FULL H1 NOTES FOR PHYS30005

Written by Vincent

PHYS30005 Muscle & Exercise Physiology - Skeletal Muscle Structure & Function; Muscle Injury; Muscle...

196 pages, 45098 words

PHYS30005 Fully Comprehesive Notes (Weeks 9-12)

Written by Krishna

These notes cover all lectures and tutorial questions from weeks 9-12. For other weeks, refer to my...

23 pages, 16930 words

PHYS30005 Lecture Notes

Written by William

Very detailed notes on every lecture taught. All important diagrams and charts explained clearly alo...

210 pages, 36157 words

H1 Muscle and Exercise Physiology Course Summary Notes

Written by Paul

Detailed H1 Muscle and Exercise Physiology notes, summarised across lectures (this course has signif...

45 pages, 45 words

PHYS30005 Fully Comprehesive Notes (Weeks 1-4)

Written by Krishna

These notes cover all lectures and tutorial questions from weeks 1-4. For weeks 5-12, refer to my ot...

26 pages, 18326 words

PHYS30005 Fully Comprehesive Notes (Weeks 5-8)

Written by Krishna

These notes cover all lectures and tutorial questions from weeks 5-8. For other lectures, refer to m...

28 pages, 17340 words

PHYS30005 Lecture Notes

Written by Q

Complete lecture notes for PHYS30005 Sem 1, 2017. TOPICS: Lecture 1: Skeletal Muscle Structure-F...

122 pages, 38000 words

Nikka

$45 per hour

Hey guys, My name is Nikka and I am a Bachelor of Science (physiology major) graduate. I recently...

Reviews

I found this subject to be pretty poorly structured and the assessments to be pretty random. I felt like I was doing badly the entire time during semester and it was hard to study for exam, but somehow I ended up doing much better than I thought I would. The content is interesting though, and having done this subject has definitely helped me in the first couple of weeks of Frontiers in Physiology (as they start with muscle and physiology).

Anonymous, Semester 1, 2019

well well well... This subject was messy and unfair (in terms of assessment content). 1) My first complain would be about the lecturers. There's at least 5 different lecturers, the main ones were Rene and Gordon, this means 5 different styles of teaching (structure of lectures...). Rene's lectures were alright from my personal experience and quite easy to grab at first... (and this is where it becomes handy) but didn't match the questions asked in MSTs (especially). Rene expects student to know more than what he teaches in lectures, even the tiny tiny details of the studies he'd put on his slides, which is quite unfair. Gordon's lectures are so dense and repetitive, they become boring and hard to get through. The way he explains things are like big chunk of stories you get lost in. His lectures on plasticity and muscle repair (all of them tbh) were made out of studies, upon studies and studies, they were ALL over the place. Gordon's explanations were for me very vague. The problem was to put everything together, in a way for you to have an overview of what was going on. You had to know all the tiny details of each studies and this is beyond time consuming and exhausting, but above all not worth it. 2) The workshops were all over the place, Rene was the main one to run them and you had Yossi and David at the back of the theatre jumping into the conversation, cutting Rene in his explanation to add things that made the whole workshop harder to understand. You had inputs of at least 2-3 different people in workshops and let me tell you how awkward it became sometimes. It felt like, workshops were running by men high on testosterone who only wanted to show up their knowledge and expertise on the field. Also, David assumes you already know concepts and continues without so much of an explanation either. 3) MSTs were HARD. In MST1, at least 2 questions were 10 marks each, you mess up both, you mess up your MST1 and for the time given, many questions required more than 1 mins reflection. For MST2, you had to know tiny details of each lectures (mostly studies) to do good. 4) The Assignment was very very confusing, the questions asked required you to go beyond what was taught in the lectures. You had to think logically and not miss any details in your answers (receptors, exercise intensity...). They mark it very harsh and the average was 60/100 (low). The feedbacks were poor and above all not helpful, because again they assume you'll know concepts beforehand. 5) Final exam was easier than both MSTs, this may be your chance to do good in this subject. I'll advice people to concentrate on the last module more for the final exam. Overall, if you don't major in Physiology, don't do it. Even if the content is interesting, it is poorly taught and examined.

Anonymous, Semester 1, 2019

everything was so vague in the subject

Anonymous, Semester 1, 2019

This subject is very badly taught. First of all, Rene is a great researcher {period}, he is extremely bad at teaching new concepts. He expects you to know certain knowledge about the content that are just not taught in prerequisites. A note to you, if you care about your WAM, the 2 MSTs which are 15% each are about 2-3 times harder than the final exam (60%). The final exam itself is relatively quire easy if you truly understand the underlying concept across lectures. I have 2 complaints about this subject (1) The lecturers. They need to learn to teach. Currently, Rene has many slides that contain graphs and concepts that have alot of implicit info which would require you to analyse and breakdown, it is especially difficult in the beginning of the semester to understand what the content is about because you are still just trying to synthesise the new very complex and foreign concepts. Rene should spend just 3 lectures covering the basic concept of physiology that pertains to exercise. This would have been much better. Cause currently the subject will give you aids. (2) The MSTs. We had questions that asked you to recall a newly discovered transporter that was in a diagram in the slides that was not even talked in detail much about. The only reason I can think of why that question even exist in the MST was to make sure you got it wrong, or were really good at guessing. This type of questioning is disgusting, if the assessment was about testing your luck and randomness finding ability, then sure.

Anonymous, Semester 1, 2018

Most boring subject ever, slides unclear and lecturer bad.

Anonymous, Semester 2, 2014

A generally well taught subject, with plenty of guest lecturers to keep the course fresh and interesting. Throughout the semester, it is made quite clear what is required knowledge for the MSTs and exams, although some of the questions in the tests are quite specifically referring to subject matter that wasn't strongly focused on in lectures, therefore a broad understanding of the lecture material is vital.

Anonymous, Semester 1, 2014