FROM : Longitudinal Relationship Between Physical Activity Levels and Respiratory Function in Older Individuals : A Longitudinal Study

Response to Reviewer 1

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and valuable feedback. Below, we summarize the revisions made in response to your comments.

1. Comment: The title is recommended to be revised.

Response: We revised the title to "LONGITUDINAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHYSICAL ACTIVITY LEVELS AND RESPIRATORY FUNCTION IN OLDER INDIVIDUALS: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY." This change has been highlighted in red font in the revised manuscript.

2. Comment: The abstract should include the statement of inclusion and exclusion criteria of samples.

Response: We added the following statement to the abstract: "Inclusion criteria required participants to be ≥50 years and to have valid respiratory measures. The exclusion criterion was significant respiratory or cardiovascular disease at baseline." This addition is marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback. We believe that these revisions have addressed your concerns and improved the manuscript.

Response to Reviewer 2

Thank you for your positive and encouraging comments on this manuscript. We appreciate your feedback and are pleased that you found the manuscript informative and well structured. We have summarized the revisions made in response to your comments below.

1. Comment: The manuscript provides straightforward data on the effect of various levels of exercise on pulmonary parameters and offers guidelines that can be used immediately. All sections were precise, clearly written, and concise, including the discussion on dropout rates and borderline significant data.

Response: We appreciate your consideration of the clarity and comprehensiveness of our manuscript. We ensured that all key information was clearly presented and made minor refinements where necessary to enhance clarity. These adjustments are highlighted in red font in the revised manuscript.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback. We are pleased that you find the manuscript useful and well explained.