As a single-subject Case Report, this paper cannot conclude results, except to the subject on which they were collected. Before you post your review, kindly consider the evidence presented is not associated with whole contingent varied populations. The paper does call conclusively, therefore, for like research on larger populations including both genders and wider age ranges.
Pre-review Formal Declaration:
The author was the control-subject in this case report declaring with emphasis the information in this paper applies only to the single subject. Ninety days were spent training to attain running fitness. Timed running performances over a common 15K trail course were collected during two separate 90-day CoQ10-dose periods (Period-#1 N=12: Period#2 N=8) , and after a 14-day washout no supplement dose (N=1) to determine this subject's base performance level without the effect of supplement-dose. Total timed 15K runs on a common trail course N = 20 with supplement dose N =1 no-supplement dose. This open-declaration statement is posted recruit your review of this case report, noting the need for further research with more subjects to confirm the trend deposed by this single subject.
This paper examined one-subject's endurance performance on a common 15K trail course while taking 400-mg/day either Ubiquinol or Ubiquinone for 90-days and a 14-day washout period to determine base performance on the same trail course. The findings deposed in this case report are associated with dose to endurance performance ONLY with the a single case-study-subject tested.
Your review of this paper is respectfully requested for Coenzyme Q-10 Effects Endurance Performance - A Case Study located @: http://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/2347
Warm regards,
Dr. Bill Misner, Ph.D.
AAMA Board Certified Alternative Medicine Practitioner Certification #32872409 (2004)
Plant-Based Nutrition Certificate - eCornell {2010}
BOOK: "Phytonutrition: Finding Fitness For Life!" @ http://abv8.me/2kT
Alternative Medicine Faculty & Advisory Board (2011)
WebMedCentral @ http://www.webmedcentral.com/faculty/view_all_faculty
Dr. Misner's response to Dr. Shenkman's review 1, 2, 3:
Dr. Shenkman: 1-"The data presented do not support the conclusions."
Dr. Misner: The last sentences in both the Abstract and Competing Interest paragraphs clearly associate these performance results with the single subject only. Abstract: "For these results for one subject male 71-years to be conclusive the trend should further confirmed or denied by examining dose and performances associated from a larger contingent of male and female runners over age 40." Competing Interests: "No competing interests declared, the author was the single subject of this case study, therefore the results are associated with his performance only. This case study calls for more measures collected from other subjects, male and female ages 40-and-over to confirm or deny the trend this single-subject case study discusses."
Dr. Shenkman: 2-"It would have been useful to see the actual times for each run in each of the three categories. Running times should have been presented as the mean and SD of each category, and not as the best time in each category."
Dr. Misner: Table I shows the best times recorded in two each 90-day test-dose periods. This table lists the times and dates and the exact age of the test subject the day they were recorded. Performance optimums are difficult to predict but it is the opinion of many sport scientists that performance peaks can be attained after 90-day training period within 12-14 weeks by testing performance trials when resting heart rate reaches lowest point confirming recovery from training stress. This is why during the Ubiquinol period, 12-timed trials were collected but during the Ubiquinone period (the second 90-day period), only 8-timed performance trials were collected. The differences between mean timed performances and SD's were similar and may not add information to the results reported.
Dr. Shenkman: "The structure of a standard paper contains the Discussion at the end, not prior to Methods and Results."
Dr. Misner: Most, not all, journal-style scientific papers are subdivided into: Title, Authors and Affiliation, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Acknowledgments, and Literature Cited, which parallel the experimental process. Moving the Discussion section to precede the Methods, Results sections presents information that explains information paramount to Methods and Results sections.
Addendum: I read Dr. Shenkman's research years ago "Serum enzyme activities following long-distance running: comparison between Ethiopian and white athletes.." I am pleased to have his esteemed review of my paper.
Bill Misner
Active Medicine Practitioner Certification #32872409
Disclosure: The limits of this Case Study were well defined in the Abstract and the Conclusion paragraphs. The author does not conclude that the case study subject's results are a trend that can be concluded or associated with a larger contingent of the general population. The statements below were taken from the Abstract and the Conclusion paragraphs in this paper.
Respectfully,
Dr. Bill Misner Ph.D.
Abstract: For these results for one subject male 71-years to be conclusive the trend should further confirmed or denied by examining dose and performances associated from a larger contingent of male and female runners over age 40.
Conclusion: These results are limited to this 71-yr male subject. To confirm or deny this trend, more research is needed recording multiple timed performances from male and female runners age ranges 40-70.
Dear esteemed Colleagues,
A single-subject case study has limits especially if the author is the control case subject. This Case Report is limited to the results collected on one subject. The final statement in the Abstract substantially states this case study results apply to one subject male 71-years, calling for more research with substantial numbers to confirm or deny the trend numerically identified...
The final sentence in the Abstract declared:
"For these results for one subject male 71-years to be conclusive the trend should further confirmed or denied by examining dose and performances associated from a larger contingent of male and female runners over age 40."
The final sentence in the conclusion paragraph declared a very similar sentiment:
"These results are limited to this 71-yr male subject. To confirm or deny this trend, more research is needed recording multiple timed performances from male and female runners age ranges 40-70."
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a case study emphasizing a call for more research on a greater number varying by gender and age to confirm or deny the trend indentified in a single male subject age-71y.
Respectfully,
Bill Misner
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a
Dear Esteemed Scholarly Reviewers,
Thank you for your reviews. I have employed each one of your comments, that is, those that were not contraindicated by other reviewers in rewriting this article. The WebMedCentral team has the final edition waiting to be completed on line.
Thank you for the excellent comments...well done!
Bill Misner PhD