Journal of Sports Sciences

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

Prediction of rowing ergometer performance by

technical and core stability parameters

Frédéric R. Simon, Geoffrey N. Ertel, Youri Duchene, Hugo Maciejewski,

Gérome C. Gauchard & Guillaume Mornieux

To cite this article: Frédéric R. Simon, Geoffrey N. Ertel, Youri Duchene, Hugo Maciejewski,
Gérome C. Gauchard & Guillaume Mornieux (2023) Prediction of rowing ergometer
performance by technical and core stability parameters, Journal of Sports Sciences, 41:5,
399-407, DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2023.2219076

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2023.2219076

Published online: 30 May 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 172

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsp20
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
2023, VOL. 41, NO. 5, 399–407
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2023.2219076

SPORTS PERFORMANCE

Prediction of rowing ergometer performance by technical and core stability

parameters
Frédéric R. Simon a, Geoffrey N. Ertel a
, Youri Duchene a
, Hugo Maciejewski b
, Gérome C. Gauchard a,c

and Guillaume Mornieux a,c

a
Développement, Adaptation et Handicap (DevAH), Faculté de Médecine, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France; bFrench Rowing Federation, Nogent-
Sur-Marne, France; cUniversité de Lorraine, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Nancy, France

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of technical and core stability parameters on rowing Received 25 August 2022
ergometer performance defined as mean power at the handle. Twenty-four high-level rowers were evaluated Accepted 19 May 2023
at their competitive stroke rate on an instrumented RowPerfect 3 ergometer to determine leg, trunk and arm KEYWORDS
power output, while trunk and pelvis 3D kinematics were measured. Linear mixed models revealed that mean power output; kinetic chain;
power at the handle was predicted by the power output of legs, trunk and arms (r2 = 0.99), with trunk power segments power; trunk
being the best predictor. Time to peak power, work ratio and mean to peak power ratio were relevant kinematics; trunk
technical parameters significantly predicting the different segments’ power. In addition, a greater trunk range electromyography
of motion significantly influenced the power produced by this segment. Accordingly, achieving an earlier peak
power together with enhanced work production at the trunk and arm levels, as well as distributing the
segments power over the whole drive phase, could serve as recommendations for technical training of rowers
on dynamic ergometers in order to produce higher power output. Furthermore, the trunk appears to play
a major role as a power producer within the kinetic chain from the legs to the arms.

Introduction
2020; Smith & Draper, 2006), where a higher ratio (i.e., repre­
In rowing, as in other cyclic sport activities, quantification of the senting a “flatness” of force application) is associated with
mechanical power output is necessary to monitor and analyse better performance due to reduced velocity fluctuation result­
performance (Hofmijster et al., 2007; Holt et al., 2022; Kleshnev, ing in less power loss (Smith & Draper, 2006). In the same way,
2000; Lintmeijer et al., 2018). Mechanical power output has often more or less rectangular (i.e., “flat”) segment power curve
been evaluated in many rowing ergometer studies (Bourdin et al., shapes have been associated with rowing styles (Kleshnev,
2004; Buckeridge, Weinert-Aplin, et al., 2016; Colloud et al., 2006; 2016). Secondly, work per stroke is also considered in the
Greene et al., 2013) and can be defined as the work rate generated literature due to the time dependency of power (Held et al.,
at the handle level with respect to the stretcher. This power at the 2020; McGregor et al., 2004). This work per stroke could be
handle can be described as the sum of leg, trunk and arm power maximized with a more rectangular force profile (Kleshnev,
(Kleshnev, 1996). This measurement of the power generated by 2016). Thus, analysing work per stroke at each segment level
the rower at these three levels enables the characterization of would provide relevant information when dealing with rowing
rowing technical styles (Kleshnev, 2000). These latter are depen­ technique. Lastly, timing of peak force has been analysed at the
dent on the ability to develop large forces through the lower limbs handle (McGregor et al., 2004) and stretcher (Buckeridge et al.,
and to efficiently transmit these forces via the trunk to the upper 2014) levels, and found to be related to stroke rate. The timing
limbs. For instance, it has been shown that during the drive phase of peak handle force has also been used to compare ergometer
of on-water rowing, the power of the legs generates about 45% of types (Vinther et al., 2013) and earlier peak forces have been
the power output; the power of the trunk and arms contribute, shown to improve velocity through increasing power output
respectively, 29% and 26% of the power output (Kleshnev, 2000). (Holt et al., 2020). Moreover, analysis of peak timing on power
Different power production by these segments, in terms of relative parameters has shown that a peak shifted towards the end of
contribution and sequence of legs and trunk to handle power, has the drive for trunk and arm segments at a higher stroke rate
been related to different rowing techniques (Kleshnev, 2016) and (Kleshnev, 1996). Timing of peak segment power enables one
would be relevant parameters to consider to further analyse to describe whether legs, trunk and arms act simultaneously or
performance during ergometer rowing. consecutively (Kleshnev, 2016), and seems therefore a relevant
Other parameters have been used in the literature to analyse parameter to analyse rowing technique. In addition, foot-
rowing technique. First, the mean to peak force ratio has been stretcher force asymmetry has been investigated in the litera­
used to define the shape of the handle force curve (Holt et al., ture and is typically about 10% to 15% for the horizontal force

