–e98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcf.2021.08.004

-Steele, J., Fisher, J., & Dettmann, T. (2025). The effects of supervision on effort during resistance training: A Bayesian analysis of previous observational data and an experimental study of private strength clinic members. *SportRxiv*, ver. 6, peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Health & Movement Sciences.
https://doi.org/10.51224/SRXIV.521

# Reviews

## Evaluation round #3

DOI or URL of the preprint: https://doi.org/10.51224/SRXIV.521

Version of the preprint: 3

## Authors' reply, 12 December 2025

Thanks again for handling our submission.

We have addressed all the minor points and made updates to abstract/conclusion to highlight the single session, as well as the methods to reiterate the lack of measurement error estimates for TUL. Regarding David's question about the phi parameter, the plots do not show the posterior predictive distributions, but the posterior distribution for the expectations of the prediction and contrast. So the width of them is based on the precision of those estimates, not the phi parameter which describes the distribution of the data or full posterior predictions.

Thanks,
James

## Decision by Mathieu Gruet, posted 28 November 2025, validated 28 November 2025

Dear Dr Steele, dear authors,

I apologize again for the delay in reaching a decision.

The reviewers have provided some final minor comments.

Please address these last minor issues and update the preprint if you feel it is necessary. Once you have handled these final points, I will carry out a final check and prepare the recommendation.

Best wishes,
Pr Mathieu Gruet

## Reviewed by anonymous reviewer 2, 25 September 2025

I would like to thank the authors for rephrasing the conclusion of the manuscript.

My only remaining suggestion is that in both the abstract and the conclusion it should be made explicit that the experimental findings are based on a single supervised versus unsupervised session, and that this reflects
an acute effect rather than multiple sessions. This clarification would avoid any misunderstanding that the
effect reflects a longer intervention.

With this clarification, I have no further suggestions. Thank you again for your thoughtful revisions.

Reviewed by **David Clarke** , 22 November 2025

I likewise apologize for the delay in returning this review. The authors have addressed my criticisms and questions satisfactorily. Overall, I think that this study will serve as a unique and useful contribution to the exercise science literature, both methodologically and for its results. I note a couple of considerations below.

- The Discussion mentions the accuracy of the self-reported TUL measure as a potential limitation, which is good. However, I think it would be useful and appropriate for the authors to comment on the reliability and validity of TUL measures in the Methods.

- Figure 4A1: the results text states that the phi parameter for RPE was 2.89 for Core and 3.34 for Assisted. However, the widths of the posterior distributions in Fig 4A1 look to me as though Core is wider than Assisted, and the discussion mentions that “[...] greater clustering of RPE reported under the Assisted condition, [...]” which contradict the result. The other numbers I checked align well with the figures. Please check.

- I think the authors do a nice job of discussing the limitations, especially the Hawthorne Effect, which seems very evident. It's unfortunate that the clients and their supervisors do not push harder on their own accord!

Download the review

Evaluation round #2

DOI or URL of the preprint: https://doi.org/10.51224/SRXIV.521

Version of the preprint: 2

Authors' reply, 22 September 2025

Download author's reply

Decision by **Mathieu Gruet**, posted 04 July 2025, validated 04 July 2025

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript. I have received feedback from two of the three original
reviewers who agreed to evaluate your revision.

Both reviewers acknowledged the substantial improvements you have made to the manuscript. Reviewer 2 is satisfied with most of the revisions but has identified some remaining concerns regarding the conclusion section and has provided specific suggestions for amendments. Reviewer 1 has recommended additional revisions, particularly focusing on the methods section. These suggestions address both substantive content and editorial refinements to enhance clarity and presentation.

Please find the reviewers' detailed comments attached. I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript addressing these new points.

