Abstract
Background
Stationary (SE) and dynamic (DE) rowing ergometers, that are utilized for indoor training and physical assessment of competitive rowers, may elicit different physiological and biomechanical responses. The present study used SE and DE ergometers to examine submaximal and peak physiological and biomechanical responses during an incremental rowing test.
Methods
Twelve National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I oarswomen performed seven-stage rowing tests with the last stage performed with maximal effort. Heart rate (HR), lactate (LA), oxygen uptake (VO2), ventilation (VE), stroke rate (SR), gross efficiency (GE), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were obtained; while trunk, hip, knee, shoulder, and elbow ranges of motion (ROM) were measured.
Results
SR was higher at maximal stage DE (29.3 vs. 34.8 strokes/min, p = 0.018, d = 1.213). No difference occurred in responses of maximal stage HR, RPE, VO2, VE, LA, or GE between the two ergometers. Submaximal LA and SR were greater on the DE for all submaximal stages. Submaximal VE was greater on the DE for all submaximal stages except Stage 3 (p = 0.160, d = 0.655). VO2 was higher on the DE Stages 2–5. GE was higher on the SE for Stages 2–5. Athletes showed increased trunk (p = 0.025, \({\eta }_{p}^{2}\) = 0.488) and knee (p = 0.004, \({\eta }_{p}^{2}\) = 0.668) ROM on SE.
Conclusion
Rowing on the DE appears to elicit a greater stroke rate and more optimal joint angles especially at high intensities. Hence, the DE is worthy of consideration as a preferred ergometer for women rowers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The authors are willing to discuss data sharing under collaborative agreements. Please contact the corresponding author.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Abbreviations
- DE:
-
Dynamic ergometer
- GE:
-
Gross efficiency
- HR:
-
Heart rate
- LA:
-
Lactate
- NCAA:
-
National Collegiate Athletic Association
- ROM:
-
Range of motion
- RPE:
-
Rating of perceived exertion
- SE:
-
Stationary ergometer
- SR:
-
Stroke rate
- VE:
-
Ventilation
- VO2 :
-
Oxygen uptake
References
Anderson DE (2007) Reliability of air displacement plethysmography. J Strength Cond Res 21:169–172. https://doi.org/10.1519/00124278-200702000-00030
Arumugam S, Ayyadurai P, Perumal S et al (2020) Rowing injuries in elite athletes: a review of incidence with risk factors and the role of biomechanics in its management. Indian J Orthop 54:246–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-020-00044-3
Bazzucchi I, Sbriccoli P, Nicolò A et al (2013) Cardio-respiratory and electromyographic responses to ergometer and on-water rowing in elite rowers. Eur J Appl Physiol 113:1271–1277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-012-2550-2
Beaver WL, Wasserman K, Whipp BJ (1986) A new method for detecting anaerobic threshold by gas exchange. J Appl Physiol (1985) 60:2020–2027. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1986.60.6.2020
Benson A, Abendroth J, King D, Swensen T (2011) Comparison of rowing on a concept 2 stationary and dynamic ergometer. J Sports Sci Med 10:267–273
Bernstein I, Webber O, Woledge R (2002) An ergonomic comparison of rowing machine designs: possible implications for safety. Br J Sports Med 36:108–112. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.36.2.108
Boland M, Crotty NM, Mahony N et al (2022) A comparison of physiological response to incremental testing on stationary and dynamic rowing ergometers. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 17:515–522. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2021-0090
Borg GA (1982) Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc 14:377–381
Borg G (1998) Borg’s perceived exertion and pain scales. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL, US
Brožek J, Grande F, Anderson JT, Keys A (1963) Densitometric analysis of body composition: revision of some quantitative assumptions*. Ann N Y Acad Sci 110:113–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1963.tb17079.x
Buckeridge EM, Bull AMJ, McGregor AH (2016a) Incremental training intensities increases loads on the lower back of elite female rowers. J Sports Sci 34:369–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2015.1056821
Buckeridge EM, Weinert-Aplin RA, Bull AMJ, McGregor AH (2016b) Influence of foot-stretcher height on rowing technique and performance. Sports Biomech 15:513–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2016.1185459
