Identify the training method and nutritional component that indicated the greatest proportional change pre- and post-intervention.

Calculate the difference in fat intake pre- and post-testing for the heavy training load group.

With reference to Figure 1, discuss the effect of heavy and moderate training load on carbohydrate intake.

The results in Figure 1 are inconclusive for fat intake in the moderate training load group. Outline the statistical reasons for this finding.

Outline two reasons for differences in protein intake between the heavy and moderate training load groups.

State the composition of a molecule of triacylglycerol.

Identify one fitness component that the study cited in Question 1 is designed to improve.

Explain the benefits of field fitness tests.

heavy and protein;

90–80;
10 <g day^–1>;

Accept 80–89
9 <g day^–1>;
No ECF

for moderate exercise, carbohydrate intake is the same / does not change for both pre- and post-training <may be on 300 g day^–1 both pre- and post->;

for heavy training, carbohydrate intake increases / increases from 300 g day^–1 <pre> to 340–350 g day^–1 <post>;

mean values are similar / not substantively different;

standard deviations large/greater than the difference in the mean/overlapping error bars, identifying a large spread of data about the mean, indicating unreliable results;

coefficient of variation would be large/greater;

heavy workload causes greater muscle tissue damage, greater protein intake is used for repair;

heavier workload causes greater hypertrophy, protein required to build new muscle;

Accept in the converse.

Do not accept ‘more calories required’ or discussion of timings.

There needs to be a specific function for protein.

glycerol and three fatty acids;

power;

strength;

muscular endurance;

easier to achieve high ecological validity due to familiarity of environment

OR

results are more valid due to contextual/comfortable environment;

relatively inexpensive/affordable compared to laboratory tests

OR

often accessible to coaches/athletes to use in their performance environments;

therefore limited expertise required to deliver tests;

able to test multiple participants/test participants simultaneously

OR

collection of data can be quicker/larger/more accessible compared to laboratory methods;

typically, non-invasive therefore more engagement from coaches/athletes;

improvements in technology have improved accuracy of field tests;

Generally answered well. However, candidates that were not credited failed to identify the relevant nutritional component.

Most candidates approached this question correctly, providing the working and the correct answer. It is important to be aware that moving forward calculate questions will not be awarded 2 marks. They will be reduced to 1 mark for the correct answer only.

Candidates were able to confidently answer this question.

A poorly answered question, those candidates who were able to access a mark, referred to the size of the error bars/standard deviation. However, few referred to the mean values or the impact on coefficient of variation.

Most candidates appreciated the role of protein for muscle repair, with some identifying the use of protein to build muscle tissue. However few candidates were able to link the role of heavy training load and protein requirements.

Many candidates found this challenging with several responses stating glucose/glycogen and fatty acids as the composition.

A moderately well answered question. Those candidates who were unable to access the marks were unable to identify a component of fitness. This is an area to review with candidates to ensure what the components of fitness are.

This was poorly addressed by candidates. Although they understood how field tests may be conducted, many were only able to list the benefits of field fitness tests. Whereas the command term for the question is explain. Candidates would benefit from greater analysis and discussion of field tests in comparison to laboratory-based tests.