Literature DB >> 31191096

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

Nejc Šarabon1,2, Žiga Kozinc1,3, Jan Babič4, Goran Marković5,6.   

Abstract

This study compared biomechanical characteristics and physiological responses during rowing on three devices: (i) stable ergometer (STE), (ii) transversally compliant ergometer (TCE) and (iii) frontally compliant ergometer (FCE). Eleven young competitive rowers completed a 2000 meter simulated race under each of the ergometer conditions in a randomized order. Stroke rate, average force, power output, velocity and amplitude of the handle and stretcher or seat, heart rate and blood lactate were measured at 500 m intervals. Force and power at the stretcher were significantly lower (p < 0.03) for TCE, while stroke rate and velocities of the handle and the seat were higher (p < 0.01). No significant differences were observed between STE and FCE in biomechanical parameters. The lowest rowing performance was observed in FCE (p = 0.007), and was accompanied with the highest average heart rate (p = 0.031). Our findings indicate that in TCE, rowers modified their technique, but were able to maintain physiological strain and performance. In contrast, FCE had no effect on rowing biomechanics, but decreased rowing performance and increased physiological strain. It seems plausible that transversal, but not frontal compliance, elicited a biomechanical technique that might reduce the discrepancy between a rowing ergometer and on-water rowing.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Rowing; biomechanics; power; stability; technique; velocity

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31191096      PMCID: PMC6543988     

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


  27 in total

1.  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

2.  The Impact of Back Squat and Leg-Press Exercises on Maximal Strength and Speed-Strength Parameters.

Authors:  Klaus Wirth; Hagen Hartmann; Andre Sander; Christoph Mickel; Elena Szilvas; Michael Keiner
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 3.775

Review 3.  Monitoring of performance and training in rowing.

Authors:  Jarek Mäestu; Jaak Jürimäe; Toivo Jürimäe
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 11.136

4.  Strength, body composition, and functional outcomes in the squat versus leg press exercises.

Authors:  Fabrício E Rossi; Brad J Schoenfeld; Skyler Ocetnik; Jonathan Young; Andrew Vigotsky; Bret Contreras; James W Krieger; Michael G Miller; Jason Cholewa
Journal:  J Sports Med Phys Fitness       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 1.637

5.  Rowing ergometer with the slide is more specific to rowers' physiological evaluation.

Authors:  Fernando De Campos Mello; Rômulo Bertuzzi; Emerson Franchini; Robin Candau
Journal:  Res Sports Med       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 4.674

Review 6.  Ergometer training volume and previous injury predict back pain in rowing; strategies for injury prevention and rehabilitation.

Authors:  Fiona Wilson; Conor Gissane; Alison McGregor
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 13.800

7.  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

8.  Slide-based ergometer rowing: effects on force production and neuromuscular activity.

Authors:  A Vinther; T Alkjaer; I-L Kanstrup; B Zerahn; C Ekdahl; K Jensen; A Holsgaard-Larsen; P Aagaard
Journal:  Scand J Med Sci Sports       Date:  2012-01-31       Impact factor: 4.221

9.  Comparison of muscle force production using the Smith machine and free weights for bench press and squat exercises.

Authors:  Michael L Cotterman; Lynn A Darby; William A Skelly
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.775

10.  Comparison of rowing on a concept 2 stationary and dynamic ergometer.

Authors:  Aaron Benson; Julianne Abendroth; Deborah King; Thomas Swensen
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 2.988

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.