Biomechanics of rowing: kinematic, kinetic and electromyographic aspects

Abstract

This systematic review present and discuss research results with observational and/or experimental designs on kinematic, kinetic and electromyographic aspects in rowing. We performed this study used the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, SportDiscus, PsycINFO, and Medline PsycARTICLES. The research was performed using the following keywords: "biomechanics", "kinematics", "kinetics" and/or "electromyography" (EMG) in combination with the terms "rowing" and/or "rower". A total of 36 peer-reviewed articles on experimental or original descriptive studies were considered. The main evidences indicated that stationary ergometers showed an increasing standard error with an increase of distance in the official 2,000-meter race. Ergometers with mechanical slides showed a mechanical lag compared to stationary, and increased fatigue when compared to boats. The angle modification of the joints along the rowing action could be modified with variation in the foot cradle height. Electromyography analyse showed a higher activation in the recto femoral, dorsal, paravertebral, vast lateral, and gluteus Maximus muscles. The ergometer training increases the risk of injury to the hip, spine and knee regions. In conclusion, the information from preceding studies about participants, designs, implemented procedures and results were discussed to clarify knowledge. Coaches can apply the results summarized here to preventing injuries and planning a specific training.

Full text

Journal of Physical Education and Sport
®
(JPES), 18(1), Art 25, pp. 193 - 202, 2018
online ISSN: 2247 - 806X; p-ISSN: 2247 – 8051; ISSN - L = 2247 - 8051 © JPES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------193
Corresponding Author CIRO JOSÉ BRITO, E-mail: cirojbrito@gmail.com
Original Article
Biomechanics of rowing: kinematic, kinetic and electromyographic aspects
BIANCA MIARKA
1
, FÁBIO DAL BELLO
2
, CIRO JOSÉ BRITO
1
, MARCELO VAZ
3
, FABRÍCIO B. DEL
VECCHIO
3
1
Federal University of Juiz de Fora - Governador Valadares, BRASIL
2
Head of Physical Activity and Sports Science Master Program. Universidad Santo Tomás, Santiago, CHILE.
3
Physical Education School, Federal University of Pelotas, BRASIL
Published online: March 30, 2018
(Accepted for publication February 04, 2018
DOI:10.7752/jpes.2018.01025
Abstract:
This systematic review present and discuss research results with observational and/or experimental
designs on kinematic, kinetic and electromyographic aspects in rowing. We performed this study used the
following databases: PubMed, Scopus, SportDiscus, PsycINFO, and Medline PsycARTICLES. The research was
performed using the following keywords: "biomechanics", "kinematics", "kinetics" and/or "electromyography"
(EMG) in combination with the terms "rowing" and/or "rower". A total of 36 peer-reviewed articles on
experimental or original descriptive studies were considered. The main evidences indicated that stationary
ergometers showed an increasing standard error with an increase of distance in the official 2,000-meter race.
Ergometers with mechanical slides showed a mechanical lag compared to stationary, and increased fatigue when
compared to boats. The angle modification of the joints along the rowing action could be modified with variation
in the foot cradle height. Electromyography analyse showed a higher activation in the recto femoral, dorsal,
paravertebral, vast lateral, and gluteus Maximus muscles. The ergometer training increases the risk of injury to
the hip, spine and knee regions. In conclusion, the information from preceding studies about participants,
designs, implemented procedures and results were discussed to clarify knowledge. Coaches can apply the results
summarized here to preventing injuries and planning a specific training.
Key words: ergometer, training/conditioning, injuries, muscle power.
Introduction
Rowing is a cyclical sport where 14 Olympic medals are competed for in races of 2,000 meters.
Approximately 80% of the total energy comes from the aerobic system, but high intensity intermittent efforts are
performed at strategic moments of the race (e.g. to start the race and/or to pass opponents’ boats) (Smith &
Spinks, 1995). Moreover, a technical skill analysis of the movement biomechanics can help improve strength
application (to boost the boat) and the energy reserves used by contracting unrelated muscles. Maximizing
performance along the course is a critical performance factor because the average speed is dependent to the
propulsion generated by the rowers, which must be greater than the drag force (drag factor) acting on the boat’s
mechanical system (Torres-Moreno, Tanaka, & Penney, 2000). In fact, world-rowing performance is divided
into before and after biomechanical analyses, as rowers and coaches began to benefit from structural
modifications to their boats upon their own initiative (Celentano, Cortili, Di Prampero, & Cerretelli, 1971). Early
studies of high-speed cinematography showed that rowing efficiency is related to the proximity between peak
force and the perpendicular position of the paddle with the water, which presents the importance of kinematic
analysis and forces acting during movement (Mahler, Parker, & Andresen, 1985).
