The Rowing Ergometer; It’s Relevance to Training and Testing

Ivan HooperM.Phty.St (Sports), B.Sc (HMS)

AIS Sports Physiotherapist & RA SSSM Coordinator

Relevance to Training and Testing

1. Discussion of some fundamentals about the rowing ergometer

2. Presentation of Drag Factor study results

3. Advice & recommendations

I AM NOT HERE TO TELL YOU TO STOP USING THE ERGOMETER!

The Rowing Ergometer

Does it accurately reflect what happens on water?– Kleshnev (2001, 2003, 2005) lists six key differences

1. Stroke rate is always 10-15% lower *2. The stroke length is 3-5% longer *3. Handle force has a higher peak and develops later4. Handle and footstretcher forces nearly equal as opposed to

footstretcher force on water being 30% higher5. Difference in the timing of stretcher and handle forces *6. Maximal legs velocity is lower on an ergometer *

* a dynamic ergometer significantly alters or eliminates this difference

“Rowers with fast legs produce more power on water, while athletes with slower legs and stronger upper bodies have relatively higher ergo scores”

Fixed vs Dynamic Ergometers

Men’s Coxless Four

The rowing ergometer

• While static ergometers may have been useful for training physical fitness, they may also adversely alter the coordination of the muscles used in on water rowing. (Elliot, 2002)

Fixed vs Dynamic Ergometers

• Bernstein et al, 2002– Athletes rowed average 53mm longer on a fixed

ergometer– As pieces progressed, there was an increase in stroke

length at the catch on a fixed ergometer– The mean forces developed during the power phase were

significantly higher with the fixed ergometer• Colloud et al, 2006

– Rowing on a dynamic ergometer seems to require different muscular coordination to produce external force contact patterns

– The lower catch and maximum values for external contact forces on a dynamic ergometer could decrease the risk factors for injuries

Ergometer Use and Low Back Pain

• Teitz et al, 2002– Ergometer training for longer than 30 mins was the most

significant and consistent predictor of back pain for all age groups

• Holt et al 2003– 5% increase in lumbar flexion during a one hour ergometer

at training intensities– Attributed to fatigue of the lumbar muscles

• Reid & McNair, 2000– The combination of lumbar flexion and muscular fatigue

has long been identified as a cause of lumbar spine injury amongst rowers

Ergometer Use and Low Back Pain

• Bernstein et al, 2002– In elite rowers, land based training carries a 10-fold higher

risk of injury per hour than water based training, the leading causes suggested being weights and ergometer training

• Wilson et al, 2008– Time spent ergometer training had the most significant

impact on injury risk– This confirms biomechanical observations that the loading

to the joints in ergometer sessions is different to the patterns seen on water

– Nov, Dec & Jan highest months for injuries and this is related to high volumes of land training during winter months

If we can confidently say that the ergometer is not the same as on

water rowing, and that it is clearly linked to injury, isn’t it time we did

something about it?

The effect of manipulating drag factor and Concept II sliders on stroke rate

Scott Coleman1, Margy Galloway1, Ivan Hooper2, Angela McCoombe1, Mark Osbourne3

1. Biomechanics Dept, Australian Institute of Sport2. Physical Therapies Dept, Australian Institute of Sport

3. Sports Science, Queensland Academy of Sport

Background

• Ergometer testing is often completed at stroke rates well below on water race pace

• Many athletes report the current drag factor (DF) settings feel too heavy

• Many coaches now prescribe ergometer training at lower DF’s

• There is increased interest in using the Concept II sliders as training tools

What Do Crews Rate?

2007 World Championships Class SR Class SR

M8+ 40 W8+ 39.1

M4- 40.5 W4x 37.4

M4x 39.3 W2x 35.9

M2x 38.2 W2- 37.4

M2- 38.8 W1x 34.1

M1x 36.3 LW2x 36.1

LM4- 40.6

LM2x 38.8

The Current Situation

• What are the current settings?

• Where did these come from?

Category Drag FactorHM 130

HW 120

LM 120

LW 110

Study Concept

• Small study designed to add some knowledge to the following questions:

– Are the current drag factor settings appropriate?– What effect do Concept II sliders have on stroke rate?– Can we manipulate DF +/- sliders to get stroke rate closer

to on water race rates?– Are Concept II sliders a reliable form of testing?

On Water vs Ergometer?

• Can we compare forces?

• Assumption– If we manipulate variables to get

rate similar to on water racing, then forces must be close to similar

Study

• 7 x 500m pieces at variable drag factors– 3 @ 80% 2000m PB wattage– 4 @ 100% 2000m PB wattage

• Manipulation of DF outlined below

• Testing order was randomised for each subject• Done on fixed Concept II and on Sliders one week

apart

Study SettingsDF 1 DF 2 DF 3

HM 130 115 100HW 120 105 90LM 120 105 90LW 110 100 90

Subjects

Study SubjectsCategory No Crew

HM 4a Olympic Men's 4-1 Sen A Men's 2+4 U/23 Men's 4x

HW 4b U/23 Women's 4-4 WUG Women’s 2x, 4-

LW 3 Sen A Women's LW4x

a) 1 athlete completed both sessions on sliders, 1 athlete didn’t do slidersb) 1 athlete didn’t complete sliders

Results

• Mean rates for current settings

Study Results

Category Group mean

HM 29.8

HW 28.4

LW 31.3

WC Results

Sculling Sweep

36.3 (17.9%) 38.8 (23.2%)