CONTACT Frédéric R. Simon [email protected] EA 3450 Développement, Adaptation et Handicap (DevAH), Faculté de Médecine, Université de
Lorraine, 9 avenue de la Forêt de Haye CS 50184, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy 54505, France
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
400 F. R. SIMON ET AL.

in elite rowers (Buckeridge et al., 2014; Fohanno et al., 2015). requirements stipulated in the Declaration of Helsinki. All parti­
Although this parameter was defined as detrimental for rowers’ cipants were informed about the procedures, purpose and
performance by these authors, the link between asymmetry possible risks associated with the experimental setup and
and performance, i.e., the power output at the handle during gave their written consent prior to testing.
ergometer rowing, remains unclear. Thus, together with mean
to peak power ratio, work per stroke and timing of peak power,
Test procedure
these parameters would enable further analysis of rower’s
technique during ergometer rowing. Such an analysis would After a free warm-up, each rower performed two trials at max­
particularly be relevant if the rowing technique is associated to imal intensity separated by a one-minute recovery period. The
rowing ergometer performance. first trial was at 34 strokes per minute (spm) and the second at
As mentioned above, the trunk is a central element in their own competitive stroke rate, i.e., the one achieved on an
efficiently transmitting forces during rowing. However, little all-out 2000 m. The rowers were asked to row with their usual
attention has been paid to the kinetics of the trunk with rowing technique, corresponding to usual stroke length and
respect to the legs and arms. The ability to control the trunk stroke rhythm, to closely simulate 2000 m race. During these
with respect to the pelvis through core muscles and to allow tasks, the kinematic and neuromuscular parameters of core
optimal transfer or production of force to the end segments stability as well as the mechanical variables of ergometer row­
refers to the notion of core stability (Kibler et al., 2006). In ing were recorded during 15 consecutive strokes.
rowing, kinematics of the pelvis and spine has been described The mobile rowing ergometer (RP3®, Care RowPerfect BV,
(Li et al., 2020; Ng et al., 2013; Pollock et al., 2009). Their range Haaksbergen, The Netherlands) was used at maximum gearing
of motion depends on the rower’s technical style (Kleshnev, (i.e., fixed at level 10). It was equipped with custom-made load
2016; Ng et al., 2013) and are increased at a higher stroke rate cells with strain gauges at the pull handle cable and left and right
(Buckeridge, Bull, et al., 2016; Li et al., 2020; McGregor et al., foot-stretchers (BioRow Tech, BioRow, London, UK) to determine
2004). However, no study has yet investigated the influence of the applied forces (the horizontal component at the foot-
core stability kinematics on rowing performance. stretcher level). In addition, three position sensors, using
Electromyographic (EMG) activity of the main trunk and pelvis a spring-loaded string, provided information on seat, trunk and
muscles during the rowing stroke has been described (Pollock handle displacement relative to the foot stretcher (BioRow Tech,
et al., 2009, 2012) and used, for instance, to compare station­ BioRow, London, UK). These data were measured at 25 Hz.
ary ergometers, dynamic ergometers and on-water rowing Core stability kinematics was measured using two inertial
(Fleming et al., 2014; Vinther et al., 2011). However, a deeper measurement units (iSen, STT Systems, San Sebastián, Spain)
understanding of the neuromuscular aspect of core stability placed on the back between the two scapulars, at the T6 verteb­
would also provide a better understanding of pelvis and trunk rae level and between the two posterior superior iliac spines,
control during rowing. Thus, core stability kinematics and recording at 100 Hz the 3D spatial orientations of the trunk and
neuromuscular parameters could help to underline the role pelvis segments with respect to the vertical axis. Inertial mea­
of the trunk during rowing, and possibly help to further under­ surement units are a viable option for measuring accurate sagit­
stand overall rowing performance. tal plane angle data during rowing (Brice et al., 2022). These two
The purpose of this study was to analyse the influence of sensors did not cause any discomfort to the athlete, given their
rowing technique parameters and core stability on the small volume (56 × 38 × 18 mm) and low mass (0.046 kg). This
mechanical power output during ergometer rowing. The first system had an accuracy <0.5° in the pitch dimension.
hypothesis was that segment powers explain the power devel­ The neuromuscular parameters of core stability were
oped at the handle (i.e., ergometer rowing performance). assessed by means of surface EMG measurements. After
The second hypothesis was that it is possible to predict the the skin had been shaved, sanded and cleaned, to ensure
power of each body segment using technical parameters such an impedance below 5 kΩ, electrodes (Ambu® BlueSensor
as time to peak, mean to peak, work ratio, leg asymmetry and SP, Ambu A/S, Ballerup, Denmark) were attached parallel to
trunk kinematics. Finally, core stability muscle EMG would pre­ the muscle fibres over the following muscles, bilaterally: the
dict trunk kinematics relative to the pelvis. rectus abdominis (RA), the external obliquus (EOB), the erec­
tor spinae (ES), the tensor fasciae latae (TFL) and the gluteus
maximus (GM) in line with the SENIAM project’s recommen­
Methods dations (Hermens et al., 2000). RA electrodes were placed 2
cm laterally from the umbilicus, EOB electrodes at 15 cm
Participants
laterally from the umbilicus, ES electrodes at about 2 cm
Twenty-four healthy and voluntary rowers with international or from the L1 spinous process, TFL electrodes on the line
national experience were recruited (17 men and 7 women, 20.8 from the anterior spina iliac superior to the lateral femoral
± 2.8 years old; 1.84 ± 0.07 m; 77.6 ± 6.1 kg). The group mean condyle in the proximal 1/6 and GM electrodes were placed
absolute 2000 m record on a fixed stretcher ergometer halfway along the line between the sacral vertebrae and the
(Concept2, Morrisville, VT, USA) was 6 min 34 s ±30 greater trochanter. These EMG signals were measured with
s. Participants who had current low back pain or any injury Trigno Snap Lead wireless sensors (Trigno™, Delsys, Natick,
were not included in the investigation. The study was approved MA, USA) at 2000 Hz and synchronized with inertial measure­
by the Sud-Ouest et Outre-Mer III ethics committee (approval ment unit data through their integration in the iSen
reference 20.07.21.43000- ID_9115) and conformed to software.
 JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 401

