The manuscript reports findings from an experimental study examining the persistence of changes in interstitial glucose following an intervention involving intermittent activity breaks on the evening prior among healthy adults.

The rationale and aim have been clearly articulated. A key strength is the well-executed study methods and the examination of a healthy cohort, since previous studies have typically studied unhealthy cohorts.

Overall, this is an exceptionally well written manuscript and the authors are to be commended for the attention to detail with respect to the design of the study.

That said, there some outstanding issues that warrant further attention.

General consideration

• It is not until line 90 on Page 5 that the reader is made aware that this is a secondary analysis of a study in which the primary outcome has been previously published.

Improved transparency is required in the introduction to ensure that the reader is not led to believe that this work is reporting primary outcomes and that the previously published work is acknowledged upfront. If a distinction is the reporting of the interstitial glucose values in the present paper, then this needs to be clearly articulated in the introduction.

Free-living dietary habits
• The authors have highlighted that the omission of monitoring free-living dietary habits in the 48 hour period is a major limitation. Could the authors elaborate on why the monitoring was not undertaken – was this on the grounds of feasibility/acceptability?

Another future consideration could be the provision of standardised meals across the respective intervention conditions. Line 282 – dietary patterns could be included as an additional factor that may influence CGM data accuracy.

The authors have satisfactorily addressed the queries raised and the modifications made to the manuscript have provided improved clarity on the fact that this is a secondary analysis.