Incremental training intensities increases loads on the lower back of elite female rowers

Abstract

Lumbar-pelvic kinematics change in response to increasing rowing stroke rates, but little is known about the effect of incremental stroke rates on changes in joint kinetics and their implications for injury. The purpose of this study was to quantify the effects of incremental rowing intensities on lower limb and lumbar-pelvic kinetics. Twelve female rowers performed an incremental test on a rowing ergometer. Kinematic data of rowers' ankle, knee, hip and lumbar-pelvic joints, as well as external forces at the handle, seat and foot-stretchers of the rowing machine were recorded. Inter-segmental moments and forces were calculated using inverse dynamics and were compared across stroke rates using repeated measures ANOVA. Rowers exhibited increases in peak ankle and L5/S1 extensor moments, reductions in peak knee moments and no change in peak hip moments, with respect to stroke rate. Large shear and compressive forces were seen at L5/S1 and increased with stroke rate (P < 0.05). This coincided with increased levels of lumbar-pelvic flexion. High levels of lumbar-pelvic loading at higher stroke rates have implications with respect to injury and indicated that technique was declining, leading to increased lumbar-pelvic flexion. Such changes are not advantageous to performance and can potentially increase the risk of developing injuries.

Rowers with a recent history of low back pain engage different regions of the lumbar erector spinae during rowing

“…It is very likely that increased fatigability of lower limb muscles influenced spinal motion. Accordingly, Buckeridge et al 5 . found that shear and compressive forces on the L5/S1 segment increases at higher loads, while peak knee extensor moments decreased.…”

“…Following the application of testing equipment (HDEMG electrodes, electrogoniometer and heart rate monitor; see below for details), the rowers performed a 5 16 .…”

“…Studies have shown that flexion of the lumbar spine is increased by approximately 10% at the end of an incremental test in a rowing ergometer compared to that of the rowing boat 4 . High-intensity rowing on an ergometer also increases L5/S1 joint loading 5 , probably due to increased fatigability of the lower limb muscles 6 , showing that athletes likely involve the lower lumbar spine to compensate for the overall decrease in stroke force. These changes are also observed during submaximal rowing, as lumbar spinal motion increased during the course of a 60-min steady-state ergometer trial 7 .…”

The performativity of sports statistics: towards a research agenda

“…Two specialist journals that exhibit such a positivist spirit are the Journal of Sports Economics and the Journal of Sports Sciences, in both of which the typical article sets out to analyse how sporting results can be optimised. Current topics range from difficulties in talent selection (Faber et al, 2016;Furley and Memmert, 2016) and biases in athlete remuneration (Deutscher and Büschemann, 2016) to measures for injury prevention (Buckeridge et al, 2016) and sources of success (Lago-Peñas and Sampaio, 2015;Pitts, 2016).…”

Comparing optical and electromagnetic tracking systems to facilitate compatibility in sports kinematics data

“…Collaboration between Imperial College and British Rowing has used the ‘Flock of Birds’ (Ascension Technologies, USA) EM tracking system lower extremity and lumbar spine biomechanics research on elite rowers, offering a framework to describe proper sequencing (Bull et al 1998 ; Bull and McGregor 2000 ; McGregor et al 2004 ) and establishing links between biomechanics parameters and performance metrics, which continue to be used to analyze quality of elite rowing technique (Buckeridge et al 2016 , 2015 ; Murphy 2009 ). However, current generation EM systems still present drawbacks, which relate to the functional range of accuracy of the magnetic field, a frame rate affected by the number of receivers (LaScalza et al 2003 ), any restricted movement from tethered cable connections causing a hindrance to subjects (Sorriento et al 2020 ), a sensitivity to metal and other electronics (Meyer et al 2008 ; Ng et al 2009 ), and a smaller number of body segments that can be tracked due to limited number of physical sensors (Murphy et al 2011 ).…”