Monark Cycle ergometer testing
The following artifact is a lab report documenting how the use of heart-rate monitors, a Monark cycle ergometer, calculators, and a few stop watches could be used to gauge the power component of skill related fitness as a number quality :
Anaerobic Power Measurement As Determined Through Use Of Technological Measurement
Intro:
The purpose of this experiment was to gauge the anaerobic power output of 2 student volunteers who underwent the Wingate Anaerobic Test. The hypothesis I have for this test is that the 2 subjects will reach their peak anaerobic power within 10 seconds of beginning the test, and will begin to experience reduced power output for every 5 second interval after the first 10 seconds of the WAnT test. My group and I will test this hypothesis by recording live data as it is available during a WAnT test being given to the student volunteers. The data we will be recording will be baseline information about our subjects, such as weight and appropriate pedal resistance, pedal revolutions per 5-second interval, and heart rate information. Results will be interpreted by applying formulae to the data to determine absolute, mean, and relative peak power output, fatigue index, total work, and relative total work.
Methods and Materials:
The materials used were heart rate monitors, stopwatches, and a Monark cycle ergometer. The heart rate monitors were attached to the subjects and their heart rate information was taken by designated group member at appropriate times as indicated in Table 4. The stopwatches were used by another designated group member to mark times 1-minute before the test, the start of the test, the 5-second intervals, the end of the test, and 1 minute after the test for the purposes of collecting pedal revolutions and heart rate information. The cycle ergometer was used by the subjects to record their anaerobic power by adjusting the resistance setting of the pedals to an appropriate amount, as indicated in Subject Baseline Information, and having the subjects cycle through the protocol of the test. The method we used was to have the subject warm-up by cycling several times prior to the test on the cycle ergometer to ready them for maximal exertion. A group member was stationed near the cycle ergometer to record heart rate, time, and pedal revolutions per interval. The subject was then instructed to begin cycling with maximal intensity and to continue for 30 seconds. The group members recorded the appropriate information during the test and recorded them with pen and paper.
Results:
1. Subject 1 reached peak anaerobic power in the second and third 5-second intervals. Subject 2 reached peak anaerobic power in the first 5-second interval. The subjects likely achieved peak anaerobic power during this time period because this was the time where they were using primarily the phosphor-creatine and glycolytic paths and recruiting the highest number of type-2 fast fibers.
2. Ranks according to table 9.3:
A. Peak Power. Subject 1: 60th percentile Subject 2: 90th percentile
B. Relative Peak Power. Subject 1: 80th percentile Subject 2: 50th percentile
C. Mean Power. Subject 1: 80th percentile Subject 2: 25th percentile
D. Relative Mean Power. Subject 1: 95th percentile Subject 2: 10th percentile
E. Fatigue Index. Subject 1: 30th percentile Subject 2: 5th percentile
3. Subject 1’s muscle capabilities show that his peak power ratings were lower than his mean power ratings, suggesting that subject 1 has a well-trained ATP-PC and Glycolytic systems, and is very lean for his weight. He was also able to stay near his peak power for most of the test, suggesting that the efficiency of his ATP-PC and Glycolytic systems means he is a well-trained athlete. Subject 2 was very powerful in the beginning of the test but began to lag behind quickly, suggesting that his ATP-PC system is very efficient and that he has a lot of type-2x fibers. This also suggests that his glycolytic system was not as well-conditioned and he was not as lean as subject 1.
Conclusion:
4. The conclusions I can make from figures 2 and 3 are that subject 2 had the greater ability to produce overall power for a limited time, but had a lower ratio of power output to kilogram of body mass. Subject 1 did not output as much overall power, but was able to keep up a continuous high power output for half of the test, and his power ratio to his body mass was higher than subject 2. Using this information only, a conclusion I can draw is that subject 1 is likely to be a well-conditioned and lean athlete who has a very efficient ATP-PC and glycolytic system, whereas subject 2 is a heavier and more powerful subject, but his ATP-PC and glycolytic systems are not as well-conditioned and he was unable to produce a high level of power before fatiguing very quickly.
5. Using the heart rate data, I can determine that subject 1 likely performed the test with much more vigor than subject 2, and was able to sustain that level of vigor throughout the whole test as his pulse rate was at 164 even one minute after rest. This also suggests that EPOC for subject 1 was more intense than what it was for subject 2, who had a pulse of only 117 after one minute of rest. Subject 2’s heart rate information seems to suggest that he likely performed the first and second intervals of the test with a lot of vigor but quickly became fatigues and did not use as much effort in the later portions of the test; possibly resting even in the last one or two intervals before the test was over as his pulse at the end of the test was only 132. This suggests that subject 1 is the more conditioned athlete because he was able to maintain his peak power output for a longer period of time and did not fatigue as quickly as subject 2, and that subject 1 was likely more willing to perform the test with greater vigor than subject 2.
Discussion:
The hypothesis for this experiment proved correct, and subject 1 actually exceeded expectations and was able to keep his maximal power output for 15 seconds, or half the test. I learned from this experiment that maximal intensity anaerobic muscle exertion cannot be kept up for more than a few seconds because of the relationship between the ATP-PC, glycolytic, and aerobic pathways. Things that went well with this experiment are that we were able to collect all of the necessary information to make calculations and to draw appropriate, evidence-based conclusions. The areas that could use improvement would be to use a better-functioning cycle ergometer and to have used more subjects, as a third test subject’s data was not usable due to mechanical malfunctions. However, we did at least have 2 test subjects to compare results, so the test does carry more validity than it would have with one subject. Overall, this test went well as the subjects were able to give an appropriate maximal exertion, no errors were made, and the results seemed reasonable as compared with norms listed in the lab manual.