Chen G, Liu L, Yu J (2012) A comparative study on strength between American college male and female students in Caucasian and Asian populations. Sport Sci Rev XXI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10237-012-0015-5
Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Routledge, New York
Colloud F, Bahuaud P, Doriot N et al (2006) Fixed versus free-floating stretcher mechanism in rowing ergometers: mechanical aspects. J Sports Sci 24:479–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410500189256
de Campos MF, de Moraes Bertuzzi RC, Grangeiro PM, Franchini E (2009) Energy systems contributions in 2000m race simulation: a comparison among rowing ergometers and water. Eur J Appl Physiol 107:615–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-009-1172-9
De Campos MF, Bertuzzi R, Franchini E, Candau R (2014) Rowing ergometer with the slide is more specific to rowers’ physiological evaluation. Res Sports Med 22:136–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/15438627.2014.881820
Drust B, Waterhouse J, Atkinson G et al (2005) Circadian rhythms in sports performance–an update. Chronobiol Int 22:21–44. https://doi.org/10.1081/cbi-200041039
Elliott B, Lyttle A, Birkett O (2002) The RowPerfect ergometer: a training aid for on-water single scull rowing. Sports Biomech 1:123–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763140208522791
Fukunaga T, Matsuo A, Yamamoto K, Asami T (1986) Mechanical efficiency in rowing. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 55:471–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00421639
Gaesser GA, Brooks GA (1975) Muscular efficiency during steady-rate exercise: effects of speed and work rate. J Appl Physiol 38:1132–1139. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1975.38.6.1132
Greene AJ, Sinclair PJ, Dickson MH et al (2013) The effect of ergometer design on rowing stroke mechanics. Scand J Med Sci Sports 23:468–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01404.x
Gulin J, Vucetic V, Dajaković S et al (2020) The effects of rowing ergometer design on metabolic parameters during an incremental maximal test. Acta Kinesiologica 14:105–108
Hagberg JM, Mullin JP, Giese MD, Spitznagel E (1981) Effect of pedaling rate on submaximal exercise responses of competitive cyclists. J Appl Physiol Respir Environ Exerc Physiol 51:447–451. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1981.51.2.447
Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70
Holsgaard-Larsen A, Jensen K (2010) Ergometer rowing with and without slides. Int J Sports Med 31:870–874. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1265148
Hosea TM, Hannafin JA (2012) Rowing injuries. Sports Health 4:236–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1941738112442484
Hosea T, Hannafin J, Bran J et al (2011) Aetiology of low back pain in young athletes: role of sport type. Br J Sports Med 45:352–352. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2011.084038.120
Howell DW (1984) Musculoskeletal profile and incidence of musculoskeletal injuries in lightweight women rowers. Am J Sports Med 12:278–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/036354658401200407
Hume P (2017) Movement analysis of scull and oar rowing. Springer, pp 1–21
Ingham SA, Whyte GP, Jones K, Nevill AM (2002) Determinants of 2000m rowing ergometer performance in elite rowers. Eur J Appl Physiol 88:243–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-002-0699-9
Jongerius N, Willems PBJ, Savelberg HHCM (2018) Different inertial properties between static and dynamic rowing ergometers cause acute adaptations in coordination patterns. Cogent Med 5:1478699. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331205X.2018.1478699
Kerhervé HA, Chatel B, Reboah S et al (2018) Comparison of prolonged rowing on fixed and free-floating ergometers in competitive rowers. Int J Sports Med 39:840–845. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0637-9613
Li Y, Koldenhoven RM, Jiwan NC et al (2020) Trunk and shoulder kinematics of rowing displayed by Olympic athletes. Sports Biomech. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2020.1781238
Lindenthaler JR, Rice AJ, Versey NG et al (2018) Differences in physiological responses during rowing and cycle ergometry in elite male rowers. Front Physiol 9:1010. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.01010
Mäestu J, Jürimäe J, Jürimäe T (2005) Monitoring of performance and training in rowing. Sports Med 35:597–617. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200535070-00005
Mahony N, Donne B, O’Brien M (1999) A comparison of physiological responses to rowing on friction-loaded and air-braked ergometers. J Sports Sci 17:143–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/026404199366244