Relative to cine-anthropometric differences and angular modifications, studies have shown the
relationships between anthropometric data, muscle power, angular and linear speed with the electromyographic
(EMG) activity of rowing. In fact, EMG has been widely applied to compare efficacy of modifications in
recruitment of motor units due to differences in equipment, which may alter the angular stroke speed (Gauthier,
1985). Knowledge about inter and intramuscular coordination in rowers reports the profile of muscle activities
during specific actions of the sport, and from this information the form and level of muscular activation can
improve performance, as well as reduce the risk of injuries (Vinther et al., 2006). To the best of our knowledge,
this is the first study to analyse the three main biomechanical factors related to rowing – the kinematic, kinetic
and electromyographic aspects – aiming to improve performance. Therefore, a summarization of the literature
pertinent to these biomechanical aspects in rowing is justified. It is assumed that showing results of research
combined with methodological data can provide an important reference for establishing strategies for the
development of this sport. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review was to show and discuss
experimental designs and results from research on kinematic, kinetic and electromyographic factors in rowers.
The results discussed and summarized hear can help coaches in planning a specific training.

BIANCA MIARKA, FÁBIO DAL BELLO, CIRO JOSÉ BRITO, MARCELO VAZ, FABRÍCIO B. DEL
VECCHIO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
194
Materials & Methods
Search strategy
The data revised were found in scientific journals (until June 2015) in the following databases: PubMed,
Scopus, SportDiscus, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES and Medline, where the following indexed terms were used:
"biomechanics", "dynamometer", "Pressure kinematics, kinematics, kinetics and/or electromyography”, in
combination with the terms "rowing" and/or "rower" to be found anywhere in the articles.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Only studies published in English with observational descriptions or whose experimental tests showed
intervention effect on kinematic, kinetic and/or electromyographic measures were included. The articles were
examined by internal validity under the following criteria: (1) research with a control group; (2) randomized
control studies; (3) studies using instruments with high reliability, and; (4) descriptive investigations with
minimal experimental sample loss. Each study was analysed in order to evaluate the effects of the interventions
in the biomechanical patterns, as well as the characteristics of each study in the respective methods, subjects and
effects. Those which did not meet the criteria were excluded.
Results
From 812 papers related to rowing, 239 dealt with non-specific power tests of the paddling and
technical aspects with analyses that were neither kinematic, or kinetic and/or electromyographic, and 67 papers
described kinematic, kinetic and/or electromyographic. Thus, 36 articles were analysed in total. Figure 1 presents
the paper prism selection for the present study:
Fig. 1. Prism of studies selection and criteria.
The summary of articles involving kinetics is presented in Table 1 with sample data, designs, applied
procedures and results. The set of results indicates the influence of biomechanical aspects on performance. There
are differences when comparing ergometer or boat performance, athletes' levels and rowing frequency.

BIANCA MIARKA, FÁBIO DAL BELLO, CIRO JOSÉ BRITO, MARCELO VAZ, FABRÍCIO B. DEL
VECCHIO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
195
Table 1. Studies involving equipment kinetics and their respective sample, experimental design, procedures and
main results.
Study Sample Experimental design Procedures Main results
(Anderson,
Harrison, &
Lyons, 2005)
12P
Comparison RowPerfect:
Feedbacks: no-feedback vs.
detail Feedback vs. resumed
Feedback.
Measures during a
2,000-m test.
↑ performance in detail feedback
vs. others.
(Černe, Kamnik,
Vesnicer, Gros, &
Munih, 2013)
5E
5JE
5P
Technical Comparison
E vs JE.
Biochemical
Analysis in
ergometer at 20, 26
and 34 rpm.
E<JE<P in technical variability at
different rpm. P: changes in the
length of the row and force curve.
(Colloud et al.,
2006) 25E
Comparison between foot
cradle mechanism
With floating vs. no
floating.
Analysis of the
inertia of forces
during transition,
propulsion and
recovery.
↑ Maximum power and average
power during the rowing on non-
floatation mechanisms.