Data analysis Statistics

Foot-stretcher and handle forces, as well as seat, trunk and The different parameters were computed for 12 consecutive
handle positions were filtered with a Butterworth (4th order) cycles for each rower, yielding a total of 288 trials. Linear mixed
low-pass filter at 10 and 5 Hz, respectively (Fohanno et al., 2015; models were used to verify the main hypothesis of
Greene et al., 2009). a relationship between technique, core stability and rowing
The power (P) at each level was determined as follows ergometer performance. First, a linear mixed model was com­
(Kleshnev, 2000), where handle, seat and trunk velocities were puted to determine the association between Phandle and seg­
derived from their measured position: ment power (model 1). No constant was added to this model as
Phandle should theoretically have a null value if all other powers
Phandle (W) = handle force × handle velocity. are at 0. For all the following models, the constant was com­
Plegs (W) = (left foot-stretcher force + right foot-stretcher puted. Three models evaluated the association between the
force) × seat velocity. power of each segment and its respective technical determi­
Ptrunk (W) = handle force × (trunk velocity − seat velocity). nants (models 2, 3 and 4). Another model (model 5) was used to
Parms (W) = handle force × (handle velocity − trunk velocity). assess the relationship between the ROM of the trunk and
Ergometer performance was defined as the average power pelvis and the normalized EMG activity of the different core
output at the handle over the drive phase (Buckeridge, muscles. These models are reported in Table 2.
Weinert-Aplin, et al., 2016). This phase was determined The predictor variables were considered as a fixed effect and
according to the handle position, i.e., from the catch (the participants were entered as a random effect. The alpha signifi­
minimum handle position) to the finish (the maximum han­ cance level was set at 0.05. Backward elimination of predictor
dle position). variables (fixed effect) was performed by sequentially removing
Technical parameters of the rowers during the drive phase nonsignificant predictors until all predictors were significant.
were defined by the following variables. Mean segment power Standardized effects of each predictor were computed by
and the ratio between mean and peak power (M2P) were multiplying the predictor standard deviation (SD) by its esti­
calculated for legs, trunk and arms. The rationale for M2P mate. Estimated values were coefficients of independent vari­
was the expected relationship between the power curve ables in a linear mixed model. Standardized effects were
shape and performance. Work was determined as the integral expressed with respect to the mean of the dependent variable,
of the power over time. Work per stroke ratio (WR) was calcu­ i.e., the one SD change of the dependent variable when all
lated as the ratio between the work done till the peak power other predictors were set to their average value (Staynor
value and the overall work over the drive phase. WR was used et al., 2020).
to tease out the importance of producing maximal power in A k-fold (k = 10) cross-validation was performed by ran­
a short time at each segment level. Time to peak power (T2P) domly assigning the 288 trials across 10 folds. Each trial was
from the catch (%drive) was calculated for each segment as used both for testing and training in the statistical model. For
the occurrence of peak power delivery over the normalized each testing fold, the parameter estimates predicting the
drive-phase time. Finally, leg asymmetry (%) between the left dependent variable were calculated. Then, we averaged each
and right foot was calculated using the method of Buckeridge parameter estimate across the 10 folds. The relationship
et al. (2014). between the predicted values was computed thanks to the
Trunk and pelvis spatial orientations were filtered with mean parameter estimates and the measured values were
a 4th order Butterworth low-pass filter at 10 Hz. Trunk and assessed by Pearson’s correlations (r2).
pelvis range of motion (ROM; °) was determined to define
trunk extension and pelvis retroversion in the sagittal plane.
Results
In addition, the ROM of the trunk with respect to the pelvis
(°) was calculated to express core stability. For kinematics At the competitive stroke rate (38.9 ± 3.1 spm), mean values of
and EMG parameters, the drive phase was determined cycle length (i.e., total handle displacement from catch to
according to trunk angular position, i.e., from the catch finish) were 1.65 m ± 0.1 m. Cycle time and drive time were
(the maximum trunk flexion) to the finish (the minimum 1.56 ± 0.15 s and 0.79 ± 0.06 s, respectively (stroke rhythm of
trunk flexion). 0.51 ± 0.03). Mean (± SD) values of performance (mean Phandle),
The EMG signal of each muscle was filtered (Butterworth technical parameters and core stability parameters are reported
4th order band-pass filter, 30–450 Hz) and a 25 ms electro­ in Table 1. Averaged maximal powers recorded were 2270 ±
mechanical delay was considered (Le Mansec et al., 2018). 502 W at the handle, 1264 ± 269 W at the leg, 1221 ± 332 W at
The rowing trial at 34 spm was used for EMG amplitude the trunk and 562 ± 167 W at the arm levels.
normalization purposes. Hence, linear envelopes were
obtained using root mean squared (RMS) with a 50 ms
window, from which the peak activation could be deter­ Prediction of performance and segments power
mined. The RMS values over the drive phase for each mus­ Performance, i.e., mean handle power, was predicted by the
cle were determined at competitive stroke rate and power of the legs, trunk and arms (Table 2; model 1; r2 = 0.99).
normalized with respect to the aforementioned peak value. The sequencing of these three segments to produce power
Then, bilateral muscle normalized activity at competitive output at the handle level during the drive phase is presented
stroke rate was averaged. in Figure 1.
402 F. R. SIMON ET AL.

