Development of an On-Water Graded Exercise Test for Flat-Water Sprint Kayak Athletes.

PURPOSE: To determine the reliability and validity of a power-prescribed on-water (OW) graded exercise test (GXT) for flat-water sprint kayak athletes. METHODS: Nine well-trained sprint kayak athletes performed 3 GXTs in a repeated-measures design. The initial GXT was performed on a stationary kayak ergometer in the laboratory (LAB). The subsequent 2 GXTs were performed OW (OW1 and OW2) in an individual kayak. Power output (PWR), stroke rate, blood lactate, heart rate, oxygen consumption, and rating of perceived exertion were measured throughout each test. RESULTS: Both PWR and oxygen consumption showed excellent test-retest reliability between OW1 and OW2 for all 7 stages (intraclass correlation coefficient > .90). The mean results from the 2 OW GXTs (OWAVE) were then compared with LAB, and no differences in oxygen consumption across stages were evident (P ≥ .159). PWR was higher for OWAVE than for LAB in all stages (P ≤ .021) except stage 7 (P = .070). Conversely, stroke rate was lower for OWAVE than for LAB in all stages (P < .010) except stage 2 (P = .120). CONCLUSIONS: The OW GXT appears to be a reliable test in well-trained sprint kayak athletes. Given the differences in PWR and stroke rate between the LAB and OW tests, an OW GXT may provide more specific outcomes for OW training.

Differences in spinopelvic kinematics in sweep and scull ergometer rowing.

OBJECTIVE: The spinopelvic kinematics of sweep and scull have yet to be investigated, despite evidence suggesting that sweep rowing may be provocative for low back pain (LBP). The aim of this study was to determine whether differences existed in spinopelvic kinematics in high-level rowers without LBP in sweep and scull ergometer rowing. DESIGN: Repeated measures study. SETTING: Institute of Sport Laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Ten high-level rowers. INTERVENTIONS: Kinematics of the pelvis, lower lumbar, upper lumbar, and lower thoracic regions during the drive phase of the rowing stroke were measured while rowing on an interchangeable sweep/scull ergometer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total and segmental spinopelvic kinematics. RESULTS: Sweep rowing showed greater lateral bend (P < 0.05) throughout the stroke, which was predominately due to movement of the upper lumbar and lower thoracic regions. Furthermore, sweep rowing displayed a greater magnitude (P < 0.05) of axial rotation at the catch (created at the pelvis). Both sweep and scull rowing showed values close to end range flexion for the lower lumbar spine at the catch and early drive phases. No difference (P > 0.05) was evident in lateral bend or axial rotation values for the lower lumbar region. CONCLUSIONS: Some differences exist in spinopelvic kinematics between sweep and scull ergometer rowing. However, it may be speculated that the lack of differences in lateral bend and axial rotation at the lower lumbar spine in sweep rowing may represent an adaptive and protective approach of experienced rowers. This may be the focus of future research studies.

Comparison of force-related performance indicators between heavyweight and lightweight rowers.

The aim of this study was to examine biomechanical variables relating to the force production of men's Lightweight (LW) and Heavyweight (HW) rowing pairs. Seven HW and seven LW coxless pairs were studied under a range of stroke rates, from 20 spm to race rating (average of 33.7 spm for the HWs and 33.9 spm for the LWs). Each crew was equipped with biomechanical apparatus allowing the measurement of gate force, horizontal oar angle, and boat velocity. The HW crews exhibited significantly higher (p < 0.05) values for all variables examined, at all rates. Peak handle force was 26.2% to 30.2% higher in the HW group. Average handle force ranged from 18.7% to 22.1% higher than the LW group. Work per stroke was found to be 26% to 28% higher for the HW crews, and Power Per Kilogram was also greater for the HW crews, from 24.0% to 29.2%. The LWs were observed to be consistently, but not significantly, slower than the HWs (from 96.9% at the race situation, to 98.7% at 28 spm). These observations are important when considering biomechanical performance indicators in rowing, as significant changes in performance indicators may lead to only minimal alteration in boat velocity.