(Lamb, 1989) 30P Comparison:
Boat vs. Ergometer.
Kinematic analysis
in the water vs.
Ergometer.
≠ Arm and forearm segments ≠ at
the end of the stroke, but without
major differences between the
two conditions.
(Lormes,
Buckwitz,
Rehbein, &
Steinacker, 1993)
11P Comparison:
Gjessing vs. Concept II Incremental test.
Max power: 255w Gjessing
>294w Concept II
Rpm: Gjessing (33/min)
>Concept II (29 /min).
(Martin &
Bernfield, 1979) 8x8E
Boats with 8 rowers and 1
helmsman
37 vs. 39 vs. 41rpm/min.
Speed-time analysis
in competition.
Correlation (r = 0.66) between
rpm and mean velocity.
(Martindale &
Robertson, 1984)
2E
2ME
Gjessing simulator vs.
Ergometer Vs. Boat.
Kinematic
Comparison.
↓ Energy coast on the boat vs.
ergometer. No effect simulator vs.
ergometer.
(Steer, McGregor,
& Bull, 2006) 12E 2 ergometers: Concept II vs.
WaterRower.
three tests applied
(2 on Concept II
and 1 on
WaterRower), with
(18-20 and 28-30
strokes). Kinematic
of the lumbar and
pelvic region.
Concept II demonstrated high
repeatability. WaterRover affects
rowing technique; however, we
do not know the practical
implication between ergometer
differences.
(Vinther et al.,
2013)
14E
8ME
Male and female in fixed
vs. Slide ergometer.
EMG and strength
rate.
With slides, ↓ Peak force 76 (57-
95) N in male and 20 (8-31) N in
female.
↑ rpm (+ 10.7%) in male.
↓ Speed of strength (-20.7%)
men.
↓ Neuromuscular activity in the
vastus lateralis from 59% to 51%
of the maximum of EMG in male
and from 57% to 52% in the
female.
(Wilson, Gissane,
Gormley, &
Simms, 2013)
19E Lumbar kinematics to
fatigue Ergometer vs. Boat.
Maximum lumbar
flexion range was
recorded. Heart rate
and power were
recorded during the
test.
↑ Maximum lumbar flexion with
the ergometer (4.4±0.9
o
) vs. the
boat (1.3±1.1
o
), ↑1.3%
(ergometer) and 4.1% (boat) in
the stretching of the lumbar and
spine.
Notes. For studies in which there was no specification of the situation in a boat or on an ergometer with slide, the
analyses were performed on an ergometer; * Not specified in article E = elite male, ME = elite female JP =
young practitioner, P = practitioners, EP = Paralympic elite, rpm = rowing per minute.
The studies involving kinematics are presented in Table 2 with information about the sample,
experimental design, applied procedures and results. Differences are observed in the different studies when
comparing elite versus other athletes, which can be used as a reference for achieving maximum performance.

BIANCA MIARKA, FÁBIO DAL BELLO, CIRO JOSÉ BRITO, MARCELO VAZ, FABRÍCIO B. DEL
VECCHIO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
196
Table 2: Studies involving kinematics as the main component and their respective sample, experimental design,
procedures and main results.
Study Sam
ple
Experimental
fashion Procedures Main results
(Attenborough,
Smith, & Sinclair,
2012)
7E
8EL E vs. EL Biomechanical analyses of
strength.
rpm E: 33.7 rpm x EL: 33.9 rpm
↑ Peak force on wrist (26.2-30.2%) in E.
↑ Relative strength (18.7-22.1%) in EL.
↑ Work and Power (26-29.2%) in E.
(Buckeridge, Bull, &
McGregor, 2014)
5EM
6EL
6E
EM vs. EL vs.
E
Analysis of force
application in incremental
test.
↑ Relative forces resulting vertical and
horizontal in EL rowers.
Asymmetries at 5.3% for the force of 28.9%
for the vertical sync of peak force.
The asymmetries were not sensitive to rpm or
to the group.
(Buckeridge, Hislop,
Bull, & McGregor,
2012)
22P
E*
E vs P
Kinematics of the knees,
hips, lumbar-pelvic joints
and pelvic torsion.
Seat strength, stroke
length, mid-lateral seat
drift, and external power.
↑ E: strength in the fist. E and P presented
asymmetries of lower limbs, with higher
significantly hip asymmetries in front of the
knee.
