This study compares the acute cardiovascular responses of rowing athletes during a rowing test in laboratory and field conditions in order to identify possible differences between the two types of the rowing tests. Six male rowers completed the rowing tests, using the Concept2 rowing paddle at the laboratory and a skiff in the water. Heart rate, blood pressure (systolic and diastolic) and oxygen saturation (% SpO2) were measured in both tests. Data analysis showed no significant differences regarding the heart rate (p > 0.05), systolic blood pressure (p > 0.05) and the oxygen saturation rate (p > 0.05) between the laboratory and field trials, while a similar evolution of these parameter values was recorded at all times when the measurements were taken. Only at diastolic pressure values, there were statistically significant differences in the measurements taken immediately post the rowing test and the values obtained up to the 7th minute of the recovery. Overall, there were only slight fluctuations in the cardiovascular responses of the rowing athletes, between the laboratory test and the field test, and the laboratory test may be quite reliable for the performance assessment of the rowers. However, field trials are reported to have the advantage of offering greater validity and specificity because they better simulate actual competition events.
References
1.
Bazzucchi I, Sbriccoli P, Nicolò A, Passerini A, Quinzi F, Felici F, et al. Cardio-respiratory and electromyographic responses to ergometer and on-water rowing in elite rowers. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2013;113(5):1271–7.
2.
Nevill AM, Beech C, Holder RL, Wyon M. Scaling concept II rowing ergometer performance for differences in body mass to better reflect rowing in water. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 2010;20(1):122–7.
3.
BAGGISH AL, YARED K, WEINER RB, WANG F, DEMES R, PICARD MH, et al. Differences in Cardiac Parameters among Elite Rowers and Subelite Rowers. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2010;42(6):1215–20.
4.
HORN P, OSTADAL P, OSTADAL B. Rowing Increases Stroke Volume and Cardiac Output to a Greater Extent Than Cycling. Physiological Research. 2015;203–7.
5.
Fleming N, Donne B, Mahony N. A comparison of electromyography and stroke kinematics during ergometer and on-water rowing. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2014;32(12):1127–38.
6.
Plews DJ, Laursen PB, Kilding AE, Buchheit M. Heart-Rate Variability and Training-Intensity Distribution in Elite Rowers. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 2014;9(6):1026–32.
7.
ROSIELLO RA, MAHLER DA, WARD JL. Cardiovascular responses to rowing. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 1987;19(3):239???245.
8.
Gleim GW, Coplan NL, Nicholas JA. Acute cardiovascular response to exercise. Bull N Y Acad Med. 1986;62(3):211–8.
9.
Navare SM, Thompson PD. Acute cardiovascular response to exercise and its implications for exercise testing. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology. 2003;10(5):521–8.
10.
Urhausen A, Weiler B, Kindermann W. Heart Rate, Blood Lactate, and Catecholamines During Ergometer and on Water Rowing. International Journal of Sports Medicine. 1993;14(S 1):S20–3.
11.
Vogler AJ, Rice AJ, Gore CJ. Physiological Responses to Ergometer and On-Water Incremental Rowing Tests. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 2010;5(3):342–58.
12.
Kleshnev V. Comparison of on-water rowing with its simulation on Concept2 and Row perfect machines (abstract. ISBS-Conference Proceeding Archive. 2008;1(1).
13.
Smith TB, Hopkins WG. Measures of Rowing Performance. Sports Medicine. 2012;42(4):343–58.
14.
Sport Specific Performance Diagnosis in Rowing: An Incremental Graded Exercise Test in Coxless Pairs. International Journal of Sports Medicine. 2003;24(6):428–32.
15.
Steinacker J, Michalsky R, Grünert-Fuchs M. Field tests in rowing (English translation of Feldtests im rudern. Dtsch Z Sportmed. 1987;38:19–26.
16.
Elliott B, Lyttle A, Birkett O. Rowing. Sports Biomechanics. 2002;1(2):123–34.
17.
Dawson RG, Lockwood RJ, Wilson JD, Freeman G. The Rowing Cycle: Sources of Variance and Invariance in Ergometer and On-the-Water Performance. Journal of Motor Behavior. 1998;30(1):33–43.
18.
Martindale W, Robertson D. Mechanical energy in sculling and in rowing an ergometer. Can J Appl Sport Sci. 1984;9(3):153–63.
19.
Lamb DH. A kinematic comparison of ergometer and on-water rowing. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 1989;17(3):367–73.
20.
de Campos Mello F, de Moraes Bertuzzi RC, Grangeiro PM, Franchini E. Energy systems contributions in 2,000 m race simulation: a comparison among rowing ergometers and water. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2009;107(5):615–9.
21.
Karsten B, Jobson S, Hopker J, Jimenez A, Beedie C. High Agreement between Laboratory and Field Estimates of Critical Power in Cycling. International Journal of Sports Medicine. 35(04):298–303.
22.
Mendel RW, Cheatham CC. Laboratory and Field Techniques for Measuring Performance. In: Essentials of Sports Nutrition and Supplements. 2008. p. 159–82.
23.
Egan-Shuttler JD, Edmonds R, Eddy C. Beyond Peak, a Simple Approach to Assess Rowing Power and the Impact of Training: A Technical Report. Int J Exerc Sci. 2019;12(6):233–44.
24.
M??estu J, J??rim??e J, J??rim??e T. Monitoring of Performance and Training in Rowing. Sports Medicine. 2005;35(7):597–617.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
