Mark Denesha Dr.

Mattern

3/1/12 Ex Phys. Lab Techniques

Efficiency Lab
Purpose The purpose of this lab was to compare external work (e.g. exercise) to the total energy expended to complete that work. This percentage is called mechanical efficiency. Because energy cannot be created or destroyed (1st Law of Thermodynamics), the remaining energy that is not used for exercise is given off as heat.

Methods Subjects were instructed to wear comfortable clothing that would allow them to move freely. Additionally, it was recommended that subjects did not eat immediately before the test. Subjects were questioned regarding health and health history. Some example questions were
Initials NC JL EK Age 21 22 21 Gender F F F BW (kg) 60 64.9 78.3

*Table above shows subject data. 1) Are you taking any supplements? 2) Do you have any orthopedic limitations? After it was deemed safe to proceed with the exercise test basic information, which can be seen in Table 1, was collected. The protocol was established and explained to the subject as well as the purpose of our test. Our test consisted of 3 females with their data provided in the table above. The test took place in Tuttle South and the materials used were a Velotron cycle ergometer, metabolic cart, computer (with software), scale, and a stopwatch. A mouthpiece was constructed for our subjects and then mounted to headgear to allow for more comfort. It consisted of a 2-way non-rebreathing air valve. Calibration of the metabolic cart took place next. The three instruments that required calibration were the pneumotachometer, oxygen analyzer, and carbon dioxide analyzer. Before calibration we input meteorological data (room temperature, barometric pressure, and relative humidity). This information

allowed us to convert from ambient to standard conditions. The pneumotachometer was calibrated with a special calibration syringe that injects an exact volume of air (3 liters). This was done several times until it was within 2%. Next oxygen and carbon dioxide analyzers were calibrated using a tank of calibration gas that contained 16% O2 and 4% CO2. These percentages are important because they are similar to what an individual may exhale. The subject was instructed to sit down quietly and to relax for a period of 10 minutes. After this period the subject information was plugged into the metabolic cart and the mouthpiece was placed into their mouth. Also, a nose clip was used to prevent inhalation and exhalation through the nose. They breathed in through the mouthpiece attached to the metabolic cart for 5 minutes. We recorded measurements during this period for oxygen uptake and respiratory exchange ratio. We then took the average values, for each, for the last minutes. The cycle was setup to fit each subject by adjusting seat height (to allow for an approximate 10 degree bend at the knee during full extension), handlebars were moved closer/farther for comfort, and finally feet were strapped securely into the stirrups. The subject then exercised for 10 minutes at 900 kgm/min (150 Watts). We then averaged the measured VO2 and RER during the last minutes of exercise. Subject was allowed time to cool down following exercise. Results
Subjects NC JL EK Workload (kgm/min) 600 765 765 Experience (110) 7 5 5 Gross % 18.70% 19.40% 17.30% Net % 23.00% 22.79 20.40%

*Table above indicates the gross efficiency, net efficiency, and the average workload for each subject.
Table 2 Class Gross % Avg. 18.47 Net % Avg. 22.06 Workload Avg. 710

*Table 2 above indicates the class averages for gross efficiency, net efficiency, and workload. The normative value for efficiency is 15-25%. Our class average for net efficiency was 22.06% placing us right in the middle of the normative values.

Discussion Percent efficiency is essentially the percentage of ATP used that goes towards exercise performed. As efficiency increases a greater percentage of the actual energy expended can be seen as external work (exercise). This will allow an athlete to increase performance because less energy will be given off as heat. Our class average fell within the normative value (15-25%). Our class average was also closer to the 25% range indicating that our class had possibly received prior training, which has increased their net efficiency. If they were more sedentary and had no experience/prior training we would have expected to see a lower efficiency; perhaps closer to the 15% value.