34.1 (16.7%) 37.4 (24.1%)

36.1 (13.3%)

WC Results

Sculling Sweep

36.3 (17.9%) 38.8 (23.2%)

34.1 (16.7%) 37.4 (24.1%)

36.1 (13.3%)

Results

Sub Max Dynamic Ergo

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

DF1 DF2 DF3

Stro

ke R

ate

(spm

)

HMA

HMB

HWB

HWUG

LWA

Sub Max Fixed Ergo

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

DF1 DF2 DF3

Stro

ke R

ate

(spm

)

HMA

HMB

HWB

HWUG

LWA

Results

Dynamic Race Pace

2829303132333435363738

DF1 DF2 DF3

Stro

ke R

ate

(spm

)

HM

HW

LW

Fixed Race Pace

2829303132333435363738

DF1 DF2 DF3

Stro

ke R

ate

(spm

)

HM

HW

LW

Results

• Most athletes subjectively reported that they found the lightest setting too light compared to the feel of “on water rowing”

Combined FE vs DE

2628303234363840

FE DF1 DE DF2

Stro

ke R

ate

(spm

)

HM AHM BHWBHWUGLWA

Results

Comparative Data

Category WCSculling

WCSweep

Fixed ErgoCurrent Drag

(DF1)

Fixed ErgoLighter Drag

(DF 2)

Dynamic ErgoLighter Drag

(DF 2)

HM 36.3 38.8 29.8 30.23 36.4

HW 34.1 37.4 28.4 29.82 35

LW 36.1 31.3 29.75 31.3

Results

• Error measurements

• Well within current accepted error measurements for stationary ergometer

Time %

Fixed 0.4 sec 0.4

Dynamic 0.58 sec 0.58

Recommendations

• Change to the following DF’s

• Test on sliders• Train on sliders

Category Drag Factor

HM 115

HW 105

LM 105

LW 100

Thanks To:

• All the subjects• Tim Conrad• Ellen Randell• Lincoln Handley• Peter Howard• Alan Bennett• Phil Gardiner & Sykes Racing

What Would Change?

• Marsden, 2006– Comparison between physiological variables on fixed vs

slider Concept II– No differences in curves, thresholds, peak metabolic data

(n=4)– Mean 4.6 secs quicker on sliders (n=11)– Mean 5.3 points higher in rate on sliders (n=11)

• Mahony et al, 1999– No physiological differences during incremental rowing on

a fixed and dynamic ergometer

• Kane et al, 2008– No significant differences in physiological variables with

altering drag factors

What Would Change?

• Perhaps a test that is more predictive of on water performance??

• A training tool that may be closer to enhancing the correct skill pattern??

• Likely decrease in low back injury rates!!

Reference List

1. Bernstein, I. A., O. Webber, et al. (2002). "An ergonomic comparison of rowing machine designs: possible implications for safety." Br J Sports Med 36(2): 108-12.

2. Colloud, F., P. Bahuaud, et al. (2006). "Fixed versus free-floating stretcher mechanism in rowing ergometers: Mechanical aspects." Journal of Sports Sciences 24(5): 479 - 493.

3. Dudhia, A. (1999). "The physics of rowing: dynamic vs static ergometers." from http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/rowing/physics/index.html.

4. Elliott, B., A. Lyttle, et al. (2002). "The RowPerfect ergometer: a training aid for on-water single scull rowing." Sports Biomechanics 1(2): 123-134.

5. Hollinger, N. R., I. Marchand, et al. (1995). A comparison of kinematic and kinetic performance among athletes during ergometer rowing. Aviron Canada Rowing. 1995: 9-13.

6. Holt, P. J. E., A. M. J. Bull, et al. (2003). "Kinematics of Spinal Motion During Prolonged Rowing." International Journal of Sports Medicine(8): 597-602.

7. Howell, D. W. (1984). "Musculoskeletal profile and incidence of musculoskeletal injuries in lightweight women rowers." Am J Sports Med 12(4): 278-82.

8. Kane, D. A., R. L. Jensen, et al. (2008). "Effects of Drag Factor on Physiological Aspects of Rowing." International Journal of Sports Medicine(5): 390-394.

9. Kelshnev, V. (2003). Discussion of ergometer rowing vs on water rowing. Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter. 3: 1.10. Kelshnev, V. (2005). Discussion of ergometer rowing vs on water rowing. Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter. 5: 1.11. Kleshnev, V. (2001). Discussion of ergometer rowing vs on water rowing. Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter. 1: 1.12. Lamb, D. H. (1989). "A kinematic comparison of ergometer and on-water rowing." Am J Sports Med 17(3): 367-73.13. Mahony, N., B. Donne, et al. (1999). "A comparison of physiological responses to rowing on friction-loaded and air-

braked ergometers." J Sports Sci 17(2): 143-9.14. Marsden, J. (2006). 2 in 1 Results: Slider vs fixed Concept II. NSWIS Rowing Coaches Workshop. Sydney.15. Reid, D. A. and P. J. McNair (2000). "Factors contributing to low back pain in rowers." Br J Sports Med 34(5): 321-2.16. Rumball, J. S., C. M. Lebrun, et al. (2005). "Rowing injuries." Sports Med 35(6): 537-55.17. Teitz, C. C., J. O'Kane, et al. (2002). "Back pain in intercollegiate rowers." Am J Sports Med 30(5): 674-9.18. Wilson, F., C. Gissane, et al. (2008). "A 12 month prospective cohort study of injury in international rowers." Br J

Sports Med.