Literature DB >> 17127580

Olympic lightweight and open-class rowers possess distinctive physical and proportionality characteristics.

D A Kerr1, W D Ross, K Norton, P Hume, M Kagawa, T R Ackland.   

Abstract

Rowers competing at the 2000 Olympic Games were measured for 38 anthropometric dimensions. The aim was to identify common physical characteristics that could provide a competitive advantage. The participants included 140 male open-class rowers, 69 female open-class rowers, 50 male lightweight rowers, and 14 female lightweight rowers. Body mass, stature, and sitting height were different (P < 0.01) between the open-class and lightweight rowers, as well as a comparison group of healthy young adults ("non-rowers", 42 males, 71 females), for both sexes. After scaling for stature, the open-class rowers remained proportionally heavier than the non-rowers, with greater proportional chest, waist, and thigh dimensions (P < 0.01). Rowers across all categories possessed a proportionally smaller hip girth than the non-rowers (P < 0.01), which suggested the equipment places some constraints on this dimension. Top-ranked male open-class rowers were significantly taller and heavier and had a greater sitting height (P < 0.01) than their lower-ranked counterparts. They were also more muscular in the upper body, as indicated by a larger relaxed arm girth and forearm girth (P < 0.01). For the male lightweight rowers, only proportional thigh length was greater in the best competitors (P < 0.01). In the female open-class rowers, skinfold thicknesses were lower in the more highly placed competitors (P < 0.01). In conclusion, the rowers in this sample demonstrated distinctive physical characteristics that distinguish them from non-rowers and other sports performers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17127580     DOI: 10.1080/02640410600812179

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Sports Sci        ISSN: 0264-0414            Impact factor:   3.337


  5 in total

Review 1.  Current status of body composition assessment in sport: review and position statement on behalf of the ad hoc research working group on body composition health and performance, under the auspices of the I.O.C. Medical Commission.

Authors:  Timothy R Ackland; Timothy G Lohman; Jorunn Sundgot-Borgen; Ronald J Maughan; Nanna L Meyer; Arthur D Stewart; Wolfram Müller
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 11.136

Review 2.  Strength testing and training of rowers: a review.

Authors:  Trent W Lawton; John B Cronin; Michael R McGuigan
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2011-05-01       Impact factor: 11.136

3.  High Energetic Demand of Elite Rowing - Implications for Training and Nutrition.

Authors:  Kay Winkert; Juergen M Steinacker; Karsten Koehler; Gunnar Treff
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2022-04-19       Impact factor: 4.755

Review 4.  The Great British Medalists Project: A Review of Current Knowledge on the Development of the World's Best Sporting Talent.

Authors:  Tim Rees; Lew Hardy; Arne Güllich; Bruce Abernethy; Jean Côté; Tim Woodman; Hugh Montgomery; Stewart Laing; Chelsea Warr
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 11.136

5.  A comparison of body composition assessment methods in climbers: Which is better?

Authors:  María José Arias Téllez; Fernando Carrasco; Vanesa España Romero; Jorge Inostroza; Alejandro Bustamante; Ignacio Solar Altamirano
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-11-20       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.