Edgardo Molina-Sotomayor?, i agree with you. Currently, many interventions (or in fact the methods of many studies, interventionist or otherwise) are not in the least replicable based on the information provided in publications. However, i am not sure if this is because the interventions weren't well constructed or implemented, or due to the often strict guidelines/word limits on journal publications, meaning that authors must describe very detailed methodological detail in very few words. It is likely a bit of both. I am not sure how this can be resolved fully, but perhaps as part of journal submissions, a brief methods should be in the manuscript, with an obligatory detailed methods as a supplementary file? What do you think, Edgardo Molina-Sotomayor

In my opinion, reporting items such as the type of exercise, duration, intensity, frequency, etc. is very necessary and it is necessary that the authors and reviewers of the articles pay special attention to it.

Reporting these cases makes the research more practical and allows the implementation of that training protocol in other research as well.

Strongly agree with Cain CT Clark and Diako Heidary. Due to the importance of this discussion, professionals in physical activity (PA) should give their opinion more. Perhaps, this is the reason for so much divergent bibliographic discussion on the effects of PA in different populations !!! Physical stimuli are not homogeneous, therefore, neither is the response.

Should specialists be more technical when presenting a physical intervention program? They are ready? Are they trained to be more technical in their writing?

Thanks Cain CT Clark, the complementary file seems like a very good idea, we must wait for the opinion of other researchers on this portal

Exactly, it is the fault of the authors, otherwise I do think it is unlikely that scientific journals will prevent the authors from providing details. Writers need to be trained, and reviewers need to be more rigorous.

Thanks Diako Heidary for your opinion, I agree that authors and reviewers are not always aware of training theories, to understand the dose-responses of exercise

We have published on this topic....

Article A systematic review of rehabilitation in chronic heart failu...

Article Exercise rehabilitation programmes for pulmonary hypertensio...

Thank you for your contribution Gordon McGregor. I will read it carefully

Yes, because experimental studies have more impact on practical than philosophical studies Ali Abdulhassan Abbas

Hello Gordon McGregor, I have read your two articles and I fully agree with your conclusions. Definitely, many studies on similar topics, lack to describe important details in terms of motivational strategies to exercise, adherence to exercise, fidelity to the intervention and above all, describe the intensity of effort, a variable almost always absent. However, we know that intensity is the most important variable to achieve desired physiological adaptations to physical effort. This situation does not allow to advance and to know the real benefits of controlled exercise in the health of the population. This is why perhaps there is so much divergence in the literature on the cause-effect relationship of exercise

Thanks for your contribution Gordon Mc Gregor, interesting conclusions!

I agree with what everyone has said, in research processes, especially in those of physical activity, this type of items is extremely important so that studies can be replicated in different types of subjects, however, we are in a moment where many institutions (especially in my country) require doing research only to meet an indicator, forcing professionals to do research not out of necessity but because of a requirement, taking the scientific method out of context.

Yes, the fidelity of the intervention is vital. Imagine if a drug trial didn't check both the dose given and whether or not the participant was actually adhering to the prescription, and its ironic that his absence of checking for fidelity occurs more often in the higher impact, medical, non-sports medicine journals

Thank you Brayan for sharing your opinion with all of us, I totally agree that many times authors and reviewers omit this point that is very important in an investigation.

Thank you very much John Buckley, it is true, if in medicine this point is not considered the research has no validity, Unfortunately this happens a lot, in quasi-experimental studies related to programs of interventions with physical activity. It is probably for this reason that we still do not know the real effects of the practice of physical activity on the health of the population.

Yes of course

Great topic. I'm following

This omission on the part of the authors by not describing in detail the characteristics of their interventions leads not only to ignore the real effects of physical activity on health and well-being, but also to question the validity of the results and conclusions of studies of systematic reviews with meta-analysis. This situation harms our research area and does not allow us to continue advancing in answering the questions that we ask ourselves in each investigation.

Indeed, these fundamental principles of physical training have to be taken in account at the time to describe the methods of any scientific study or systematic review to really consider the results and conclusions of such studies. Also the reviewers have to take in account theses principles to arrive to conclusion in researches connected with physical activity or training.

In my perspective, i stress that reviewers may relax request about variables which is impossible to control in the novel study of physical intervention programs, in order to encourage the novelty , focus on key question, avoid the inflexible.

eg. certain journals ask authors who do the intervention about drop jump to keep each subjects in completely same jump styles in details. It is hard to fufill it , become every participates have their unique habit in sports.

no