10% Higher Rowing Power Outputs After Flexion-Extension-Cycle Compared to an Isolated Concentric Contraction in Sub-Elite Rowers

Abstract

The resulting muscular performance is considered notably higher during a stretch shortening cycle (SSC) compared to an isolated concentric contraction. Thus, the present study examined the occurrence and magnitude of rowing performance enhancement after a flexion-extension cycle (FEC) of the legs compared to both concentric contractions only and isometric pre-contraction. Therefore, 31 sub-elite male rowers (age: 25 ± 6 years, height: 1.90 ± 0.02 m, weight: 91 ± 10 kg, weekly training volume: 11.4 ± 5.3 h/week, rowing experience: 7.1 ± 2.7 years) randomly completed (a) isolated concentric rowing strokes (DRIVE), (b) single FEC-type rowing strokes (SLIDE-DRIVE), and (c) rowing strokes with an isometric pre-contraction (ISO-DRIVE). The resulting rowing power (P row), leg power (P leg), and work per stroke (WPS) were recorded using motion-capturing, force, and rotation sensors. Comparison of DRIVE and SLIDE-DRIVE revealed significantly (p < 0.05) higher P row (+11.8 ± 14.0%), P leg (+19.6 ± 26.7%), and WPS (+9.9 ± 10.5%) during SLIDE-DRIVE. Compared to ISO-DRIVE, P leg (+9.8 ± 26.6%) and WPS (+6.1 ± 6.7%) are again significantly (p < 0.05) higher for SLIDE-DRIVE. In conclusion, notably higher work and power outputs (compared to an isolated concentric contraction) during FEC rowing referred to an underlying SSC. Future ultrasound studies should elucidate whether a real SSC on the muscle tendon unit level account for these performance enhancements.

Reliable Peak Power Assessment During Concentric and Flexion-Extension-Cycle Based Rowing Strokes using a Non-Modified Rowing Ergometer

“…The rowing cycle can be divided into a drive phase and a slide phase, whereby the catch corresponds to the start of the rowing cycle (Held et al, 2020b). During one rowing cycle, the legs undergo a flexion (slide) followed by an extension pattern (drive), which has been defined as a flexion-extension cycle (FEC) (Held et al, 2020b;2020c).…”

“…The rowing cycle can be divided into a drive phase and a slide phase, whereby the catch corresponds to the start of the rowing cycle (Held et al, 2020b). During one rowing cycle, the legs undergo a flexion (slide) followed by an extension pattern (drive), which has been defined as a flexion-extension cycle (FEC) (Held et al, 2020b;2020c). On the muscle level, a combination of active stretching (i.e., eccentric muscle action) and subsequently active shortening (i.e., concentric muscle action) is defined as a stretchshortening cycle (SSC), which enables up to 50% higher muscle force, work, and power output compared with isolated muscle shortening (Bosco et al, 1987;Cavagna et al, 1968;Flanagan and Comyns, 2008).…”

“…On the muscle level, a combination of active stretching (i.e., eccentric muscle action) and subsequently active shortening (i.e., concentric muscle action) is defined as a stretchshortening cycle (SSC), which enables up to 50% higher muscle force, work, and power output compared with isolated muscle shortening (Bosco et al, 1987;Cavagna et al, 1968;Flanagan and Comyns, 2008). Since FEC rowing revealed a notable performance enhancement of around 10% (compared to purely concentric rowing) (Held et al, 2020b), it was speculated that this is due to the mechanisms underlying the SSC (Held et al, 2020b(Held et al, , 2020c. Accordingly, the differentiation between an isolated concentric (drive phase only) and a FEC-type rowing is essential (Held et al, 2020b).…”

“…Since FEC rowing revealed a notable performance enhancement of around 10% (compared to purely concentric rowing) (Held et al, 2020b), it was speculated that this is due to the mechanisms underlying the SSC (Held et al, 2020b(Held et al, , 2020c. Accordingly, the differentiation between an isolated concentric (drive phase only) and a FEC-type rowing is essential (Held et al, 2020b).…”

“…Unfortunately, power measurement of the first (about 5) strokes are particularly inaccurate on the Concept 2 ergometer (Boyas et al, 2006;Holt et al, 2021). Therefore, the Concept 2 ergometer is usually modified with additional (force) sensors (Boyas et al, 2006;Held et al, 2020b;Metikos et al, 2015;Sprague et al, 2007), which enables sufficient (between day) reliability indicators (ICC = 0.87; CV < 6.5%; SEM < 17%) (Metikos et al, 2015;Sprague et al, 2007). However, these additional sensors result in higher financial and organizational resources, which hampers the accessibility of such testing procedures for coaches and athletes.…”