Analyse how the presentation of data collected during a 12-week aerobic training investigation can influence the conclusions drawn about improvements in cardiovascular efficiency. (6 marks)
--- 18 WORK AREA LINES (style=lined) ---
Show Answers Only
Sample Answer
- Presenting data as percentage change from baseline rather than raw numbers highlights relative improvements, allowing for more meaningful comparisons between participants with different starting fitness levels.
- Including both average group results and individual case studies provides a balanced view of overall trends while acknowledging that not all participants respond to aerobic training at the same rate or magnitude.
- Displaying progressive measurements (at 4, 8, and 12 weeks) rather than just pre/post data reveals the timeline of adaptations, showing whether improvements occur steadily or plateau at certain points.
- Comparing multiple cardiovascular measurements (resting heart rate, recovery time, blood pressure) creates a comprehensive picture of efficiency improvements rather than relying on a single measure that might not tell the complete story.
- Using clear visuals like line graphs with consistent scales prevents misinterpretation of the magnitude of improvements, ensuring conclusions accurately reflect the actual physiological changes observed.
- Separating data by relevant participant characteristics (age groups, initial fitness levels) allows for more precise conclusions about which populations might benefit most from similar aerobic training programs.
Show Worked Solution
Sample Answer
- Presenting data as percentage change from baseline rather than raw numbers highlights relative improvements, allowing for more meaningful comparisons between participants with different starting fitness levels.
- Including both average group results and individual case studies provides a balanced view of overall trends while acknowledging that not all participants respond to aerobic training at the same rate or magnitude.
- Displaying progressive measurements (at 4, 8, and 12 weeks) rather than just pre/post data reveals the timeline of adaptations, showing whether improvements occur steadily or plateau at certain points.
- Comparing multiple cardiovascular measurements (resting heart rate, recovery time, blood pressure) creates a comprehensive picture of efficiency improvements rather than relying on a single measure that might not tell the complete story.
- Using clear visuals like line graphs with consistent scales prevents misinterpretation of the magnitude of improvements, ensuring conclusions accurately reflect the actual physiological changes observed.
- Separating data by relevant participant characteristics (age groups, initial fitness levels) allows for more precise conclusions about which populations might benefit most from similar aerobic training programs.