Table 1. Mean and SD performance, technical parameters and core stability values during the drive phase.
Parameter Mean SD Parameter Mean SD
Mean Phandle (W) 1086 246 T2P handle (%drive) 51.8 2.95
Mean Plegs (W) 481 106 T2P legs (%drive) 40.4 5.42
Mean Ptrunk (W) 387 116 T2P trunk (%drive) 59.4 3.05
Mean Parms (W) 236 61.7 T2P arms (%drive) 77.1 2.99
M2P handle 0.48 0.02 Pelvis ROM (°) 42.8 7.8
M2P legs 0.38 0.03 Trunk ROM (°) 73.9 6.9
M2P trunk 0.32 0.03 Trunk to pelvis ROM (°) 31.15 8.84
M2P arms 0.44 0.09 RA (%peak) 26.9 10.6
WR handle 0.65 0.04 EOB (%peak) 33.3 11.2
WR legs 0.68 0.11 ES (%peak) 24.6 8.2
WR trunk 0.71 0.07 TFL (%peak) 34.9 10.9
WR arms 0.89 0.04 GM (%peak) 27.0 12.1
Legs asymmetry (%) 13.9 12.1

Table 2. Linear mixed models using technical parameters and trunk kinematics to predict the power produced at the handle and at the
different segment levels. *: p < 0.05. NS: no significant predictor.
Model Predicted variable and model r2 Predictor Estimate One SD change (%)
1 Mean Phandle Mean Ptrunk * 1.08 11.5
0.99 Mean Plegs * 0.87 8.46
Mean Parms * 1.07 6.06
2 Mean Plegs WR legs * −393 8.63
0.10 T2P legs * 5.70 6.43
M2P legs * 527 3.83
Legs asymmetry NS
3 Mean Ptrunk Mean Plegs * 0.89 24.3
0.90 Trunk ROM * 4.67 8.37
M2P trunk * 434 3.53
T2P trunk * −4.02 3.17
WR trunk * 165 2.78
Pelvis ROM NS
4 Mean Parms M2P arms * 425 16.3
0.60 Mean Plegs * 0.35 15.7
Mean Ptrunk * 0.20 9.74
WR arms * 527 9.52
T2P arms * −3.60 4.56

Power

2500

2000
Handle
Legs
Power (W)

1500 Trunk
Arms

1000

500

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Drive phase (%)

Figure 1. Mean curves of the power generated at the handle and each body segment during the drive phase. Grey lines represent the 95% confident interval for handle
power. Those for the segments are not displayed for readability reason.
 JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 403

Segments’ mean powers were predicted by the different Discussion and implications
technical parameters (Table 2). Plegs was predicted by its T2P,
This study aimed to determine the influence of rowing technique
WR and M2P (Table 2; model 2) but not leg asymmetry.
and core stability on rowing ergometer performance. The main
However, this model 2 could only explain a small proportion
findings were: 1) rowing performance is predicted by the power
of the variance for Plegs (r2 = 0.10). Ptrunk was well predicted (r2
output of legs, trunk and arms, with trunk power being the best
= 0.90) by Plegs, trunk ROM as well as its M2P, WR and T2P but
predictor; 2) time to peak power, work ratio and mean to peak
not pelvis ROM (Table 2; model 3). Finally, Plegs, Ptrunk, M2P, WR
power ratio are relevant technical parameters predicting the dif­
and T2P explained a large proportion of the variance for Parms
ferent segment power; and 3) trunk kinematics influences the
(Table 2; model 4; r2 = 0.60).
power production of this segment and core muscle activity pre­
dicts the range of motion of the trunk with respect to the pelvis.

