Literature DB >> 24431957

The impact of ergometer design on hip and trunk muscle activity patterns in elite rowers: an electromyographic assessment.

Alex V Nowicky1, Sara Horne2, Richard Burdett2.   

Abstract

THIS STUDY USED SURFACE ELECTROMYOGRAPHY (SEMG) TO EXAMINE WHETHER THERE WERE DIFFERENCES IN HIP AND TRUNK MUSCLE ACTIVATION DURING THE ROWING CYCLE ON TWO OF THE MOST WIDELY USED AIR BRAKED ERGOMETERS: the Concept 2C and the Rowperfect. sEMG methods were used to record the muscle activity patterns from the right: m. Erector spinae (ES), m. Rectus Abdominus (RA), m. Rectus Femoris (RF) and m. Biceps Femoris (BF) for their contributions as agonist-antagonist pairs underlying hip and trunk extension/flexion. The sEMG activity patterns of these muscles were examined in six young male elite rowers completing a 2 minute set at a moderate training intensity (23 stroke·min(-1) and 1:47.500 m(-1) split time, 300W). The rowers closely maintained the required target pace through visual inspection of the standard LCD display of each ergometer. The measurements of duration of each rowing cycle and onset of each stroke during the test were recorded simultaneously with the sEMG activity through the additional instrumentation of a foot-pressure switch and handle accelerometry. There were no significant differences between the two ergometer designs in group means for: work rate (i.e., rowing speed and stroke rate), metabolic load as measured by mean heart rate, rowing cycle duration, or timing of the stroke in the cycle. 2-D motion analysis of hip and knee motion for the rowing cycle from the video footage taken during the test also revealed no significant differences in the joint range of motion between the ergometers. Ensemble average sEMG activity profiles based on 30+ strokes were obtained for each participant and normalised per 10% intervals of the cycle duration as well as for peak mean sEMG amplitude for each muscle. A repeated measures ANOVA on the sEMG activity per 10% interval for the four muscles contributing to hip and trunk motion during the rowing cycle revealed no significant differences between the Concept 2C and Rowperfect (F = 0.070, df = 1,5, p = 0.802). The outcome of this study suggests that the two different ergometer designs are equally useful for dry land training. Key PointsThe effects of endurance training on HR recovery after exercise and cardiac ANS modulation were investigated in female marathon runners by comparing with untrained controls.Time and frequency domain analysis of HRV was used to investigate cardiac ANS modulation.As compared with untrained controls, the female marathon runners showed faster HR recovery after exercise, which should result from their higher levels of HRV, higher aerobic capacity and exaggerated blood pressure response to exercise.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Flexion; extension; land-based training

Year:  2005        PMID: 24431957      PMCID: PMC3880080     

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


  16 in total

1.  Normalisation of EMG amplitude: an evaluation and comparison of old and new methods.

Authors:  A Burden; R Bartlett
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 2.242

2.  Joint excursion, handle velocity, and applied force: a biomechanical analysis of ergonometric rowing.

Authors:  R Torres-Moreno; C Tanaka; K L Penney
Journal:  Int J Sports Med       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 3.118

3.  A comparison of physiological responses to rowing on friction-loaded and air-braked ergometers.

Authors:  N Mahony; B Donne; M O'Brien
Journal:  J Sports Sci       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.337

4.  Normalisation of gait EMGs: a re-examination.

Authors:  A M Burden; M Trew; V Baltzopoulos
Journal:  J Electromyogr Kinesiol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 2.368

5.  Biomechanics feedback for rowing.

Authors:  Richard M Smith; Constanze Loschner
Journal:  J Sports Sci       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 3.337

6.  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

7.  Electromyographic analysis of rowing stroke biomechanics.

Authors:  R J Rodriguez; R P Rogriguez; S D Cook; P M Sandborn
Journal:  J Sports Med Phys Fitness       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 1.637

8.  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

9.  An ergonomic comparison of rowing machine designs: possible implications for safety.

Authors:  I A Bernstein; O Webber; R Woledge
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 13.800

10.  Fatigue, recovery, and low back pain in varsity rowers.

Authors:  S H Roy; C J De Luca; L Snyder-Mackler; M S Emley; R L Crenshaw; J P Lyons
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 5.411

View more
  4 in total

1.  A biomechanical assessment of ergometer task specificity in elite flatwater kayakers.

Authors:  Neil Fleming; Bernard Donne; David Fletcher; Nick Mahony
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 2.988

2.  Muscle Synergies of Untrained Subjects during 6 min Maximal Rowing on Slides and Fixed Ergometer.

Authors:  Shazlin Shaharudin; Damiano Zanotto; Sunil Agrawal
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2014-12-01       Impact factor: 2.988

3.  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

4.  Effect of Rowing Ergometer Compliance on Biomechanical and Physiological Indicators during Simulated 2,000-metre Race.

Authors:  Nejc Šarabon; Žiga Kozinc; Jan Babič; Goran Marković
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 2.988

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.