Whereas, increasing stimulus interval to the B.marinus gastronemius muscle will decrease peak contractile force. As shown in Table 5 and Figure 4, the stimulus intervals started from 1000msec to 25msec with 0.25msec, 0.5msec and 100msec interval gaps. From average of the three trials conducted, from 1000msec decreasing to 100msec of stimulus intervals, the peak contractile force steadily and slowly increased. However, from 100msec to 50msec of stimulus intervals, the peak contractile force rapidly increased from 732.66mN to 975.33mN. The steadiness of increase in peak contractile force returns to its normal pattern from 50msec to 25msec from a slow increase of 975.33mN to 982.33mN. The graph demonstrates this inversely proportional relationship of the decrease in stimulus intervals as the peak contractile forces increase (Refer to Figure 4). The only error in the data is the rapid increase of peak contractile force from 50mN to 25mN, although the data follows the trend and confirms the
Whereas, increasing stimulus interval to the B.marinus gastronemius muscle will decrease peak contractile force. As shown in Table 5 and Figure 4, the stimulus intervals started from 1000msec to 25msec with 0.25msec, 0.5msec and 100msec interval gaps. From average of the three trials conducted, from 1000msec decreasing to 100msec of stimulus intervals, the peak contractile force steadily and slowly increased. However, from 100msec to 50msec of stimulus intervals, the peak contractile force rapidly increased from 732.66mN to 975.33mN. The steadiness of increase in peak contractile force returns to its normal pattern from 50msec to 25msec from a slow increase of 975.33mN to 982.33mN. The graph demonstrates this inversely proportional relationship of the decrease in stimulus intervals as the peak contractile forces increase (Refer to Figure 4). The only error in the data is the rapid increase of peak contractile force from 50mN to 25mN, although the data follows the trend and confirms the