Core stability
During the drive phase, the pelvis operated continuously at Prediction of performance
a backward rotation of up to roughly 40°. At the same time, the
Ergometer performance can be explained and predicted by the
trunk extended from a flexed position at the catch (60°) until
power produced by each body segment (model 1; r2 = 0.99).
reaching a slightly extended position at around 80% of the
Indeed, mean Phandle was positively associated with the mean
drive phase (Figure 2).
power of each measured segment and was better predicted by
Core muscle activation showed two distinct phases
the trunk according to the higher one SD change. This is con­
(Figure 3). During the first 60% of the drive phase, ES and GM
sistent with previous results showing enhanced mean Phandle
muscles activated, followed by the RA, EOB and TFL muscles
together with higher Plegs (Held et al., 2020; Kleshnev, 1996)
during the remaining 40% of the drive.
and Ptrunk (Kleshnev, 1996) when stroke rate increases.
Finally, activation of the different core muscles could predict
Moreover, the importance of the trunk might underline its
the trunk relative to pelvis ROM during the drive phase (Table 3;
function as a power producer. Therefore, core stability would
model 5; r2 = 0.63).

Table 3. Linear mixed model using muscles’ EMG RMS values to predict trunk to pelvis ROM. *: p < 0.05.
Model Predicted variable and model r2 Predictor Estimate One SD change (%)
5 Trunk to pelvis ROM EOB * −0.50 16.17
0.63 GM * −0.38 12.89
TFL * 0.29 8.92
RA * 0.29 8.57
ES * 0.21 4.79

Pelvis and trunk kinematics

60

40

20
Sagittal plane angle (°)

-20

-40

Pelvis
-60 Trunk

-80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Drive phase (%)

Figure 2. Mean curves (black lines) of pelvis ante- and retroversion angle and trunk flexion and extension angle (°) during the drive phase. Nine-five per cent confident
interval are displayed by the grey lines.
404 F. R. SIMON ET AL.

generation in each segment, which will result in increased

power in subsequent segments and thus at the handle.
Analysis of the technical parameters that significantly predicted
the power output of each body segment allowed a definition of
the importance of each parameter, which was different according
to the segment.
Firstly, achieving earlier peak power at the trunk and arm
levels, i.e., closer to the catch, enhanced their respective mean
power production, but delayed leg peak power was beneficial
for the lower limb power. Put together, this would suggest
recommending a modification of the rowing technique
towards a more simultaneous leg and trunk action to enhance
the power output of these segments and therefore perfor­
mance. This could be achieved, for instance, by slowing down
the leg extension and opening the trunk earlier. Finally, in line
with this latter, an earlier arm action appears to be relevant in
order to improve the power output produced by the upper
limbs. Thus, timing of peak power production in each seg­
ment is important to consider during ergometer rowing. This
provides a more detailed analysis of the timing of power
production within the kinetic chain compared to the sole
evaluation of the peak force timing at the handle level (Holt
et al., 2020; McGregor et al., 2004; Warmenhoven et al., 2018).
Accordingly, this would allow specific technical instructions to
the rower (e.g., verbal instructions or real-time feedback of
a specific parameter) to improve their handle power to
achieve a better performance.
In addition to the timing of peak power production, the
work performed by the rower at each segment level influenced
power delivery to the handle. Work ratio underlined the impor­
tance of increasing work production before the peak power at
the trunk and arm levels but contrariwise to reduce this para­
meter for the legs, in order to maximize their respective power.
Along with earlier opening of the trunk, a larger trunk power
profile with more work produced before trunk peak power
would be needed to increase the work ratio and consequently
trunk mean power output. Model 4, explaining mean arm
power, also showed that enhanced work ratio was related to
mean arm power. This is in line with the need for early power
production to maintain the tension of the chain accelerating
the flywheel when the legs are extending. These findings deal­
ing with work ratio parameters would result in a more even
distribution of power through the drive (Kleshnev, 2016) and
would minimize power loss due to velocity fluctuations
Figure 3. Filtered and normalized EMG activity (%peak) of the bilateral averaged
core stability muscles during the drive phase for one representative rower. (Hofmijster et al., 2008).
Mean to peak power was also a significant predictor for each
segment’s power. This indicates that the highest possible per­
require special attention when seeking to improve rowing centage of peak power should be produced throughout leg
performance. and trunk extension, as well as arm flexion. These results con­
firm the link between high performance and the “flatness
curve” observed on force data (Smith & Draper, 2006) and
could potentially yield more work per stroke (Kleshnev, 2016).
Prediction of segments powers
If this technique could be transferred to on-water rowing, this
The power of each of the segments was predicted by the power might reduce fluctuations in boat velocity, limit drag factors
generated at the previous level, given the kinetic chain from and thus limit power losses (Soper & Hume, 2004).
legs to arms (models 3 and 4). The one SD change of these Finally, even though leg asymmetry was 13.9% during the
parameters belonged to the highest predictors of these mod­ propulsion phase and remains an obvious variable studied in
els. This probably highlights the importance of carrying out the rowing biomechanics (Buckeridge et al., 2014; Fohanno et al.,
movement with an optimal technique to allow high power 2015), this parameter could not predict the power produced by
 JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 405