Best regards,

Mathieu Gruet

Reviewed by **David Clarke** , 03 July 2025

Download the review
Reviewed by anonymous reviewer 2, 06 June 2025

First, I would like to thank the authors for the clarity with which they addressed the points raised in the
previous review and for incorporating the suggested changes appropriately. I have, however, one remaining
concern regarding the Conclusions section. The current conclusion states: "To our knowledge, this study is the
first to examine the role of supervision during RT both in situ in an ecologically valid real-world setting and
during an experimental study. Under real-world settings there was little difference in exercise performance, yet
in our experimental study there was a clear benefit to performance when under supervision. There was a small
difference in RPE reported with and without supervision under both real-world and experimental conditions,
suggesting that under supervision trainees train with greater proximity to failure, which was also supported by
greater RPD under supervision. These results in general support previous work highlighting the importance
of supervision during RT and that under unsupervised, and perhaps more so during real-world conditions,
trainees likely train with sub-optimal effort." In my view, the Conclusions section should primarily address the
specific aims of the study and be grounded strictly in the results obtained, while acknowledging the limitations
previously discussed. This point was already raised in the earlier review. I do not wish to insist again, and
the authors are of course free to accept or disregard these suggestions. The aim of the study was to assess
the impact of supervision on time under load (TUL), rating of perceived effort (RPE), and rating of perceived
discomfort (RPD). Based on the observational (real-world) data, the findings showed minimal (and likely clinically
irrelevant) differences between supervised and unsupervised training. However, in the experimental condition,
a single acute session did show a benefit of supervision on performance. Still, this result is limited to one session,
and the conclusion should reflect this and avoid overgeneralization. In my opinion, the statement "under
unsupervised, and perhaps more so during real-world conditions, trainees likely train with sub-optimal effort"
is speculative and not fully supported by the observational findings. I recommend removing it or relocating it
to the Discussion section, where such interpretations are more appropriate. Additionally, the phrase "To our
knowledge, this study is the first..." fits better in the Introduction or Discussion section. Suggested approach:I
encourage the authors to revise the conclusion so that it:1. Maintains the statement that under real-world
settings there was little difference in exerciseperformance.2. Clearly states that the observed benefit in the
experimental setup was based on an acute effect of a single session.3. Avoids speculation and focuses on
direct interpretations of the data. These revisions would ensure a more accurate and balanced conclusion
that aligns with the study's aims and findings. Thank you again for your thoughtful revisions. Once more, the
authors are free to accept or ignore these suggestions, but in my opinion, the conclusions as currently stated
are somewhat overstated.

Download the review

Evaluation round #1

DOI or URL of the preprint: https://doi.org/10.51224/SRXIV.521

Version of the preprint: 1

Authors' reply, 20 May 2025

Download author's reply

Decision by Mathieu Gruet, posted 15 May 2025, validated 15 May 2025

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your preprint to PCI Health and Movement Sciences. I apologize for the delay in
providing this interim decision.
I have now received evaluations from three reviewers, all of whom recognize the significant merit of your study and commend its overall structure and writing quality; an assessment with which I fully concur.

The reviewers have, however, identified several concerns that require your attention before the manuscript can proceed further. Most notably, the analysis methodology and presentation of results would benefit being slightly more accessible. As your research has considerable practical implications for resistance training coaches and strength clinic members, and considering that many of whom may lack the technical expertise to fully comprehend your analytical approach, greater clarity is essential. The actual technical complexity may also present challenges for researchers who wish to replicate or build upon your methods in similar or different contexts.

Addressing these concerns will substantially enhance both the immediate reception and long-term impact of your work, while ensuring broader dissemination of your valuable findings across both academic and practical domains.

I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Best regards,

Mathieu Gruet

Reviewed by **David Clarke**, 30 April 2025

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

This manuscript reports the results of a two-part study of supervision effects on resistance training performance. The study parts include a retrospective analysis of observationally collected data and a prospective experimental study using a cross-over design. The observational data were used in two ways: 1) to generate prior distributions for Bayesian inference applied to the data from the experimental study, and 2) as a basis for comparison for the experimental study results.

This study was well designed, well analyzed, and well written. I thought the two study parts complemented each other well to support both the internal and external validities of the overall study. Indeed, the exercise science field could benefit from more such comprehensive approaches to research.

I nevertheless have some questions and critical comments that I encourage the authors to consider to improve the reception and impact of their paper.

Title and abstract

Does the title clearly reflect the content of the article? [x] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don't know
Does the abstract present the main findings of the study? [x] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don't know
Introduction

Are the research questions/hypotheses/predictions clearly presented? [x] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don't know

Does the introduction build on relevant research in the field? [x] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don't know

Minor comments on the writing:

While the paper is overall well written, I found that the paragraphs tended to be excessively lengthy. There were also a few awkward and run-on sentences and a few instances of colloquial writing that I recommend be cleaned up, as follows:

* Page 3: start a new paragraph at "An acute randomized cross-over design..."

* Page 4 and elsewhere: "We ended up with n = 45..." - "ended up" seems colloquial to me.

* Page 6: The following sentence is awkward and excessively long: "Anecdotal reports from Kieser Australia staff had also prior to exploring the data suggested to us that, despite the prescription to train to momentary failure, many Core members were instead selecting loads and training only to the upper 120 second TUL range threshold irrespective of proximity to failure."
## Materials and methods

Are the methods and analyses sufficiently detailed to allow replication by other researchers? [x] Yes, [ ] No
(please explain), [ ] I don't know

Are the methods and statistical analyses appropriate and well described? [ ] Yes, [x] No (please explain), [ ] I don't know

I have methodological questions & comments about the exercise training part and the statistical analysis, as follows.

