Correction: Acute behavior of oxygen consumption, lactate concentrations, and energy expenditure during resistance training: comparisons among three intensities

Dear Editor, I hereby submit this transparency statement in order to clarify the use of the same dataset in publications by our research group published in Cogent Medicine (2020) and Frontiers in Physiology (2021).Both articles originate from the doctoral thesis of Gustavo Allegretti João, which investigated energy expenditure during resistance training sessions in adults using indirect calorimetry and extrapolation methods. At the time of data collection, this approach was innovative and aimed at developing robust methodological tools to estimate caloric expenditure during full-session resistance training.The study published in Cogent Medicine (2020) had as its primary objective the quantification of energy expenditure during a resistance training session composed of eight exercises performed at moderate intensity (60-75% of onerepetition maximum, 1RM), as well as the development and validation of a predictive regression equation to estimate caloric expenditure during complete resistance training sessions. The selection of this intensity range was based on its ecological validity and practical applicability, providing professionals with a novel and useful tool for real-world training contexts.In contrast, the article published in Frontiers in Physiology (2021) addressed a distinct scientific objective, focusing on a comparative analysis of caloric expenditure across three different training intensities (60%, 75%, and 90% of 1RM), with training volume strictly equalized. This study aimed to examine the influence of training intensity, total training volume, and inter-set recovery intervals on energy expenditure, thereby extending the application of the previously validated equation to different training conditions.Although both publications used the same sample derived from the doctoral thesis, the data were analyzed under different scientific questions, methodological designs, and analytical perspectives. Therefore, the identical results observed at 75% of 1RM in both articles are expected, as they originate from the same underlying dataset. This overlap does not constitute data duplication, but rather reflects the legitimate and widely accepted reuse of a dataset to address distinct research objectives.We acknowledge that the earlier publication should have been explicitly cited in the Frontiers in Physiology article to enhance scientific transparency. We recognize this omission and appreciate the opportunity to clarify the relationship between the two studies.In summary, the 2020 publication focused on the development and validation of a predictive model for estimating caloric expenditure, whereas the 2021 publication applied this model to compare different resistance training intensities. Despite sharing the same dataset, the studies are conceptually and methodologically distinct. I remain at your disposal for any further clarification and trust that this statement adequately addresses the concerns raised.Gustavo Almeida