The experiment is done. Needed to discuss the questions.
Excellent Very Good Good Poor Reporting of Results 1 point All results calculated correctly and reported as mean + SD with an appropriately correct number of decimal places (not more than 2) and with appropriate units. 0 points NA 0.5 points Reporting of results is mostly correct, but some errors may exist with calculated values, units of expression, or use of decimal places when expressing mean data. 0 points Results are generally reported without appropriate units, and calculated incorrectly. Indication of statistical analyses 0.5 points When necessary, evidence of statistical analyses are indicated correctly using symbols and/or p-values, which are easily interpreted by a sensible presentation of such in the figure/table legend. 0 points NA 0 points NA 0 points Evidence of statistical analyses is not evident where needed, is indicated incorrectly such that differences are indicated that do not exist, or the figure/table legend is unable to determine the nature of the statistical symbols presented. Interpretation of results 0.5 points Results are accurately interpreted and are consistent with the data presented in tables/figures and the 0 points NA 0.25 points Results are accurately interpreted and are consistent with the data presented in 0 points Interpretation of results is inaccurate and may lack clarity, precision and/or contradict data presented statistical analyses performed. tables/figures but missing interpretation of some results (e.g. the difference between groups) in tables/figures and the statistical analyses. Discussion of findings in relation to the literature 1.5 points Discussion of findings and a comparison of the outcomes of the current experimental design has been made with the outcomes from available, relevant scientific literature, using examples from similar experimental designs, as well as examples of outcomes from different experimental designs. 1 point Discussion of findings in relation to available, relevant scientific literature is reasonable but limited to examples from similar experimental designs to the present study. Or discusses literature with a limited/brief comparison of outcomes. 0.5 points Discussion of findings in relation to available, relevant scientific literature is limited and may include examples of similar experimental design only or unrelated experimental designs. And/or discusses literature without a comparison of outcomes. Discussion is described in a manner that is unclear, ambiguous and/or confusing. 0 points Little or no discussion of findings in relation to available, relevant scientific literature has been made. And discusses literature without a comparison of outcomes. The discussion is brief, irrelevant and not able to be sensibly interpreted. Explanation and application of physiological mechanisms 2.5 points Coherent explanation of at least one physiological mechanism to explain results and uses theory to explain findings directly 1.7 points Coherent explanation of at least one physiological mechanism to explain results, but reports theory without a clear explanation of how that 0.8 points An explanation of at least one physiological mechanism to explain the results, but lacks evidence of a clear understanding of the theory with some 0 points Lacks evidence of a clear explanation of a physiological mechanism that is without any link to explain the results. In general an incorrect, (doesn't just report theory). Explanations provide evidence of a clear understanding of the mechanisms involved and how they potentially relate to the experimental data observed. theory explains the results of the experiment. ambiguous or incorrect statements, and/or without a clear explanation of how that theory explains the results of the experiment. confusing and ambiguous description of the theory/mechanisms. Discussion of practical implications 1 point Clear discussion of practical implications that is comprehensive and with a diverse spectrum of examples and considers methodological considerations. 0 points NA 0.5 points Discussion of practical implications is limited to only one or two similar examples and/or does not consider important methodological consideration and/or the discussion is ambiguous or unclear. 0 points Little or no discussion of practical implications. Examples provided are not relevant or are non- existent. Referencing 1 point Appropriate referencing of literature statements throughout the report, performed consistently to ensure fair acknowledgement of research sources. 