## Exercise training

The repetition tempo and resulting TUL are major components of the resistance exercise prescription, yet the emphasis on these variables is poorly justified. Specifically, on page 3, the authors mention that the clients are prescribed repetitions lasting ~ 12 seconds, which consists of a 4:2:4:2 concentric:isometric:eccentric:isometric tempo. This tempo prescription is questionable for strength development, wherein powerful concentric motions of maximal effort should be emphasized (Spiering et al. 2023 J Str Cond Res). Pausing at the top of the movement (in the “lockout” position) is likewise questionable.

o What effects can be expected from this tempo prescription on TUL compared to more common resistance exercise prescriptions? Would these effects affect the generalizability of this study?

o To what extent do the clients comply with the tempo prescriptions?

What is the reliability and accuracy of the TUL recordings? The authors stated that “During each session for each exercise the trainees/trainers recorded their TUL achieved as they would do for their usual sessions using timers situated around the clinic in view during training specifically for this purpose.” For the retrospective analysis, the authors stated that “TUL was also recorded similarly using timers available about the clinic, or for some sessions using a more recently developed mobile phone application (Kieser Konnect, Kieser Australia) which is placed on a stand on the resistance machines and used to track TUL for each exercise in their training card which is programmed to the application.” The self-report nature of this variable could bias the results.

## Statistical analysis

At the core of the paper is the application of Bayesian inference. While Bayesian inference presents many theoretical benefits, it comes at the cost of technical complexity. Its use here could be better articulated.

I cannot comment in an informed manner on the specific modelling decisions that were made, but my impression is that the authors applied a sensible and well considered approach. The modelling procedures seem well explained and justified.

On the other hand, the modelling procedures are complex and include several relatively unfamiliar probability distributions, intricate modeling decisions, and many parameters, the descriptions of which could lose many readers from the exercise science field.

I have the following advice for improving the communication of this section to enable more readers to understand, scrutinize, and reproduce the methods:

Consider justifying the use of Bayesian inference over alternative frequentist methods. This justification should be upfront, perhaps in the Introduction or in the Approach to the Problem section of the Methods. In this specific case, the Bayesian methods are powerful for studying in an integrated manner the experimental and observational data. The authors should better emphasize this point as well as other benefits that the Bayesian approach uniquely afforded.

Consider including a flowchart for the statistical analysis and then describing each element in the text. For example, something that communicates the following: Priors for observational data > posterior distributions for observational data > priors for experimental > posteriors experimental, etc. Relate the flowchart elements to the results, i.e., from which points different estimates were obtained.

Define all letters and symbols for the non-expert. For example, the degrees of freedom for the TUL model is specified as vy, but the "y" is undefined in the manuscript. Perhaps knowledge of y is obvious to the expert, but it eluded me.
On page 7, in the priors for $\gamma_1$ and $\beta_1$ in the TUL model, it is stated "lb = -60, lb = 60." Should the second lb be "ub" for upper bound?

One question I have is whether the authors might be able to evaluate exercise-scientist-specific effects in their models. One can imagine that different supervisors have different expectations of their clients and willingness to push them.

## Results

In the case of negative results, is there a statistical power analysis (or an adequate Bayesian analysis or equivalence testing)? [x] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don't know

Are the results described and interpreted correctly? [x] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don't know

## Minor comments on the writing:

The results are effectively described and visualized. However, the figure captions should begin with a title sentence, followed by the text that was written. Panel labels (a, b, c, etc.) should also be included.

Throughout the manuscript but particularly in the Results, the authors use the term "prior sample" to describe the retrospective observational data. This terminology might cause confusion because the word "prior" also refers to the prior distributions needed for Bayesian modelling. I suggest renaming the sample "observational sample" or some other alternative.

The phrase "the ☐ parameter for precision of the beta distribution in our experimental sample was higher in the Assisted condition suggesting that <variable> reported was more clustered around the estimated <variable> values as compared to in the Core condition" was repeated three times, once for each of the outcome variables. While informative, this phrase reflects an interpretation and it is questionable as to whether it belongs in the Results. If the authors decide to include it, include it only once because it is repetitive.

## Discussion

Have the authors appropriately emphasized the strengths and limitations of their study/theory/methods/argument? [x] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don't know

Are the conclusions adequately supported by the results (without overstating the implications of the findings)?
[x] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don't know

I proposed above some methodological questions and comments that the authors may wish to address in the revised Discussion. Another potential limiter to generalizability of this study is that the exercises are all machine based, and, as the authors noted in their previous meta-analysis, a major potential benefit of supervision is technical coaching (Fisher 2022 Int J Str Cond). If participants were to use free weights, they may further "underload" for safety considerations and for not knowing the "proper technique." I encourage the authors to consider commenting on this aspect.

## Minor comments on the writing:

Page 13: The following sentence is awkward and excessively long: "Under standardised training protocol prescription (i.e., single sets of RT using resistance machines to momentary failure using a fixed repetition duration using a load that should permit momentary failure in a target TUL range of 90-120 seconds) we examined exercise performance as the TUL, in addition to RPE and RPD."

