During exercise, the body uses two primarily different systems with respect to different categories of energy expenditure based on low intensity and long intervals, and high intensity and short intervals. The two systems, anaerobic and aerobic glycolysis, occur at different intervals during exercise and require different energy expenditures depending on the type of energy exerted. Aerobic glycolysis occurs during long-duration exercise, while the anaerobic system is activated during short, high-intensity intervals. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The anaerobic system uses two different systems, the ATP/PC system and anaerobic glycolysis. ATP/PC is implemented during approximately the first 5 seconds of exercise and is followed by anaerobic glycolysis. Anaerobic power, also called peak power, can be described as the greatest amount of energy used in a segment of a total time interval during a power test. Additionally, the measure of anaerobic capacity is derived from data collected over the total time interval and illustrates the total amount of work exerted in said interval (Smith & Hill, 1991, p. 196). Anaerobic capacity is most effectively demonstrated when an individual or athlete suddenly performs a movement that constitutes a rapid, powerful burst of energy (Zupan, Arata, & Dawson, 2009, p. 2598). Anaerobic power and anaerobic capacity can be measured separately and by different tests and methods, but a correlation between the two is plausible. Data collected on anaerobic capacity on various individuals may possess a significant range of values, but there is proven scientific evidence that the capacity maintained anaerobically has a relevant relationship with the anaerobic power exerted by the same individuals (Medbo & Burgers, 1990, p. 501). The purpose of this experiment was to perform two different power measurement tests that express anaerobic power and anaerobic capacity, and to compare and contrast the two with respect to the efficiencies between their correlations. The hypothesis of this experiment is that there is a moderately strong juxtaposition between the principles. of anaerobic power and anaerobic capacity because without capacity there is no power and both coexist due to the contribution of the anaerobic systems and efforts within the body. MethodsThis experiment focuses on the Sergeant Jump test and the Wingate test. For the Sergeant Jump test, there were four college-aged participants, ranging in age from 19 to 21 years old. To begin the experiment, it was necessary to correctly present the equipment by first stabilizing the Vertec in order to adjust the length of the pole, so that the first vane was at the exact height of the participant's fingertips when the arm was raised. This initial step was repeated four different times due to the height range of all participants. Once the pole was adjusted, the participant stood under the apparatus and performed a stationary counter-jump by crouching, swinging the arms upward, and hitting the vane as high as possible. on the Vertec. This step was repeated a total of three times for each participant. While each participant jumped and reached a weather vane, one individual stood at the Vertec and held the pole to maintain its stability. After each trial for each participant, another person analyzed the Vertec and relayed to the group the highest vane reached by that participant. Each number wasrecorded by each member of the group. After receiving all the data, the power was calculated by first converting the inches displayed on each blade to centimeters. These measurements were then plugged into the power formula by multiplying it by 60.7 plus 45.3 times each participant's body mass in kg. This value was then subtracted in 2055. These values ​​were used to find the peak power and average output power. Each participant's average power was compared to a provided "age and gender classification table" to determine normative values. The Wingate test was carried out by the same participants (only 3 results were usable however) and it involved each member of the group taking on a task such as setting resistance, timing, counting pedal revolutions and recording values. the seat was adjusted to allow 5 to 10° of knee flexion for each participant who had to remain seated for the duration of the test. Each individual began their trial by maintaining a constant speed of 50 rpm at 1-1. 5 Kp for two timed minutes. After the warm-up, the individual adjusting the resistance moved the knob to the Kp that coincided with their weight, and the individual on the bike pedaled for a constant 30 seconds at their strongest endurance. Every five seconds, a member would call out "five" and the counter would then announce the number of pedal revolutions in that interval for another member to record the value. This was repeated for each participant every five seconds for a total of 30 seconds, and individuals were then asked to cycle at a reduced speed in order to cool down for 1 to 2 minutes. Resistance, revolutions, total revolutions and power (W) were recorded. Maximum anaerobic power, average anaerobic power, total work and fatigue index were then calculated. Each participant's results were compared to a provided table illustrating the "normative values ​​of young adult men and women." The graph display is tiny due to the tiny number of members in the participating group, section 004, totaling four individuals. After recording this data once again into the Excel graphical spreadsheet, the correlation coefficient calculated and displayed was 0.981. The provided table “Interpretation of Strength of Correlation Results” (Table IX) illustrates that A “very strong” correlation represents correlation coefficient values ​​ranging from 0.81 to 1.00. According to this table, it is evident that the documented aerobic power for this specific group has a close relationship with the documented aerobic capacity of the group. Looking at the correlation presented from the graph, it is conveyed by the line of best fit. that there is a negative slope between the two mechanisms. According to the figure, these results can be interpreted as follows: as the group's anaerobic power increased during the Jump Test, the anaerobic capacity of the fatigue index decreased. This could mean that during the Jump Test, the more anaerobic power exerted to perform the test resulted in a decrease in the anaerobic capacity deployed. Perhaps if there were more participants, the essential result of the graph and the correlation coefficient would be different, and the results would be discussed and presented with divergent conclusions. DiscussionEssentially, the main findings of this experiment reflect that anaerobic power does in fact have a relationship with anaerobic capacity. Although anaerobic capacity demonstrates the extent of a specific energy exerted and anaerobic power reflects the degree of that energy exerted, the two have a strong correlation..