Anaerobic Power Measurement As Determined Through Use Of Technological Measurement
Intro:
The purpose of this experiment was to gauge the anaerobic power output of 2 student volunteers who underwent the Wingate Anaerobic Test. The hypothesis I have for this test is that the 2 subjects will reach their peak anaerobic power within 10 seconds of beginning the test, and will begin to experience reduced power output for every 5 second interval after the first 10 seconds of the WAnT test. My group and I will test this hypothesis by recording live data as it is available during a WAnT test being given to the student volunteers. The data we will be recording will be baseline information about our subjects, such as weight and appropriate pedal resistance, pedal revolutions per 5-second interval, and heart rate information. Results will be interpreted by applying formulae to the data to determine absolute, mean, and relative peak power output, fatigue index, total work, and relative total work.
Methods and Materials:
The materials used were heart rate monitors, stopwatches, and a Monark cycle ergometer. The heart rate monitors were attached to the subjects and their heart rate information was taken by designated group member at appropriate times as indicated in Table 4. The stopwatches were used by another designated group member to mark times 1-minute before the test, the start of the test, the 5-second intervals, the end of the test, and 1 minute after the test for the purposes of collecting pedal revolutions and heart rate information. The cycle ergometer was used by the subjects to record their anaerobic power by adjusting the resistance setting of the pedals to an appropriate amount, as indicated in Subject Baseline Information, and having the subjects cycle through the protocol of the test. The method we used was to have the subject warm-up by cycling several times prior to the test on the cycle ergometer to ready them for maximal exertion. A group member was stationed near the cycle ergometer to record heart rate, time, and pedal revolutions per interval. The subject was then instructed to begin cycling with maximal intensity and to continue for 30 seconds. The group members recorded the appropriate information during the test and recorded them with pen and paper.
Results:
1. Subject 1 reached peak anaerobic power in the second and third 5-second intervals. Subject 2 reached peak anaerobic power in the first 5-second interval. The subjects likely achieved peak anaerobic power during this time period because this was the time where they were using primarily the phosphor-creatine and glycolytic paths and recruiting the highest number of type-2 fast fibers.
2. Ranks according to table 9.3:
A. Peak Power. Subject 1: 60th percentile Subject 2: 90th percentile
B. Relative Peak Power. Subject 1: 80th percentile Subject 2: 50th percentile
C. Mean Power. Subject 1: 80th percentile Subject 2: 25th percentile
D. Relative Mean Power. Subject 1: 95th percentile Subject 2: 10th percentile
E. Fatigue Index. Subject 1: 30th percentile Subject 2: 5th percentile
3. Subject 1’s muscle capabilities show that his peak power ratings were lower than his mean power ratings, suggesting that subject 1 has a well-trained ATP-PC and Glycolytic systems, and is very lean for his weight. He was also able to stay near his peak power for most of the test, suggesting that the efficiency of his ATP-PC and Glycolytic systems means he is a well-trained athlete. Subject 2 was very powerful in the beginning of the test but began to lag behind quickly, suggesting that his ATP-PC system is very efficient and that he has a lot of type-2x fibers. This also suggests that his glycolytic system was not as well-conditioned and he was not as lean as subject 1.
Conclusion:
4. The conclusions I can make from figures 2 and 3 are that subject 2 had the greater ability to produce overall power for a limited time, but had a lower ratio of power output to kilogram of body mass. Subject 1 did not output as much overall power, but was able to keep up a continuous high power output for half of the test, and his power ratio to his body mass was higher than subject 2. Using this information only, a conclusion I can draw is that subject 1 is likely to be a well-conditioned and lean athlete who has a very efficient ATP-PC and glycolytic system, whereas subject 2 is a heavier and more powerful subject, but his ATP-PC and glycolytic systems are not as well-conditioned and he was unable to produce a high level of power before fatiguing very quickly.
5. Using the heart rate data, I can determine that subject 1 likely performed the test with much more vigor than subject 2, and was able to sustain that level of vigor throughout the whole test as his pulse rate was at 164 even one minute after rest. This also suggests that EPOC for subject 1 was more intense than what it was for subject 2, who had a pulse of only 117 after one minute of rest. Subject 2’s heart rate information seems to suggest that he likely performed the first and second intervals of the test with a lot of vigor but quickly became fatigues and did not use as much effort in the later portions of the test; possibly resting even in the last one or two intervals before the test was over as his pulse at the end of the test was only 132. This suggests that subject 1 is the more conditioned athlete because he was able to maintain his peak power output for a longer period of time and did not fatigue as quickly as subject 2, and that subject 1 was likely more willing to perform the test with greater vigor than subject 2.
Discussion:
The hypothesis for this experiment proved correct, and subject 1 actually exceeded expectations and was able to keep his maximal power output for 15 seconds, or half the test. I learned from this experiment that maximal intensity anaerobic muscle exertion cannot be kept up for more than a few seconds because of the relationship between the ATP-PC, glycolytic, and aerobic pathways. Things that went well with this experiment are that we were able to collect all of the necessary information to make calculations and to draw appropriate, evidence-based conclusions. The areas that could use improvement would be to use a better-functioning cycle ergometer and to have used more subjects, as a third test subject’s data was not usable due to mechanical malfunctions. However, we did at least have 2 test subjects to compare results, so the test does carry more validity than it would have with one subject. Overall, this test went well as the subjects were able to give an appropriate maximal exertion, no errors were made, and the results seemed reasonable as compared with norms listed in the lab manual.