(Hartmann, Mader,
Wasser, & Klauer,
1993)
20M
E
81E
ME vs. E
During a max
test of 6-min.
Peak power.
Max Strength E:1.350N> ME:1.020N;
Max Speed Peak E:3.80m/s>ME: 2.90 m/s;
Peak power E:3.230N>ME:1860N.
(Kane, MacKenzie,
Jensen, & Watts,
2013)
5E
5EM
E vs. EM Incremental tests on an
ergometer. E > EM in rpm frequency and heart rate.
(McGregor, Bull, &
Byng-Maddick,
2004)
10E
B1 vs. B3 vs.
Competitive
race.
Race on an ergometer in
three different rpm: 17-20,
24-28, 28-36.
Changes in the force and kinematics curve in
the lumbospore region, but there was no
difference in the peak force.
(Nelson & Widule,
1982)
9P
9E E vs. P. Kinematic analysis of
rowing.
≠ Horizontal linear rowing speed (E:
2.6±0.2m vs. P: 2.2 0.2m). ≠ knee extension
(E: 4.2±0.5 P: 3.0±0.1 rad.S
-1
). ≠ angular
speed of the knee extension and extension of
the upper trunk (E: 7.3±0.8 vs. P: 5.9±0.6
rad.S
-1
).
Max angular speed of the knee and trunk (P:
0.2±0.1 vs. E: 0.2±0.04 s).
(Ng, Campbell,
Burnett, &
O’Sullivan, 2013)
20JP
M
20JP
20JPM vs. 20JP
The kinematics of each
phase of rowing action on
an ergometer.
JP positions your pelvis with more posterior
slope and thoracic spine with more flexion
when compared to JPM.
(Seiler, Spirduso, &
Martin, 1998)
2.48
7P
1615
MP
Age and
gender:
P aged 24-93
Vs.
MP 24-84.
Analysis of the ranking of
indoor, national and
international indoor
competitions.
Correlation between time and age P: r = 0.58,
MP: 0.46, with small and curvilinear decline
pattern for P and linear for MP.
(Tachibana, Yashiro,
Miyazaki,
IKEGAMI, &
Higuchi, 2007)
39P
21P
M
Descriptive
correlation
between
performance
and use of
muscle groups
Creation of a regression
model between
performance and
transversal muscular
section.
Performance vs. Posterior thigh and lower
back (r
2
= 0.51). Ballistic movement of trunk
(r
2
= 0.49). Elbow extensors (r
2
= 0.19)
Potential activation by muscles of the mmss
(r
2
= 0.42). Ballistic movement of trunk and
posterior thigh (r
2
= 0.34).
Notes: For studies in which there was no specification of the boat or on an ergometer with slide, the analyses were performed on an
ergometer; * Not specified in the article E = elite male, ME = elite female JP = young practitioner, P = practitioners, EP = Paralympic elite,
rpm = rowing per minute; B1 = rowing training in frequency of 17-19 strokes per minute; B3 = rowing training in frequency of 23-25 strokes
per minute, mmss = lower limbs.
Studies on electromyography as the main component of analysis are presented in Table 3 with
information about the sample, experimental design, applied procedures and main results. Together, the results
indicated that there is a difference when using an ergometer or a boat, differences in the type of paddle handgrip
and paddling intensity.

BIANCA MIARKA, FÁBIO DAL BELLO, CIRO JOSÉ BRITO, MARCELO VAZ, FABRÍCIO B. DEL
VECCHIO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
197
Table 3. Studies on electromyography as the main component and its respective sample, experimental design,
applied procedures and main results.
Study Sample Experimental fashion Procedures Main results
(Bazzucchi
et al.,
2013)
9E
1000 m:
Boat vs. Ergometer
(EMG) of the upper trapezius,
large dorsal, biceps brachii,
rectus femoris, vastus medialis,
and lateral, biceps femoris and
tibialis anterior.
Time in water 218.4±3.8s>
ergometer 178.1±5.6 s. Muscle
activation in water<ergometer.
(Bompa et
al., 1990) E* Handgrip: pronate vs.
supinate vs. Semi-pronate.
EMG in 1RM test with change
of handgrip in rowing.
↑ Muscle activation and strength
using the semi-pronate position.
(Caldwell,
McNair, &
Williams,
2003)
16JP
Muscle activation in the
prone process lumbar
muscles.
