Literature DB >> 22401296

Measures of rowing performance.

T Brett Smith1, Will G Hopkins.   

Abstract

Accurate measures of performance are important for assessing competitive athletes in practi~al and research settings. We present here a review of rowing performance measures, focusing on the errors in these measures and the implications for testing rowers. The yardstick for assessing error in a performance measure is the random variation (typical or standard error of measurement) in an elite athlete's competitive performance from race to race: ∼1.0% for time in 2000 m rowing events. There has been little research interest in on-water time trials for assessing rowing performance, owing to logistic difficulties and environmental perturbations in performance time with such tests. Mobile ergometry via instrumented oars or rowlocks should reduce these problems, but the associated errors have not yet been reported. Measurement of boat speed to monitor on-water training performance is common; one device based on global positioning system (GPS) technology contributes negligible extra random error (0.2%) in speed measured over 2000 m, but extra error is substantial (1-10%) with other GPS devices or with an impeller, especially over shorter distances. The problems with on-water testing have led to widespread use of the Concept II rowing ergometer. The standard error of the estimate of on-water 2000 m time predicted by 2000 m ergometer performance was 2.6% and 7.2% in two studies, reflecting different effects of skill, body mass and environment in on-water versus ergometer performance. However, well trained rowers have a typical error in performance time of only ∼0.5% between repeated 2000 m time trials on this ergometer, so such trials are suitable for tracking changes in physiological performance and factors affecting it. Many researchers have used the 2000 m ergometer performance time as a criterion to identify other predictors of rowing performance. Standard errors of the estimate vary widely between studies even for the same predictor, but the lowest errors (~1-2%) have been observed for peak power output in an incremental test, some measures of lactate threshold and measures of 30-second all-out power. Some of these measures also have typical error between repeated tests suitably low for tracking changes. Combining measures via multiple linear regression needs further investigation. In summary, measurement of boat speed, especially with a good GPS device, has adequate precision for monitoring training performance, but adjustment for environmental effects needs to be investigated. Time trials on the Concept II ergometer provide accurate estimates of a rower's physiological ability to output power, and some submaximal and brief maximal ergometer performance measures can be used frequently to monitor changes in this ability. On-water performance measured via instrumented skiffs that determine individual power output may eventually surpass measures derived from the Concept II.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22401296     DOI: 10.2165/11597230-000000000-00000

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sports Med        ISSN: 0112-1642            Impact factor:   11.136


  32 in total

1.  The relationship between selected physiological variables of rowers and rowing performance as determined by a 2000 m ergometer test.

Authors:  M J Cosgrove; J Wilson; D Watt; S F Grant
Journal:  J Sports Sci       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 3.337

2.  Investigation of biomechanical factors affecting rowing performance.

Authors:  Alexandre Baudouin; David Hawkins
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 2.712

3.  Fixed versus free-floating stretcher mechanism in rowing ergometers: mechanical aspects.

Authors:  F Colloud; P Bahuaud; N Doriot; S Champely; L Chèze
Journal:  J Sports Sci       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 3.337

4.  SURFACE MOTION OF WATER INDUCED BY WIND.

Authors:  I Langmuir
Journal:  Science       Date:  1938-02-11       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Energy systems contributions in 2,000 m race simulation: a comparison among rowing ergometers and water.

Authors:  Fernando de Campos Mello; Rômulo Cássio de Moraes Bertuzzi; Patricia Moreno Grangeiro; Emerson Franchini
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2009-08-26       Impact factor: 3.078

6.  A kinematic comparison of ergometer and on-water rowing.

Authors:  D H Lamb
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1989 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.202

7.  Variability and predictability of finals times of elite rowers.

Authors:  Tiaki Brett Smith; Will G Hopkins
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 5.411

8.  Ergometer rowing with and without slides.

Authors:  A Holsgaard-Larsen; K Jensen
Journal:  Int J Sports Med       Date:  2010-09-08       Impact factor: 3.118

9.  Does 2000-m rowing ergometer performance time correlate with final rankings at the World Junior Rowing Championship? A case study of 398 elite junior rowers.

Authors:  Pavle Mikulic; Tomislav Smoljanovic; Ivan Bojanic; Jo Hannafin; Zeljko Pedisic
Journal:  J Sports Sci       Date:  2009-02-15       Impact factor: 3.337

10.  The Rowing Cycle: Sources of Variance and Invariance in Ergometer and On-the-Water Performance.

Authors:  R G Dawson; R J Lockwood; J D Wilson; G Freeman
Journal:  J Mot Behav       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 1.328

View more
  14 in total

1.  Impact of ischaemia-reperfusion cycles during ischaemic preconditioning on 2000-m rowing ergometer performance.

Authors:  Tiago Turnes; Rafael Alves de Aguiar; Rogério Santos de Oliveira Cruz; Amadeo Félix Salvador; Felipe Domingos Lisbôa; Kayo Leonardo Pereira; João Antônio Gesser Raimundo; Fabrizio Caputo
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2018-05-23       Impact factor: 3.078

2.  Reliable Peak Power Assessment During Concentric and Flexion-Extension-Cycle Based Rowing Strokes using a Non-Modified Rowing Ergometer.

Authors:  Steffen Held; Ludwig Rappelt; Lars Donath
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2022-02-15       Impact factor: 2.988

3.  Can the 20 and 60 s All-Out Test Predict the 2000 m Indoor Rowing Performance in Athletes?

Authors:  Dario Cerasola; Daniele Zangla; Joseph N Grima; Marianna Bellafiore; Angelo Cataldo; Marcello Traina; Laura Capranica; Nemanja Maksimovic; Patrik Drid; Antonino Bianco
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2022-06-03       Impact factor: 4.755

4.  Effects of 16 weeks of pyramidal and polarized training intensity distributions in well-trained endurance runners.

Authors:  Luca Filipas; Matteo Bonato; Gabriele Gallo; Roberto Codella
Journal:  Scand J Med Sci Sports       Date:  2021-11-25       Impact factor: 4.645

5.  Prediction of rowing ergometer performance from functional anaerobic power, strength and anthropometric components.

Authors:  Fırat Akça
Journal:  J Hum Kinet       Date:  2014-07-08       Impact factor: 2.193

6.  Anthropometric determinants of rowing ergometer performance in physically inactive collegiate females.

Authors:  R Podstawski; Dj Choszcz; S Konopka; J Klimczak; M Starczewski
Journal:  Biol Sport       Date:  2014-10-16       Impact factor: 2.806

7.  Patients Awaiting Surgical Repair for Large Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Can Exercise at Moderate to Hard Intensities with a Low Risk of Adverse Events.

Authors:  Matthew Weston; Alan M Batterham; Garry A Tew; Elke Kothmann; Karen Kerr; Shah Nawaz; David Yates; Gerard Danjoux
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 4.566

8.  Eleven-Week Preparation Involving Polarized Intensity Distribution Is Not Superior to Pyramidal Distribution in National Elite Rowers.

Authors:  Gunnar Treff; Kay Winkert; Mahdi Sareban; Jürgen M Steinacker; Martin Becker; Billy Sperlich
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 4.566

9.  Canoeing Motion Tracking and Analysis via Multi-Sensors Fusion.

Authors:  Long Liu; Sen Qiu; ZheLong Wang; Jie Li; JiaXin Wang
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-04-08       Impact factor: 3.576

10.  Development and Testing of a Novel Arm Cranking-Powered Watercraft.

Authors:  Thomas Fuglsang; Johnny Padulo; Massimo Spoladore; Michele Dalla Piazza; Luca P Ardigò
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2017-08-29       Impact factor: 4.566

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.