Total kinetic energy production of body segments is different between racing and training paces in elite Olympic rowers

Abstract

Total kinetic energy (TKE) was calculated for 28 Canadian national team Olympic rowers during training on water, comparing low-stroke rates (18-22 stroke/min) and high-stroke rates (32-40 stroke/min), using video analysis. Stroke duration was normalized to 100%, beginning and ending at the "catches", with the drive phase occurring first and recovery second. Two discrete points were identified during the stroke, both occurring when the fingers had the same horizontal position as the ankles (i.e., mid-drive and mid-recovery). The ratios of recovery-to-drive TKE at these points for the entire body at low and high-stroke rates were 0.36 +/- 0.34 and 1.26 +/- 0.54 respectively. Significant differences were found for the lower leg, upper arm and forearm segments, and within the female groups. Low-stroke rate is a typical training pace and high-stroke rate is analogous to a race pace. This study demonstrates that TKE production during recovery in a race was not replicated during training. While training at low-stroke rates is vital for technique refinement, this study stresses the importance of training appropriately for the energy expenditure during high-stroke rate recovery. This is commonly overlooked by coaches and athletes.

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

“…The dynamic differences between high and low rowing intensities have previously been highlighted for on-water rowing. In 28 elite Canadian rowers, total kinetic energy during the Lower back loads in elite rowers 7 recovery phase was six times greater during high intensity rowing and approximately equal to the kinetic energy required during the drive phase (Bechard, Nolte, Kedgley, & Jenkyn, 2009). As the results from this study also suggests, high intensity rowing places greater demands on the body during the recovery phase, compared to rowing at a lower intensity.…”

Test-retest reliability of segment kinetic energy measures in the golf swing

“…Despite the increasing volume of research into segmental sequencing in the golf swing, there is still little agreement regarding the most appropriate analysis technique. The examination of segment kinetic energy (KE) is increasingly popular in scientific studies to examine the effectiveness of movement patterns (Bechard, Nolte, Kedgley & Jenkyn, 2009;Ferdinands, Kersting & Marsdhall, 2012;Slawinski et al, 2010). It has been suggested that the analysis of segment KE is the most appropriate technique to examine the sequencing of body segments (Anderson, Wright & Stefanyshyn, 2006;Bechard et al, 2009;Ferdinands et al, 2012;Slawinski et al, 2010).…”

“…The examination of segment kinetic energy (KE) is increasingly popular in scientific studies to examine the effectiveness of movement patterns (Bechard, Nolte, Kedgley & Jenkyn, 2009;Ferdinands, Kersting & Marsdhall, 2012;Slawinski et al, 2010). It has been suggested that the analysis of segment KE is the most appropriate technique to examine the sequencing of body segments (Anderson, Wright & Stefanyshyn, 2006;Bechard et al, 2009;Ferdinands et al, 2012;Slawinski et al, 2010). As well as incorporating inertial parameters, distal segment speed in striking and throwing movements has frequently been associated with the magnitude, timing and transfer of segment KE (Cole & Grimshaw, 2016;Ferdinands, 2011;Slawinski et al, 2010).…”

“…As well as incorporating inertial parameters, distal segment speed in striking and throwing movements has frequently been associated with the magnitude, timing and transfer of segment KE (Cole & Grimshaw, 2016;Ferdinands, 2011;Slawinski et al, 2010). It has also been suggested that analyses of segment KE are sensitive to subtle changes in technique (Bechard et al, 2009). For example, during the recovery phase of a rowing stroke, an increase in stroke rate from 18 to 22 stroke/min to 32 to 40 stroke/min caused a significant increase in total KE from 13.5 ± 6.0 J to 83.8 ± 42.7 J (Bechard et al, 2009).…”

“…It has also been suggested that analyses of segment KE are sensitive to subtle changes in technique (Bechard et al, 2009). For example, during the recovery phase of a rowing stroke, an increase in stroke rate from 18 to 22 stroke/min to 32 to 40 stroke/min caused a significant increase in total KE from 13.5 ± 6.0 J to 83.8 ± 42.7 J (Bechard et al, 2009).…”