EMG in spinous processes of
L1 and S1 during maximal
isometric effort until fatigue.
↑ lumbar flexion
↑ lumbar multifidus activation
↑ lumbar iliocostal activation
↑ long activation of the thorax.
(Gauthier,
1985) E* Without feedback vs.
with feedback.
8 weeks with intervention and
EMG analysis.
↑higher muscle activation with
feedback.
(Gerževic,
Strojnik, &
Jarm,
2011)
6E 6min simulation race (all-
out) vs. 6min submax.
EMG of medial gastrocnemius,
rectus femoris, vastus lateralis,
femoral biceps, maxillary
gluteus, paraespinals, lower
dorsal, latissimus superior
dorsi, brachioradialis and
biceps brachialis.
Activation in rectus femoris, large
dorsal, vastus lateralis and gluteus
maximus during the submaximal test
< activation of the gastrocnemius,
rectus femoris, vastus lateralis,
inferiors of the large dorsalis, upper
latissimus of the dorsalis and biceps
brachii in the all-out test.
(Guével et
al., 2011) 9E
Comparison of trials:
1: 10 min 65-75%
HRmax. and 16-18
strokes.min vs. 2: 10 min
75-85% HRmax and 18-
20 strokes.min.
EMG in the quadriceps and
hamstrings and mechanical
aspects of the paddling action.
No significant effect.
(Halliday et
al., 2004)
1P
5EP
Spinal cord injury with
electrostimulation in mmii
vs. Practitioners
EMG analysis in mmiis and
trunk region.
No effect on activation, only on
force application of mmiis.
(Janshen,
Mattes, &
Tidow,
2009)
7EJ
Comparison between
asymmetric strength in the
course of the rowing;
mi left vs. mi right.
EMG in six muscles of each
leg and pressure distribution
under both feet were measured.
Data were collected two times
(30-second) from 1 and 5 min
after the test began.
No effect on joint range of motion of
the hip, knee and ankle. ↑ 20-45% in
the acceleration phase, activation of
the muscles associated with the knee,
hip and ankle of the inner leg
(supporting). ↑ 56-91% mean
pressure values under the arch of the
foot of the inner leg of the rowing.
(Lander,
Butterly, &
Edwards,
2009)
9P
5.000m controlled by RPE
15 (difficult) vs. 5.000m
controlled by average
power (EXT).
EMG and analysis of
physiological aspects every
30s.
↑ Muscle activation and energy
consumption in RPE situation, with
equivalent power.
(Mäestu et
al., 2006) P*
Comparison of activation
in: 2000m vs. 1000m vs.
500 m.
EMG of vastus lateralis and
power analysis.
2000m (248.9 ± 26.67 W) and
1000m (258.89 ± 27.13W) < 500m
(302.25 ± 45.10 W). ↑ vastus
lateralis activity.
(Peltonen
et al.,
1997)
6 E*
Comparison of the 2,500m
in: Normoxia Vs. Hypoxia
vs. Hyperxia.
EMG every 500 m, with
different oxygen environment.
↓ Gradual strength for all three
conditions. No effect on muscle
activation.
(Pollock et
al., 2012) 9ME
2000m test, comparison
between muscle activation
at: 250m vs. 1500m
EMG and angular speed in
extension-flexion mmii, mmss
and trunk.
At 1500m compared to 250m, ↓
angular speed in delayed extension
in the T4-T7 and L3-S1 spine
segments and increase in the T10-L1
and L1-L3 of the spine segments and
increased activation in the abdominal
muscles.
(Rodriguez,
Rogriguez,
Cook, &
Sandborn,
1990)
5E Single muscle vs.
Diverse muscle groups. EMG
↑ Muscle activation and power with
the stroke distributed by diverse
muscle groups.
(Sprague et
al., 2007)
E
P
Fatigue patterns of
muscles in rowing during
EMG in the brachioradialis,
biceps brachii medial deltoid,
↑ muscle activation and biodynamic
compensation in E, distributing the

BIANCA MIARKA, FÁBIO DAL BELLO, CIRO JOSÉ BRITO, MARCELO VAZ, FABRÍCIO B. DEL
VECCHIO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
198
the 6 min effort: E vs. P. rectus abdominis, spine
erectors, rectus femoris,
femoral biceps, gastrocnemius.
load by a higher number of muscle
groups.
