Acute Effect of Different Velocity-Based Training Protocols on 2000-meter Rowing Ergometer Performance.

ABSTRACT: Leandro Quidel-Catrilelbún, ME, Ruiz-Alias, SA, García-Pinillos, F, Ramirez-Campillo, R, and Pérez-Castilla, A. Acute effect of different velocity-based training protocols on 2000-m rowing ergometer performance. J Strength Cond Res 38(1): e8-e15, 2024-This study aimed to explore the acute effect of 4 velocity-based resistance training (VBT) protocols on 2000-m rowing ergometer (RE2000) time trial, as well as the behavior of the maximal neuromuscular capacities when RE2000 is performed alone or preceded by VBT protocols in the same session. Fifteen male competitive rowers (15-22 years) undertook 5 randomized protocols in separate occasions: (a) RE2000 alone (control condition); (b) VBT against 60% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) with a velocity loss in the set of 10% followed by RE2000 (VBT60-10 + RE2000); (c) VBT against 60% 1RM with a velocity loss in the set of 30% followed by RE2000 (VBT60-30 + RE2000); (d) VBT against 80% 1RM with a velocity loss in the set of 10% followed by RE2000 (VBT80-10 + RE2000); (e) VBT against 80% 1RM with a velocity loss in the set of 30% followed by RE2000 (VBT80-30 + RE2000). The load-velocity relationship (load-axis intercept [L0], velocity-axis intercept [v0], and area under the load-velocity relationship line [Aline]) was used to evaluate the maximal neuromuscular capacities during the prone bench pull exercise before and after each protocol. The time trial was significantly longer for VBT60-30 + RE2000 and VBT80-30 + RE2000 than for RE2000, VBT60-10 + RE2000 and VBT80-10 + RE2000 (all p < 0.001; ES = 0.10-0.15). L0 and Aline were significantly reduced after all protocols (p < 0.001; ES = 0.10-0.13), with Aline reduction more accentuated for VBT60-10 + RE2000, VBT60-30 + RE2000, VBT80-30 + RE2000, and RE2000 (all p = 0.001; ES = 0.11-0.18) than for VBT80-10 + RE2000 (p = 0.065; ES = 0.05). Therefore, VBT protocols with greater velocity loss in the set (30% vs. 10%) negatively affected subsequent rowing ergometer performance, in line with impairment in Aline pulling performance.

Inter-repetition Rest Impact on Percentage of Repetition Completed at Certain Velocity Loss.

This study examined the impact of different inter-repetition rest (IRR) configurations (zero seconds [IRR0], three seconds [IRR3], and self-selected less than five seconds [SSIRR]) on estimating the number of repetitions (Nrep) and the percentage of completed repetitions relative to the maximum number of repetitions possible to failure (%rep) after reaching 10%, 20%, and 30% velocity loss thresholds (VLT). Eighteen men completed three sessions, each with a different IRR configuration, separated by 48-72 hours. Single sets of repetitions to momentary muscular failure were performed against 65%, 75%, and 85% of the one-repetition maximum during free-weight back squat and bench press exercises. No significant differences were reported between IRR configurations for the Nrep (P≥0.089) and %rep (P≥0.061), except for %rep after reaching the 20-30%VLT against 65%1RM and the 10-20%VLT against 75%1RM in the bench press exercise (P≤0.048). Additionally, both Nrep and %rep exhibited high interindividual variability (between-subject CV=14-79%) across the different IRR configurations. The individual %rep-%VLT relationships were slightly stronger than the general %rep-%VLT relationships (median R 2 =0.914-0.971 vs. 0.698-0.900). Overall, regardless of the IRR configuration, this novel velocity-based approach does not guarantee the same effort levels across subjects in the free-weight back squat and bench press sets.

Interference Effects of Different Resistance-Training Protocols on Rowing Ergometer Performance: A Study on Semiprofessional Rowers.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the interference effects of various resistance-training (RT) protocols on rowing ergometer performance. METHODS: Fourteen semiprofessional male rowers randomly completed 5 protocols in separate sessions: (1) control-no RT session was performed, (2) upper-body high-fatigue-4 sets to failure during the bench pull exercise, (3) upper-body low-fatigue-4 sets of 6 repetitions during the bench pull exercise, (4) lower-body high-fatigue-4 sets to failure during the leg-press exercise, and (5) lower-body low-fatigue-4 sets of 6 repetitions during the leg-press exercise. All sets were performed against the 12-repetition-maximum load with 2 minutes of interset rest. Following the completion of the protocols, subjects performed an all-out 1000-m rowing ergometer test. RESULTS: Compared with the control condition, rowing ergometer performance was not significantly affected after the low-fatigue RT protocols (upper body: P ≥ .487; Δ = 0.0%-0.2%; lower body: P ≥ .200; Δ = -0.2%-0.5%), while it significantly declined following high-fatigue RT protocols (upper body: P ≤ .001; Δ = 1.0%-2.0%; lower body: P ≤ .002; Δ = 2.1%-2.5%). The average heart rate was significantly lower for the control condition compared with all RT protocols (P ≤ .043; Δ = 1.0%-1.5%). CONCLUSIONS: To minimize interference on rowing performance, coaches should prioritize the level of effort in RT protocols over specific exercises, specifically avoiding high-fatigue protocols that lead to failure before rowing practice.

Association of the load-velocity relationship variables with 2000-m rowing ergometer performance.

This study aimed to compare the maximal mechanical variables derived from the load-velocity (L-V) relationship and 2000-meter rowing ergometer performance between rowers of different age categories, and to identify the L-V relationship variables more closely related to 2000-meter rowing ergometer performance. Nineteen competitive rowers (15 males and four females) aged between 15 and 25 years were evaluated during the national 2000-meter rowing ergometer competition organised by the Chilean Rowing Federation. Thereafter, the L-V relationship variables (load-axis intercept [L0], velocity-axis intercept [v0], and area under the L-V relationship line [Aline]) were determined on separate occasions during the squat jump and prone bench pull exercises. Rowers were classified according to their chronological age for comparative purposes (under 16 years [U16] vs. over 16 years [O16]). L0 and Aline were always higher for O16 than for U16 (p ≤ 0.046; ES range = 0.99-1.79), while v0 was generally comparable for both age categories (p ≥ 0.038; ES range = 0.07-1.03). Furthermore, the O16 revealed a greater performance (i.e. shorter total time) during the 2000-meter rowing ergometer competition (p = 0.011; ES = -1.31). In general, significant correlations were obtained between rowing performance and the L-V relationship variables obtained during the squat jump (r or ρ range = -0.294 to -0.922) and prone bench pull (r or ρ range = -0.322 to -0.928). These results support the L-V relationship as a sensitive procedure to evaluate the maximal mechanical capacities of lower- and upper-body muscles in competitive rowers.HighlightsThe load-velocity relationship variables are sensitive enough to differentiate between rowers of different age categories (U16 vs. O16).The load-velocity variables are significantly associated with 2000-meter rowing ergometer performance (total time).This novel testing methodology can provide practitioners and coaches with a simpler and more precise alternative to comprehensively assess a rower's maximal neuromuscular profiles.