## Reviewed by anonymous reviewer 2, 08 April 2025

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting and relevant study.

The aim of the current manuscript was to examine the role of supervision on effort, defined here as time under load (TUL), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and rating of perceived discomfort (RPD), during resistance
training, using both retrospective and prospective analyses. The manuscript is well written and structured. I would particularly like to highlight the ecological validity of the approach. Randomized clinical trials often struggle to replicate real-world settings, so the chosen study design strengthens the external validity of the findings.

My comments below aim to provide constructive feedback to assist the authors in enhancing their manuscript.

The objective provided at the end of the introduction could be clearer. At that point in the text, "effort" is not well defined. Since the manuscript later defines effort as TUL, RPE, and RPD, it would be helpful to clarify this earlier in the manuscript.

While I understand the logistical reasons given for the sample size in the experimental analysis, but the relatively small sample may limit the generalizability of the findings considering the approach of real-world setting. It would be appropriate to include this as a limitation of the study.

Regarding the retrospective analysis, it is unclear why the authors chose two separate samples (one with TUL and another with RPE scores) instead of selecting a sample in which both variables were available. Since the aim was to analyze the influence of supervision on effort (as reflected by both TUL and RPE), could separate samples introduce bias (as no confounding factors could be taken into account)? I am not sure about this.

The manuscript notes that participants recorded their own TUL using timers visible in the training space. While this aligns with the goal of examining real-world settings, it would be helpful to address the validity and reliability of this method. Could discrepancies between trainee- and trainer-reported data have affected the results? Were trainers generally more rigorous in data collection?

How was momentary failure defined and monitored? Was it self-determined by participants in the Core group? If so, how might this have influenced the outcomes?

Were the Core and Assisted groups in the retrospective analysis performing the same exercises? If different exercises were used, this could have impacted TUL and RPE outcomes.

For the retrospective data, how exactly was TUL entered into the Kieser database, especially for Core participants? Did participants self-report their TUL using a stopwatch?

Is comparing only one supervised and one unsupervised session, one week apart, sufficient to draw firm conclusions? Given the potential for a Hawthorne effect (i.e., participants modifying behavior due to awareness of being observed), a single-session design may overestimate the true effect of supervision. Could repeated sessions have offered a more stable measure?

If participants were not blinded to their TUL, is it possible that increased TUL influenced their reported RPE and RPD? Could it influence the outcomes considering the cross-over design?

The lack of significant differences in TUL in the retrospective analysis contrasts with findings from the experimental condition. The authors suggest this may be due to more appropriate load prescription in the Assisted group; however, this interpretation is not supported by the retrospective RPE data. If Assisted participants truly trained with a higher (and more optimal) load, one would expect their RPE scores to be notably higher, yet this was not observed.
Given the limitations presented by the authors, the results provided by the retrospective analysis, and the effect analyzed during the experimental analysis about the comparison of only one session of supervised versus unsupervised one-week apart, the conclusion that "these results in general support prior work highlighting the importance of supervision during RT" seems overstated. While I agree with the authors on the potential influence of the Hawthorne effect, a more cautious and nuanced interpretation would better reflect the study's findings and limitations.

No conflict of interest is reported, yet the study analyzes the effect of the Kieser Method, a supervised high-intensity training model developed by the Kieser Training Company, with which two of the authors are affiliated. Given this connection, could there be a potential bias in the interpretation or preference for certain results? While this does not undermine the value of the study, acknowledging and addressing this possibility would strengthen the transparency and integrity of the manuscript.

I hope this feedback is helpful to the authors as they refine their manuscript. The study addresses a relevant and timely topic, and I appreciate the effort made to bring research closer to real-world settings.

Download the review

Reviewed by anonymous reviewer 1, 10 April 2025

I have gone through the study and need the following recommendations for the final decision

1. The abstract is well-written and explained, but it would benefit from being divided into distinct sections, such as background, methodology, results, and conclusion.

2. There is only one line about RT. A few more lines at the start of the abstract would be beneficial for the reader.

3. The authors used the word "little" in "exercise performance differed little between supervised and unsupervised training." It would be better to use some technical words because it shows subjectivity rather objectivity. What is meant by little can be explained numerically.

4. The introduction is well written and it contains latest studies. but it should be extended more.

5. The software used for the study should also be mentioned.

6. The result section should be explained for the general readers to understand the technical outcomes. It would be better to make statements simple while explaining technical words.

7. The authors mentioned about the confidence intervals and quantile intervals. Are there any more measures to show the strength of outcomes like effect size ?

8. Overall, the study is new and well articulated and would provide reader a quality study.

9. Actual real life contribution of this study should be highlighted in the conclusion section. What it can bring in real life?