the lower limbs. It could be suggested that the other technical Neuromuscular control of the trunk and pelvis supports an
parameters deserve more attention when seeking perfor­ increase of the trunk to pelvis angle, by limiting pelvic retroversion
mance. However, a large degree of asymmetry (e.g., higher and favouring trunk extension. Consequently, this increase in trunk
than 15%) might need consideration to prevent any potential extension would improve trunk power production (model 3) and
imbalance and thus injury risks in rowers (Buckeridge et al., rowing performance (model 1), potentially due to more efficient
2014; Fohanno et al., 2015). power production and transfer through the trunk. It is also worth
Accordingly, achieving an earlier peak power together with noting that muscle activation patterns (Figure 3) showed limited
enhanced work production at the trunk and arm levels, as well coactivation phases between agonist and antagonist muscles.
as distributing the segments’ power over the whole drive phase Thus, coach and rowers should consider that strength exercises
with the highest relative peak power could serve as recommen­ based on concentric or eccentric contractions seem more adapted
dations for technical training of rowers on dynamic ergometers. than isometric contractions for core muscle training. Accordingly,
These results add new information to the existing technical the trunk appears to be a power producer rather than a power
determinants of overall rowing performance, e.g., higher stroke transmitter.
rate (Held et al., 2020; Hofmijster et al., 2007; Holt et al., 2022;
McGregor et al., 2004), greater catch angles, rower force devel­
opment (Holt et al., 2020) and mean race values of power (Holt Limitations
et al., 2022).
Although participants represented a wide range of experi­
ence and performance levels, they were all from the same
Link between core stability and rowing performance nation. As the technical style is likely to be dependent on
the nation (Kleshnev, 2016), further studies involving rowers
The technical determinants of performance described above from other countries, demonstrating therefore probably dif­
underline the importance of the trunk in rowing ergometer ferent technical styles, would further improve the present
performance. Moreover, core stability kinematics was concor­ performance model.
dant with previous studies focusing on the trunk (Li et al., 2020; Kinematics and EMG parameters were computed over the
Ng et al., 2013) and pelvis (Ng et al., 2013). The present study drive phase, using different criteria to define catch and
demonstrates that a higher trunk ROM is related to greater finish positions, compared to those used for technical and
trunk power production, and in turn to greater power output. power parameters. However, this might only slightly influ­
This is in line with Li et al. (2020), who reported a significant ence the present results, given that mean EMG, as well as
correlation between a higher thoracic ROM and rowing power. trunk and pelvis ROM values over the whole drive phase
Again, the trunk would therefore appear to be a power produ­ were considered.
cer. Other studies have described alterations of trunk kine­ Trunk and pelvis neuromuscular control might not be fully
matics over a 2000 m race (Pollock et al., 2012) or during evaluated with the present setup using surface EMG, because
prolonged ergometer rowing (Ng et al., 2013). This also demon­ deeper core muscles could not be assessed. Moreover, future
strates the key role of the trunk, and the challenge for this research is needed to tease out the role of the rectus abdominis
segment to be effectively controlled over the entire duration compared to the external oblique muscles when predicting core
of the race. stability.
Trunk and pelvis muscle patterns were in agreement with
previous studies (Pollock et al., 2009, 2012; Vinther et al., 2011).
Moreover, the present study adds the description of the activa­
Conclusion
tion of the tensor fasciae latae during rowing. Together, these
muscles could predict core stability kinematics, i.e., trunk to This study shows that the technical parameters of the legs, trunk
pelvis ROM (r2 = 0.63). Greater EMG activity of the erector spi­ and arms play an important role in rowing ergometer perfor­
nae muscles could accelerate and enhance trunk extension mance. Time to peak power, work ratio, mean to peak power
with respect to the pelvis. Their concomitant activity with and trunk range of motion are relevant parameters to analyse
gluteus maximus muscles during the first half of the drive power production in each segment and suggest technical
phase also partially limited pelvis retroversion, according to improvement in order to produce higher power output, based
the lesser gluteus maximus activity reported in the model, for instance on earlier trunk extension and a longer segments’
supporting even more the increased trunk to pelvis range of action. Moreover, this study could be replicated during boat row­
motion. During the second phase of the drive phase, activation ing to possibly transfer these results to the field.
of the abdominal muscles would brake the trunk motion and The technical determinants of performance highlight the
be in favour of pelvis retroversion. Therefore, lesser external importance of the trunk as a power producer. This is also con­
obliquus muscle activity reported in the model yielded a larger firmed by the neuromuscular parameters of core stability.
trunk with relation to pelvis ROM. This was further supported Although the thoraco-pelvic kinematics analysed in this study
by the higher activity of the tensor fasciae latae muscle that provided a better understanding of trunk power production, the
enhances pelvis anteversion. However, the behaviour of the influence of core stability on performance production and its
rectus abdominis muscle, being a significant predictor but influence on lower back injury risk (Buckeridge, Bull, et al., 2016;
with a different output than the external oblique, remains McGregor et al., 2004) should be investigated jointly in future
difficult to functionally interpret. studies.
406 F. R. SIMON ET AL.

