The impact of ergometer design on hip and trunk muscle activity patterns in elite rowers: an electromyographic assessment.

THIS STUDY USED SURFACE ELECTROMYOGRAPHY (SEMG) TO EXAMINE WHETHER THERE WERE DIFFERENCES IN HIP AND TRUNK MUSCLE ACTIVATION DURING THE ROWING CYCLE ON TWO OF THE MOST WIDELY USED AIR BRAKED ERGOMETERS: the Concept 2C and the Rowperfect. sEMG methods were used to record the muscle activity patterns from the right: m. Erector spinae (ES), m. Rectus Abdominus (RA), m. Rectus Femoris (RF) and m. Biceps Femoris (BF) for their contributions as agonist-antagonist pairs underlying hip and trunk extension/flexion. The sEMG activity patterns of these muscles were examined in six young male elite rowers completing a 2 minute set at a moderate training intensity (23 stroke·min(-1) and 1:47.500 m(-1) split time, 300W). The rowers closely maintained the required target pace through visual inspection of the standard LCD display of each ergometer. The measurements of duration of each rowing cycle and onset of each stroke during the test were recorded simultaneously with the sEMG activity through the additional instrumentation of a foot-pressure switch and handle accelerometry. There were no significant differences between the two ergometer designs in group means for: work rate (i.e., rowing speed and stroke rate), metabolic load as measured by mean heart rate, rowing cycle duration, or timing of the stroke in the cycle. 2-D motion analysis of hip and knee motion for the rowing cycle from the video footage taken during the test also revealed no significant differences in the joint range of motion between the ergometers. Ensemble average sEMG activity profiles based on 30+ strokes were obtained for each participant and normalised per 10% intervals of the cycle duration as well as for peak mean sEMG amplitude for each muscle. A repeated measures ANOVA on the sEMG activity per 10% interval for the four muscles contributing to hip and trunk motion during the rowing cycle revealed no significant differences between the Concept 2C and Rowperfect (F = 0.070, df = 1,5, p = 0.802). The outcome of this study suggests that the two different ergometer designs are equally useful for dry land training. Key PointsThe effects of endurance training on HR recovery after exercise and cardiac ANS modulation were investigated in female marathon runners by comparing with untrained controls.Time and frequency domain analysis of HRV was used to investigate cardiac ANS modulation.As compared with untrained controls, the female marathon runners showed faster HR recovery after exercise, which should result from their higher levels of HRV, higher aerobic capacity and exaggerated blood pressure response to exercise.

[1]  Alison H. McGregor,et al.  Do oarsmen have asymmetries in the strength of their back and leg muscles? , 2001, Journal of sports sciences.

[2]  P. M. Sandborn,et al.  Electromyographic analysis of rowing stroke biomechanics. , 1990, The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness.

[3]  D J Macfarlane,et al.  Instrumentation of an ergometer to monitor the reliability of rowing performance. , 1997, Journal of sports sciences.

[4]  N. Mahony,et al.  A comparison of physiological responses to rowing on friction-loaded and air-braked ergometers. , 1999, Journal of sports sciences.

[5]  J. Clarys,et al.  Electromyography and the study of sports movements: a review. , 1993, Journal of sports sciences.

[6]  R. Bartlett,et al.  Normalisation of EMG amplitude: an evaluation and comparison of old and new methods. , 1999, Medical engineering & physics.

[7]  P M M Cashman,et al.  Kinematics of spinal motion during prolonged rowing. , 2003, International journal of sports medicine.

[8]  Constanze Loschner,et al.  Biomechanics feedback for rowing , 2002, Journal of sports sciences.

[9]  Alison McGregor,et al.  The assessment of intersegmental motion and pelvic tilt in elite oarsmen. , 2002, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[10]  D. Gordon E. Robertson,et al.  Analysis of Lower Limb Muscle Function in Ergometer Rowing , 1988 .

[11]  J. Cram,et al.  Introduction to Surface Electromyography , 1998 .

[12]  D. Lamb,et al.  A kinematic comparison of ergometer and on-water rowing , 1989, The American journal of sports medicine.

[13]  R. Woledge,et al.  An ergonomic comparison of rowing machine designs: possible implications for safety , 2002, British journal of sports medicine.

[14]  Roy J. Shephard,et al.  Science and medicine of rowing: A review , 1998 .

[15]  Bruce Elliott,et al.  The RowPerfect ergometer: a training aid for on-water single scull rowing. , 2002, Sports biomechanics.

[16]  R Torres-Moreno,et al.  Joint excursion, handle velocity, and applied force: a biomechanical analysis of ergonometric rowing. , 2000, International journal of sports medicine.

[17]  P J McNair,et al.  Leaders Factors contributing to low back pain in rowers , 2000 .

[18]  C J De Luca,et al.  Fatigue, recovery, and low back pain in varsity rowers. , 1980, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[19]  V. Baltzopoulos,et al.  Normalisation of gait EMGs: a re-examination. , 2003, Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology.

[20]  Rodriguez Rj,et al.  Electromyographic analysis of rowing stroke biomechanics. , 1990 .