The story opening this chapter described a world-
831
Can the Work Capacity of Muscle Be Increased by Extracting Heat from the Palms of the Hands?
Original Paper: Grahn, D. A., V. H. Cao, C. M. Nguyen, M. T. Liu and H. C. Heller. 2012. Work volume and strength training responses to resistive exercise improve with periodic heat extraction from the palm. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 26(9): 2558–
At the beginning of the chapter you learned that mammals dissipate excess heat through their non-
investigatinglife work with the data follows below.
This experiment involves a simple outcome measure: number of bench presses in 6 sets done to muscle failure. The experimental manipulation is heat extraction from a palm between sets. The control condition is an equivalent period of rest between sets without palmar cooling. The main question is whether there is a difference in the work volume when cooled versus when not cooled. However, there are some complicating factors: (1) the subjects varied considerably in their initial work capacity, and (2) since the treatments were sequential there could be an order effect. To minimize the order effect, the treatments were randomized as to palmar cooling or no cooling. Your analysis must first standardize the data, then test for an order effect, and finally test for a treatment effect.
How can you standardize the data? Because the subjects began the experiment at different ability levels, the absolute increase in repetitions cannot be used as a comparative outcome measure. An increase of 5 repetitions is more impressive for a subject who began at 25 than for one who began at 50—
How can you test for a treatment effect? Each subject was cooled in one treatment and not cooled in the other treatment. To see if there is a difference in the percent increase due to palmar cooling, you can average the percent increases for all subjects in their cooling treatments and for all subjects in their control treatments. Using a paired t-test, you can assess whether palmar cooling had a significant effect on the outcome.
QUESTIONS
Because this experiment involved repetitions of a physical activity, you would expect there to be a conditioning effect whether the subjects were cooled or not, and you might expect the improvements to be greater in the second treatment than in the first. To test for an order effect, compare the percent increases for all subjects in treatment 1 to the percent increases for all subjects in treatment 2. For statistical analysis use a paired t-test (see Appendix B). What do you conclude about a possible order effect in your collection of data?
Standardizing results to percent increases in treatments 1 and 2, averaging and calculating standard deviations for those two groups, comparing the two groups to determine if there is a possible order effect through use of a paired t-test.
Percent increase, experiment 1 | Percent increase, treatment 2 | |
---|---|---|
Subject | Control group (no cooling) | Treatment group (palmar cooling) |
1 | 35.29 | 11.11 |
2 | 24.00 | 27.59 |
3 | 4.55 | 5.80 |
4 | 28.30 | 12.50 |
5 | 25.86 | 35.44 |
6 | 3.28 | 14.93 |
7 | 2.70 | 76.74 |
8 | 6.00 | 28.57 |
9 | –5.26 | 28.95 |
Treatment group | Control group | |
10 | 39.39 | 7.87 |
11 | 11.49 | 5.62 |
12 | 30.00 | 8.75 |
13 | 32.31 | 39.44 |
14 | 57.89 | 26.19 |
15 | 42.62 | 21.59 |
16 | 53.33 | 18.67 |
17 | 48.98 | 1.35 |
Mean | 25.93 | 21.83 |
Standard deviation | 18.80 | 17.53 |
The P-value (0.058) shows there is no significant difference between the two data sets and therefore there cannot be an order effect.
Each subject was cooled in one treatment and not cooled in the other treatment. To see if there is a difference in the percent increase due to palmar cooling, average the percent increases for all subjects in their cooling treatments and for all subjects in their control treatments. Using a paired t-test, you can assess whether palmar cooling had a significant effect on the outcome. What do you conclude about a treatment effect in your experimental results?
The standardized values (percent increases) are sorted according to treatment—
Subject | Palmar cooling | No cooling |
---|---|---|
1 | 11.11 | 35.29 |
2 | 27.59 | 24.00 |
3 | 5.80 | 4.55 |
4 | 12.50 | 28.30 |
5 | 35.44 | 25.86 |
6 | 14.93 | 3.28 |
7 | 76.74 | 2.70 |
8 | 28.57 | 6.00 |
9 | 28.95 | –5.26 |
10 | 39.39 | 7.87 |
11 | 11.49 | 5.62 |
12 | 30.00 | 8.75 |
13 | 32.31 | 39.44 |
14 | 57.89 | 26.19 |
15 | 42.62 | 21.59 |
16 | 53.33 | 18.67 |
17 | 48.98 | 1.35 |
Mean | 32.80 | 14.95 |
Standard deviation | 18.54 | 12.88 |
The P value of < 0.008 is highly significant, indicating that the increases during the palmar cooling treatments were greater than the increases during the no cooling treatments.
Is the hypothesis supported or disproven? Explain.
The hypothesis that extracting excess heat from the body will increase the capacity of an individual’s muscles to do work is supported by these data. Normalizing the data to percent increases and then testing for order effects showed that there was no effect from whether the cooling or the control treatment came first. Testing for treatment effect, however, yielded a highly significant benefit to the cooling treatment.
A similar work with the data exercise may be assigned in LaunchPad.
Pyruvate kinase is an enzyme critical for production of ATP in muscles; it catalyzes the last step in glycolysis, producing pyruvate that can enter the mitochondria and be metabolized to produce ATP (see Figure 9.12). Without ATP, muscles fatigue. Muscle pyruvate kinase inactivates around 40°C, which shuts off muscle function and thereby prevents thermal damage to the muscle.The thermal inactivation of muscle pyruvate kinase is probably a protective adaptation to prevent thermal damage to the muscle. You may thus wonder, if we could facilitate the extraction of heat from muscle, could we increase its capacity to do work? We consider this question in Investigating Life: Can the Work Capacity of Muscle Be Increased by Extracting Heat from the Palms of the Hands?