Excellent Very Good Good Poor
Reporting of Results 1 point
All results calculated
co
ectly and reported as
mean + SD with an
appropriately co
ect
number of decimal places
(not more than 2) and
with appropriate units.
0 points
NA
0.5 points
Reporting of results is
mostly co
ect, but some
e
ors may exist with
calculated values, units of
expression, or use of
decimal places when
expressing mean data.
0 points
Results are generally
eported without
appropriate units, and
calculated inco
ectly.
Indication of statistical
analyses
0.5 points
When necessary, evidence
of statistical analyses are
indicated co
ectly 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 inco
ectly 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
esults (e.g. the difference
etween groups)
in tables/figures and the
statistical analyses.
Discussion of findings in
elation to the literature
1.5 points
Discussion of findings and
a comparison of the
outcomes of the cu
ent
experimental design has
een made with the
outcomes from available,
elevant scientific
literature, using examples
from similar experimental
designs, as well as
examples of outcomes
from different
experimental designs.
1 point
Discussion of findings in
elation to available,
elevant scientific
literature is reasonable
ut limited to examples
from similar experimental
designs to the present
study. Or discusses
literature with a
limited
ief comparison
of outcomes.
0.5 points
Discussion of findings in
elation to available,
elevant 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
een made. And discusses
literature without a
comparison of outcomes.
The discussion is
ief,
i
elevant and not able to
e sensibly interpreted.
Explanation and application
of physiological
mechanisms
2.5 points
Coherent explanation of
at least one physiological
mechanism to explain
esults and uses theory to
explain findings directly
1.7 points
Coherent explanation of
at least one physiological
mechanism to explain
esults, but reports theory
without a clear
explanation of how that
0.8 points
An explanation of at least
one physiological
mechanism to explain the
esults, 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 inco
ect,
(doesn't just report
theory).
Explanations provide
evidence of a clear
understanding of the
mechanisms involved and
how they potentially
elate to the experimental
data observed.
theory explains the results
of the experiment.
ambiguous or inco
ect
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
elevant or are non-
existent.
Referencing 1 point
Appropriate referencing of
literature statements
throughout the report,
performed consistently to
ensure fair
acknowledgement of
esearch sources.
0 points
NA
0.5 points
Uncommon instances of
one or more of the
following e
ors:
• References used
too infrequently
0 points
Regular and repeated
instances of one or more
of the following e
ors:
• References used
too infrequently
Consistent and
appropriate formatting of
eferences within the
ibliography that includes
only those references
cited in the report.
(>2 unreferenced
statements)
• Inco
ect or
inconsistent
format of
eference
citations in
Discussion and/or
ibliography
(numbered
citation style
equired)
• References
missing from
ibliography
(>2 unreferenced
statements)
• Inco
ect or
inconsistent
format of
eference
citations in
Discussion and/or
ibliography
(numbered
citation style
equired)
• References
missing from
ibliography
Writing style 1.5 points
Clear, concise writing style
with no e
ors in spelling
or grammar while using
appropriate physiological
terminology related to the
topic.
1 point
Clear, concise writing style
while using appropriate
physiological terminology
elated to the topic, but
with some e
ors in
spelling and/or grammar.
0.5 points
The writing style is unclear
and/or not concise, often
with multiple e
ors in
spelling and/or grammar.
And/Or:
Limited use and/or
inco
ect application of
physiological terminology
elated to the topic.
0 points
The writing style is unclear
and/or not concise, with
multiple significant e
ors
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
eferences 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 XXXXXXXXXX%)
7 or more
Credit XXXXXXXXXX%)
6 or more
Pass XXXXXXXXXX%)
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 Hao Student ID: XXXXXXXXXX
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