Mccrory MA, Gomez TD, Bernauer EM, Molé PA (1995) Evaluation of a new air displacement plethysmograph for measuring human body composition. Med Sci Sports Exerc 27:1686–1691
McGregor AH, Bull AMJ, Byng-Maddick R (2004) A comparison of rowing technique at different stroke rates: a description of sequencing, force production and kinematics. Int J Sports Med 25:465–470. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-820936
McNulty KL, Elliott-Sale KJ, Dolan E et al (2020) The effects of menstrual cycle phase on exercise performance in eumenorrheic women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med 50:1813–1827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-020-01319-3
Mikulić P, Smoljanović T, Bojanić I et al (2009) Relationship between 2000-m rowing ergometer performance times and world rowing championships rankings in elite-standard rowers. J Sports Sci 27:907–913. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410902911950
Ng L, Perich D, Burnett A et al (2014) Self-reported prevalence, pain intensity and risk factors of low back pain in adolescent rowers. J Sci Med Sport 17:266–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2013.08.003
Nielsen JS, Hansen EA, Sjøgaard G (2004) Pedalling rate affects endurance performance during high-intensity cycling. Eur J Appl Physiol 92:114–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-004-1048-y
Richardson JTE (2011) Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educ Res Rev 6:135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.12.001
Rossi J, Piponnier E, Vincent L et al (2015) Influence of ergometer design on physiological responses during rowing. Int J Sports Med 36:947–951. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1548810
Skublewska-Paszkowska M, Montusiewicz J, Łukasik E et al (2016) Motion capture as a modern technology for analysing ergometer rowing. Adv Sci Technol Res J 10:132–140. https://doi.org/10.12913/22998624/61941
Smoljanovic T, Bojanic I, Hannafin JA et al (2009) Traumatic and overuse injuries among international elite junior rowers. Am J Sports Med 37:1193–1199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546508331205
Tanner R, Gore C (2012) Physiological tests for elite athletes. Human Kinetics
Trease L, Wilkie K, Lovell G et al (2020) Epidemiology of injury and illness in 153 Australian international-level rowers over eight international seasons. Br J Sports Med 54:1288–1293. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2019-101402
Wilson F, Gissane C, McGregor A (2014) Ergometer training volume and previous injury predict back pain in rowing; strategies for injury prevention and rehabilitation. Br J Sports Med 48:1534–1537. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2014-093968
Zahiran A, Abdullah M, Shaharudin S (2019) Comparison of physiological and 2D kinematic variables during 2 km time trial on stationary versus dynamic rowing ergometer. Malays J Mov Health Exerc 8(1):185
Zeni AI, Hoffman MD, Clifford PS (1996) Relationships among heart rate, lactate concentration, and perceived effort for different types of rhythmic exercise in women. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 77:237–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-9993(96)90104-5
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
TL conducted data processing, statistical analysis, created figures and tables, and drafted the manuscript; MTJ was involved in data collection and manuscript revisions; JY performed data processing and manuscript revisions, AI participated in statistical analysis. JBW performed study design and coordination, data collection and processing and manuscript revisions. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript and agree with the order of presentation of the authors.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Ethical approval
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of George Mason University.
Consent to participate
Athletes were recruited through George Mason University Intercollegiate Athletics.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Additional information
Communicated by Toshio Moritani.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Lu, T., Jones, M.T., Yom, J. et al. Physiological and biomechanical responses to exercise on two different types of rowing ergometers in NCAA Division I oarswomen. Eur J Appl Physiol 123, 1529–1541 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-023-05172-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-023-05172-w