0 points NA 0.5 points Uncommon instances of one or more of the following errors: • References used too infrequently 0 points Regular and repeated instances of one or more of the following errors: • References used too infrequently Consistent and appropriate formatting of references within the bibliography that includes only those references cited in the report. (>2 unreferenced statements) • Incorrect or inconsistent format of reference citations in Discussion and/or bibliography (numbered citation style required) • References missing from bibliography (>2 unreferenced statements) • Incorrect or inconsistent format of reference citations in Discussion and/or bibliography (numbered citation style required) • References missing from bibliography Writing style 1.5 points Clear, concise writing style with no errors in spelling or grammar while using appropriate physiological terminology related to the topic. 1 point Clear, concise writing style while using appropriate physiological terminology related to the topic, but with some errors in spelling and/or grammar. 0.5 points The writing style is unclear and/or not concise, often with multiple errors in spelling and/or grammar. And/Or: Limited use and/or incorrect application of physiological terminology related to the topic. 0 points The writing style is unclear and/or not concise, with multiple significant errors in spelling and/or grammar making the discussion difficult to interpret. And/OR physiological terminology related to the topic has not been used. Formatting 0.5 points Three pages only, 12- point font, 1.5-line spacing, 2 cm margins. Discussion encroaching onto subsequent references page is NOT acceptable. Tables may be formatted differently to fit in the data, but should be confined to a single page to ensure a maximum 3 page report. 0 points NA 0 points NA 0 points Excluding tables, in general the guidelines have not been adhered to (i.e. Three pages only, 12- point font, 1.5-line spacing, 2 cm margins). Overall Score High Distinction (80% and above) 8 or more Distinction (70 - 79%) 7 or more Credit (60 - 69%) 6 or more Pass (50 - 59%) 5 or more Fail (below 50%) 0 or more Question 1 1. Ambient temperature had an evident impact on intermittent sprint performance 2. Ambient temperature had the greatest impact on sprint bout 3 Question 2 3. Most significant difference observed in sprint bout 3 4. Significant difference in peak power output (PPO), mean power output (MPO), heart rate (HR), tympanic temperature, blood lactate and blood glucose Question 3 5. Look for scientific literature that did exercise experiments in hot and normal conditions 6. Talk about how ambient temperature result in these changes (physiological) then link it back to the lab findings on why these changes are seen, and maybe why some variables don’t change Question 4 7. Findings shown from ambient temperature changes can affect performance outcomes 8. This can be taken into advantage for training (better performance). How can training be done? 9. Knowing this measures can be taken to minimise the effect of ambient temperature changes especially in hot conditions, what type of measures? Give some examples 10. List some references that support or show that doing these measures or training like this helps Note 1. Talk about findings and comparison with other literature (literature with different designs is good) 2. Explain the physiological mechanism that causes the change due to ambient temperature, link it back to findings TOPIC 1 LABORATORY TWO Physiology of Sport Performance Physiology of Sports Performance, Laboratory Two: Environmental Effects on Intermittent Sprint Exercise Report Student Name: Andy Wong Guan HaoStudent ID: 217577494 Laboratory Day and Time: Wednesday, 1400 Results Table 1: Participant age, height, and body mass. Values are mean ± standard deviation (SD). Characteristic Tested Sample Age (years) 21.8 ± 2.9 Height (m) 1.77 ± 0.08 Body Mass (kg) 77.39 ± 14.03 Table 2: Performance and physiological responses during, and immediately following, intermittent sprint cycling in a heated chamber and a controlled room. Values are mean ± SD. Experimental Condition Control Condition Sprint 1 Sprint 2 Sprint 3 Sprint 1 Sprint 2 Sprint 3 Peak Power Output (W) 677.64 ± 192.43 *` 617.34 ± 176.66 *` 583.54 ± 183.24 *` 784.06 ± 195.51 *` 722.02 ± 190.39 *` 669.56 ± 150.05 *` Mean Power Output (W) 494.66 ± 128.29 *` 451.28 ± 126.01 *` 412.25 ± 126.53 *` 573.91 ± 145.29 *` 514.84 ± 116.48 *` 484.77 ± 106.15 *` Oxygen Uptake (ml/kg/min) 2.06 ± 0.76 2.04 ± 0.67 2.00 ± 0.79 1.99 ± 0.68 2.06 ± 0.61 2.11 ± 0.56 Heart Rate (bpm) 157 ± 22 ` 170 ± 12 ` 173 ± 11 ` 150 ± 25 ` 163 ± 18