AIM:
1) Data analysis of indirect calorimetry method using Douglas bag in Student participants.
– Previously collected anonymised data
2) Analysis of a Physical Activity Diary (PAD)
– Analyse anonymised group data
Hypothesis to test:
⦁ That moderate physical activity markedly increases metabolic rate
⦁ That energy expenditure and heart rate are related
⦁ That RQ/RER alters with moderate physical activity
⦁ That estimated TEE from PAD using 2 methods differs
⦁ That estimated TEE from PAD varies with Body Weight
Things to Calculate and Analyse
⦁ Total Energy Expenditure (TEE) using PAD Diary and equations given.
⦁ Analyse the relationship between TEE and Body Weight (kg) using the anonymised Group data.
⦁ Compare values for group against indirect calorimetry and reference values (populations).
LAYOUT:
ABSTRACT: 150 WORDS
Summary of the report (background, hypothesis, method, results, conclusion; max 150 words-doesn’t count towards word count).
You can either write a paragraph of continuous text, or use the BMJ format (see any research paper in a recent BMJ issue).
The abstract should include data from your results (e.g. it was found that THIS was significantly greater than THAT (5±1 vs 2±1, p<0.05)), it is not sufficient to make a statement that is unsupported.
Also note that p values without actual data are not acceptable. Don’t forget to include units of measurement too, e.g. kg/m2.
INTRO: 300-450 WORDS
The reader needs to know why you carried out the study and what its aim is. This means: the background of the study needs to be covered: relevant theory and empirical research.
You need to clearly identify the issues, and you need to provide the reader with an idea of how previous studies have been carried out (provide a brief description of the method(s) used).
Your introduction should end by saying what kind of study you carried out and state the Aims and hypothesis(es). Usually you do not state the null hypothesis.
METHOD: 300-400 WORDS
The method section needs to be organised in the following subsections.
Sample : what kind of people? where from? age? gender? how many?
how selected and how allocated to groups? – opportunity or random sample, random allocation
• how are they representative? Materials
• describe materials such as instruments,questionnaires and justify choice of questionnaire as a whole, and/or of individual questions. If appropriate include drawing or photograph of experimental apparatus.
If any materials are adapted or taken from published work, give full details of the source. This section can be short.
Procedure
• describe step by step what happened: place and time of experiment, setting, recruitment of sample, consent form, instructions, tasks, debriefing. The reader should be able to understand every step of a study such that s/he could replicate it.
⦁ Data Analysis (optional subheading, otherwise describe under Procedure)
⦁ collating data
⦁ treatment of raw data
⦁ data analysis (e.g. Excel, or using SPSS)
⦁ what statistical analysis (e.g. correlations, ANOVA)
Results (~300 words)
⦁ You need to present all the main findings, using tables, figures and verbal descriptions. You also need to say what the results mean (e.g. which group performs better, whether the correlations are large or small).
⦁ General guidelines: the results section contains a verbal description of your findings together with statistics, tables and figures. A results section must not start with a table or graph.
Usually you present the descriptive statistics (e.g. means, standard deviations) before the inferential statistics (e.g. t-Test).
For beginners this is the most difficult section, and it may be useful to look at journal articles such as in the BMJ, or relevant psychological or sociological journals. Do not use figures for very simple descriptive statistics.
⦁ Table and Figures need to be numbered; do not forget precise headings and labelling. Every Table and Figure needs to be referred to in the text together with comments
Discussion (~300- 450 words)
•
The discussion will be in the form of a narrative which addresses the investigations and their relevance to a general population. The main focus of the discussion is a critical evaluation of your findings, in the context of the relevant literature.
There are four specific points to be covered in the discussion; you always start with point (a.), but after that you should decide what is the best way to proceed:
a. start with a summary of the main findings
b. how do the findings relate to the existing literature?
• (Do the findings agree or disagree with previous findings? – Do they clarify or add to existing knowledge?)
c. what are the limitations of the study? (e.g. size and nature of sample, confounding variables). Please do not say that the results were poor because “we were useless”!
d. what are the implications of the study? (e.g. theoretical & practical implications)
The critical evaluation takes place usually as part of points b. and c. It is useful to end the discussion with a Conclusion or Final Comment, which should summarise your most important findings, and say, if possible, what further research might be appropriate. If you do the latter, be specific and do not just say there is a need for further research because everybody knows that more research could be done on any topic.
References
List all references you used; make sure you use the Harvard Referencing Style
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|
