Saddleback Journal of Biology - Saddleback College

Fall 2009 Biology 3B Paper
conducted at Saddleback College swimming pool and
the use of a Lactate Scout and 100 lactate test strips
were also provided by the Biology Department at
Saddleback College. The Lactate Scout had been
calibrated before collecting the data to ensure the
accuracy of the results.
To begin the testing process, the water polo
players were asked to rest for fifteen minutes then take
their heart rate at resting level prior to swimming a 500
yard (457.2 meters) warm-up. After the subjects rested
for fifteen minutes, their index fingers were cleaned
with an alcohol wipe, air-dried, and pricked with
lancets to obtain a blood sample for the Lactate Scout
to read. From this reading, the baseline blood lactate
levels were obtained and the subjects started off by
swimming the 500 yard warm-up. After the warm-ups
were swum, the subjects were asked to wait one minute
before swimming a 100 yard. For this sprint, the
participants were asked to swim especially hard to
ensure the most lactate production. Immediately after
the participants finished the all-out sprint, their index
fingers were, again, cleaned with alcohol wipes and
pricked to obtain the blood lactate levels after extreme
exercise. These data were recorded in the biology
notebook that was handed out by Professor Teh. The
process of collecting blood lactate samples was
repeated 3 times in 10 minute intervals, totaling to 30
minutes altogether. During the half an hour of blood
sampling, the water polo players were asked to sit still
so that no more lactate would build up in their blood.
This was another precaution taken to ensure accurate
results because even the act of walking can produce an
adequate amount of lactate. Once all the data were
collected, the investigators proceeded to use the
appropriate measures to calculate and interpret all the
data.
Analysis begun by performing paired, onetailed
t-tests two samples for means. These t-tests were
ran using Microsoft Excel; these tests were ran
multiple times to see the correlation between lactate
production and time, heart rate and time, and the
average times it took for the seven male water polo
players to come back down to their baseline blood
lactate levels. Statistical analysis was also used in the
calculation for the means of lactate production,
recovery time, and heart rates. Statistical analysis was
also used to find the standard error mean in order to
include the SEM. bars on the figures. Three figures in
total were produced using the interpreted data from
these various tests. One figure was used to correlate
lactate production versus time, another was used to
correlate lactate recovery versus time, and the last was
used to see what the relationship between heart rate and
time was.
Results
There was a significant difference
(p=0.00045, one-tail, paired t-test) in recovery time
(min) without swimming a 200 yard cool down
compared with swimming a 200 yard cool down. The
mean value of recovery time without a cool down lap is
24.6 ± 2.06 min (± SEM, n=7) while the mean value
for recovery time with a cool down lap is 10.6 ± 1.57
min (± SEM, n=7) (Figure 1). However, there was no
significant difference (p=0.38, one-tailed, paired t-test)
in average mass specific lactate levels in blood versus
time (min). The mean value of average mass specific
lactate levels for swimming a cool down lap is 0.068 ±
0.0085mmol/L·Kg (± SEM, n=7) while the mean value
for lactate level in swimming a cool down lap is 0.064
± 0.12mmol/L·Kg (± SEM, n=7) (Figure 2). The
average heart rate was then plotted between beats per
minute (BPM) of each individual versus time (min) and
it was found to be of no significant difference (p=0.36,
one-tailed, paired t-test). The mean value of average
heart rate is 94.8± 15.97 (BPM) (± SEM, n=7) without
a cool down lap and 96.7± 19.40(BPM) (± SEM, n=7)
with a cool down lap (Figure 3).
Figure 1 - A one-tailed, paired t-test was calculated on
the average recovery times of each participant: p-
value=4.46X10 -4 ; standard error mean bars are shown
±SEM.
110
Saddleback Journal of Biology
Spring 2010