Acknowledgments of Sport Science, 20(3), 357‑365. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2019.

1628308
The authors thank all the rowers for their participation in the experiments Hermens, H. J., Freriks, B., Disselhorst-Klug, C., & Rau, G. (2000).
and their coaches for their support. This study was supported by grants Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor place­
(project 19r22) from the French Minister of Sports and Olympic and ment procedures. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology: Official
Paralympic Games and the National Institute of Sport, Expertise, and Journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology, 10
Performance (INSEP). The authors are also grateful to Arnaud Cosson, CEO (5), 361‑374. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1050-6411(00)00027-4
of HRV Simulation, for supporting F. Simon during his PhD thesis. Hofmijster, M. J., Landman, E. H. J., Smith, R. M., & Van Soest, A. J. K. (2007).
Effect of stroke rate on the distribution of net mechanical power in
rowing. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(4), 403‑411. https://doi.org/10.
Disclosure statement 1080/02640410600718046
Hofmijster, M. J., van Soest, A. J., & de Koning, J. J. (2008). Rowing skill affects
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. power loss on a modified rowing ergometer. Medicine & Science in Sports
and Exercise, 40(6), 1101‑1110. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.
0b013e3181668671
Holt, A. C., Aughey, R. J., Ball, K., Hopkins, W. G., & Siegel, R. (2020). Technical
ORCID Determinants of On-Water Rowing Performance. Frontiers in Sports and
Frédéric R. Simon http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8137-0262 Active Living, 2, 589013. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2020.589013
Geoffrey N. Ertel http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0483-0135 Holt, A. C., Siegel, R., Ball, K., Hopkins, W. G., & Aughey, R. J. (2022).
Youri Duchene http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2774-2333 Prediction of 2000-m on-water rowing performance with measures
Hugo Maciejewski http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0686-921X derived from instrumented boats. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine &
Gérome C. Gauchard http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2489-9343 Science in Sports, 32(4), 710‑719. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.14125
Guillaume Mornieux http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5756-9642 Kibler, W. B., Press, J., & Sciascia, A. (2006). The role of core stability in
athletic function. Sports Medicine, 36(3), 189‑198. https://doi.org/10.
2165/00007256-200636030-00001
References Kleshnev, V. (1996). The effects of stroke rate on biomechanical parameters
and efficiency of rowing. ISBS - Conference Proceedings Archive, 1. https://
Bourdin, M., Messonnier, L., Hager, J.-P., & Lacour, J.-R. (2004). Peak power ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/view/2726
output predicts rowing ergometer performance in elite male rowers. Kleshnev, V. (2000). Power in rowing. ISBS - Conference Proceedings Archive.
International Journal of Sports Medicine, 25(5), 368‑373. https://doi.org/ https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/view/2258
10.1055/s-2004-815844 Kleshnev, V. (2016). The Biomechanics of Rowing. https://www.semanticscho
Brice, S. M., Millett, E. L., & Philippa, B. (2022). The validity of using inertial lar.org/paper/Biomechanics-of-Rowing-Kleshnev/
measurement units to monitor the torso and pelvis sagittal plane 43fa58cc402a32b8d0a9e49b5e10d205d8ff6378
motion of elite rowers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 40(8), 950–958. Le Mansec, Y., Nordez, A., Dorel, S., & Jubeau, M. (2018). Reaction time can
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2022.2042146 be measured during voluntary contractions with electrode array. Clinical
Buckeridge, E. M., Bull, A. M. J., & McGregor, A. H. (2014). Foot force Physiology and Functional Imaging, 38(2), 338‑340. https://doi.org/10.
production and asymmetries in elite rowers. Sports Biomechanics, 13(1), 1111/cpf.12455
47‑61. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2013.861013 Li, Y., Koldenhoven, R. M., Jiwan, N. C., Zhan, J., & Liu, T. (2020). Trunk
Buckeridge, E. M., Bull, A. M. J., & McGregor, A. H. (2016). Incremental and shoulder kinematics of rowing displayed by Olympic athletes.
training intensities increases loads on the lower back of elite female Sports Biomechanics, 1‑13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2020.
rowers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34(4), 369‑378. https://doi.org/10. 1781238
