Literature DB >> 24198681

A comparison of kinematics and performance measures of two rowing ergometers.

Rebecca R Steer1, Alison H McGregor, Anthony M J Bull.   

Abstract

Rowing injuries have been attributed to poor technique, suggesting a need to understand the mechanics of rowing and the influence on technique of different training regimes and ergometers. The aims of this study were to investigate the repeatability of the kinematics of the lumbopelvic region during rowing and to compare these kinematics between rowing on two different ergometers. An electromagnetic motion measuring device in conjunction with a load cell was used to determine the ergometer rowing kinematics of 12 rowers. Subjects were tested on three occasions at two different stroke rates, with an interval of one week between testing. Two datasets were obtained for the Concept II, to establish the repeatability of the kinematics, and one for the WaterRower. Bland and Altman's mean difference technique was used to test for consistency of technique, and the difference between ergometers was assessed using Students' paired T-tests. The kinematic measures of the lumbo pelvic region during rowing demonstrated high repeatability. The two ergometers showed a similarity in force profiles but some significant differences in rowing kinematics. There was greater rotation of the thigh segment in the sagittal plane throughout the stroke on the WaterRower (p < 0.01). There were also trends indicating that rotation of the pelvis in the sagittal plane was different between the two ergometers, for example on the Concept the mean angle of the pelvis at the catch was 5.4° and on the WaterRower it was 2.4° (p < 0.05). Measurement of lumbopelvic kinematics during rowing on a Concept II ergometer is repeatable. However, rowing kinematics varies between ergometers. Because a full analysis comparing rowing kinematics on water with rowing ergometers has not been made in this study, no conclusions regarding which ergometer simulates rowing on water can be made. The implications of the effect of these differences in technique requires further investigation. Key PointsMeasurement of lumbopelvic kinematics during rowing on a Concept II ergometer is repeatable.Rowing kinematics varies between the WaterRower and Concept II.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Lumbo-pelvic rhythm; spinal biomechanics

Year:  2006        PMID: 24198681      PMCID: PMC3818674     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Sports Sci Med        ISSN: 1303-2968            Impact factor:   2.988


  17 in total

1.  High reliability of performance of well-trained rowers on a rowing ergometer.

Authors:  E J Schabort; J A Hawley; W G Hopkins; H Blum
Journal:  J Sports Sci       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 3.337

2.  Measuring spinal motion in rowers: the use of an electromagnetic device.

Authors:  A M Bull; A H McGregor
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 2.063

Review 3.  Towards an ideal rowing technique for performance : the contributions from biomechanics.

Authors:  Clara Soper; Patria Anne Hume
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 11.136

4.  Reliability of power output during rowing changes with ergometer type and race distance.

Authors:  Clara Soper; Patria A Hume
Journal:  Sports Biomech       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 2.832

5.  Instrumentation of an ergometer to monitor the reliability of rowing performance.

Authors:  D J Macfarlane; I M Edmond; A Walmsley
Journal:  J Sports Sci       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 3.337

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.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  A comparison of rowing technique at different stroke rates: a description of sequencing, force production and kinematics.

Authors:  A H McGregor; A M J Bull; R Byng-Maddick
Journal:  Int J Sports Med       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.118

9.  Modelling multivariate biomechanical measurements of the spine during a rowing exercise.

Authors:  Finbarr O'Sullivan; Janet O'Sullivan; Anthony M J Bull; Alison H McGregor
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.063

10.  The effects of repetitive motion on lumbar flexion and erector spinae muscle activity in rowers.

Authors:  Jillian S Caldwell; Peter J McNair; Maynard Williams
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 2.063

View more
  5 in total

1.  Cardio-respiratory and electromyographic responses to ergometer and on-water rowing in elite rowers.

Authors:  I Bazzucchi; P Sbriccoli; A Nicolò; A Passerini; F Quinzi; F Felici; M Sacchetti
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2012-11-22       Impact factor: 3.078

2.  Kinematics of Cervical Spine during Rowing Ergometer at Different Stroke Rates in Young Rowers: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Valerio Giustino; Daniele Zangla; Giuseppe Messina; Simona Pajaujiene; Kaltrina Feka; Giuseppe Battaglia; Antonino Bianco; Antonio Palma; Antonino Patti
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 4.614

3.  Effect of Self-Selected and Induced Slow and Fast Paddling on Atroke Kinematics During 1000 m Outrigger Canoeing Ergometry.

Authors:  Rebecca M Sealey; Kevin F Ness; Anthony S Leicht
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 2.988

4.  Changes in rowing technique over a routine one hour low intensity high volume training session.

Authors:  Hugh A M Mackenzie; Anthony M J Bull; Alison H McGregor
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 2.988

5.  Moving system with action sport cameras: 3D kinematics of the walking and running in a large volume.

Authors:  Gustavo R D Bernardina; Tony Monnet; Pietro Cerveri; Amanda P Silvatti
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-11-12       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.