Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Assessment of Angular and Straight Linear Rowing Ergometers at Different Intensities of Exercise
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Assessment of Angular and Straight Linear Rowing Ergometers at Different Intensities of Exercise
Do you wish to request the book?
Assessment of Angular and Straight Linear Rowing Ergometers at Different Intensities of Exercise
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Assessment of Angular and Straight Linear Rowing Ergometers at Different Intensities of Exercise
2024
Overview
We aimed to conduct a biophysical comparison of angular (Biorower) and linear (Concept2) rowing ergometers across a wide spectrum of exercise intensities. Sixteen (eleven male) skilled rowers, aged 29.8 ± 8.6 and 23.6 ± 1.5 years, with international competitive experience, performed 7 × 3 min bouts with 30 W increments and 60 s intervals, plus 1 min of all-out rowing on both machines with 48 h in between. The ventilatory and kinematical variables were measured breath-by-breath using a telemetric portable gas analyzer and determined using a full-body markerless system, respectively. Similar values of oxygen uptake were observed between ergometers across all intensity domains (e.g., 60.36 ± 8.40 vs. 58.14 ± 7.55 mL/min/kg for the Biorower and Concept2 at severe intensity). The rowing rate was higher on the Biorower vs. Concept2 at heavy and severe intensities (27.88 ± 3.22 vs. 25.69 ± 1.99 and 30.63 ± 3.18 vs. 28.94 ± 2.29). Other differences in kinematics were observed across all intensity domains, particularly in the thorax angle at the finish (e.g., 19.44 ± 4.49 vs. 27.51 ± 7.59° for the Biorower compared to Concep2 at heavy intensity), likely due to closer alignment of the Biorower with an on-water rowing technique. The overall perceived effort was lower on the Biorower when compared to the Concept2 (14.38 ± 1.76 vs. 15.88 ± 1.88). Rowers presented similar cardiorespiratory function on both rowing ergometers, while important biomechanical differences were observed, possibly due to the Biorower’s closer alignment with an on-water rowing technique.
Publisher
MDPI AG
Subject
/ Biomechanical Phenomena - physiology
/ Exercise
/ Female
/ Gases
/ Humans
/ Male
/ Oxygen Consumption - physiology
/ Rowing
/ Software
/ Thorax