1080/02640414.2015.1056821 Lintmeijer, L. L., Hofmijster, M. J., Fischedick, G. A. S., Zijlstra, P. J., & Van
Buckeridge, E. M., Weinert-Aplin, R. A., Bull, A. M. J., & McGregor, A. H. (2016). Soest, A. J. K. (2018). Improved determination of mechanical power
Influence of foot-stretcher height on rowing technique and output in rowing: Experimental results. Journal of Sports Sciences, 36
performance. Sports Biomechanics, 15(4), 513‑526. https://doi.org/10. (18), 2138‑2146. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2017.1367821
1080/14763141.2016.1185459 McGregor, A. H., Bull, A. M. J., & Byng-Maddick, R. (2004). A comparison of
Colloud, F., Bahuaud, P., Doriot, N., Champely, S., & Chèze, L. (2006). Fixed rowing technique at different stroke rates: A description of sequencing,
versus free-floating stretcher mechanism in rowing ergometers: force production and kinematics. International Journal of Sports
Mechanical aspects. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(5), 479‑493. https:// Medicine, 25(6), 465‑470. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-820936
doi.org/10.1080/02640410500189256 Ng, L., Campbell, A., Burnett, A., & O’Sullivan, P. (2013). Gender differences
Fleming, N., Donne, B., & Mahony, N. (2014). A comparison of electromyo­ in trunk and pelvic kinematics during prolonged ergometer rowing in
graphy and stroke kinematics during ergometer and on-water rowing. adolescents. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 29(2), 180‑187. https://doi.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 32(12), 1127‑1138. https://doi.org/10.1080/ org/10.1123/jab.29.2.180
02640414.2014.886128 Pollock, C. L., Jenkyn, T. R., Jones, I. C., Ivanova, T. D., & Garland, S. J. (2009).
Fohanno, V., Nordez, A., Smith, R., & Colloud, F. (2015). Asymmetry in elite Electromyography and kinematics of the trunk during rowing in elite
rowers: Effect of ergometer design and stroke rate. Sports Biomechanics, female rowers. Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise, 41(3), 628‑636.
14(3), 310‑322. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2015.1060252 https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818c1300
Greene, A. J., Sinclair, P. J., Dickson, M. H., Colloud, F., & Smith, R. M. (2009). Pollock, C. L., Jones, I. C., Jenkyn, T. R., Ivanova, T. D., & Garland, S. J. (2012).
Relative shank to thigh length is associated with different mechanisms Changes in kinematics and trunk electromyography during a 2000 m race
of power production during elite male ergometer rowing. Sports simulation in elite female rowers. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine &
Biomechanics, 8(4), 302‑317. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Science in Sports, 22(4), 478‑487. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.
14763140903414391 2010.01249.x
Greene, A. J., Sinclair, P. J., Dickson, M. H., Colloud, F., & Smith, R. M. (2013). Smith, R., & Draper, C. (2006). Skill variables discriminate between the elite
The effect of ergometer design on rowing stroke mechanics. and sub-elite in coxless pair-oared rowing. ISBS - Conference Proceedings
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 23(4), 468‑477. Archive.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01404.x Soper, C., & Hume, P. A. (2004). Towards an ideal rowing technique for
Held, S., Siebert, T., & Donath, L. (2020). Changes in mechanical power performance: The contributions from biomechanics. Sports Medicine, 34
output in rowing by varying stroke rate and gearing. European Journal (12), 825‑848. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200434120-00003
 JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 407

Staynor, J. M. D., Alderson, J. A., Byrne, S., Rossi, M., & Donnelly, C. J. (2020). Vinther, A., Alkjær, T., Kanstrup, I., Zerahn, B., Ekdahl, C., Jensen, K.,
By failing to prepare, you are preparing your anterior cruciate ligament Holsgaard Larsen, A., & Aagaard, P. (2011). Neuromuscular activity and
to fail. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 30(2), force production during slide-based and stationary ergometer rowing.
303‑311. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13571 British Journal of Sports Medicine, 45(4), 381–382. https://doi.org/10.
Vinther, A., Alkjaer, T., Kanstrup, I.-L., Zerahn, B., Ekdahl, C., Jensen, K., 1136/bjsm.2011.084038.202
Holsgaard Larsen, A., & Aagaard, P. (2013). Slide-based ergometer row­ Warmenhoven, J., Cobley, S., Draper, C., & Smith, R. (2018). Over 50
ing: Effects on force production and neuromuscular activity. Years of Researching Force Profiles in Rowing: What Do We Know?
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 23(5), 635‑644. Sports Medicine, 48(12), 2703‑2714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01441.x 018-0992-3