(Turpin et
al., 2011b)
7E
8P
E vs. P in three activities
of constant load of 2 min
realized in 60, 90 and
120% of the average
energy production during
a 2,000-m max test.
EMG in 23 muscles and
mechanical analysis.
↑ power for 22 of 23 muscles in
correlation with increased load
No effect on activation patterns and
EMG activation time.
(Vinther et
al., 2006)
E*
P*
Pattern of contraction
E Vs. P
EMG and kinematics of the
rowing action
≠ Speed in the initial phase of the
acceleration (E: 0.25±0.03 m/s vs. P:
0.15±0.06 m/s). ≠ Co-contraction of
anterior serratil and Trapezium in the
middle of the stroke (E: 47.5±3.4 vs.
P: 30.8±6.5). ≠ In relation to knee
extension and elbow flexion (E:
4.2±0.22 vs P: 4.8±0.16).
Notes: For studies in which there was no specification of the situation being in a boat or on an ergometer with
slide, the analyses were performed on an ergometer; * Not specified in the article E = elite male, ME = elite
female JP = young practitioner, P = practitioners, EP = Paralympic elite, rpm = rowing per minute; EMG =
electromyography; RPE = rating of perceived exertion; EXT = average power; W = watts; B1 = rowing training
in frequency of 17-19 strokes per min; B2 = rowing training in frequency of 20-22 strokes per minute; L =
lumbar; T = thoracic; S = sacral, mmii = upper limbs, mmss = lower limbs.
Discussion
This review analysed factors, experimental designs and results from research on kinematic, kinetic and
electromyographic aspects of rowers. We performed a synthesis on the main evidence in these investigations.
The articles indicated the main effects in evaluations of elite male and female rowers. The studies revealed
differences between the genders and competitive level; such EMG studies show a higher muscle activation and
technical constancy, even with modifications of equipment or conditions of use in varying distances between 500
and 2,000 meters. Therefore, the discussion of these studies was organized from the main component and
separately evaluated into three topics: kinetics, kinematics and electromyography.
Kinetics
Since the development of the first indoor rowing simulator variations and implements were created, and
kinetics has been used to examine the forces acting on the boat, rower, and paddle. Information is still limited on
the use of equipment , boat type and anthropometric variables being able to increase power and energy
production (Pelz & Vergé, 2014). The comparisons between ergometers are not consensual in the results of
average power, or even in the counter-clock time (Table 1). For example, in a comparison of Concept II and
RowPerfect ergometers, the results highlighted an increasing standard error with increasing distance in both,
with 2.8% and 3.3% in 500m, respectively, and a common standard error of 1.3% and 3.3% in 2000m,
respectively (Soper & Hume, 2004). Although the standard error is different between devices, both perform
similar muscle activation when comparing measurements of erector spine, recto abdominal, rectus femoral,
biceps femoral, and contributions of antagonist and agonist muscles in flexion and trunk extension (Nowicky,
Burdett, & Horne, 2005). Thus, these ergometers can be used for training and tests with metabolic and kinematic
demand correlated to those found in boats (Table 1). On the other hand, slide ergometers were originally created
to fill in the gap in the movement mechanics of the fixed ergometer, but they showed to increase fatigue when
compared with the boats (Holsgaard-Larsen & Jensen, 2010). Specific mechanical restrictions with or without a
slide can affect the muscle recruitment pattern, coordination and possible adjustments made in water (Table 1).
During the 6-minute maximal test on a slide ergometer there was an increase in the heart rate with higher muscle
activation of the lower limbs when compared to the fixed ergometer, and the fixed one also presented higher
muscular activation in the dorsal region (Bull & McGregor, 2000).
Regarding technical performance, it is required that athletes of the same boat (called trim) have perfect
synchronicity between paddles (Torres-Moreno et al., 2000). In order to mimic the specific condition of rowing
in the water and assuming that 5-6% of the power produced by the rower is lost to paddle fluctuations in the
return phase, an unbalanced rowing simulator was developed to verify which aspects associated with
synchronization can affect performance (Baudouin & Hawkins, 2004). Theoretically, a possible way for the
trimmings to increase the average speed of the boat would be to correct fluctuations, paddling in lateral
coordination to balance the boat. However, nine pairs of rowers performed a maximum of two minutes at 36 rpm
in two coupled ergometers, and no effect was observed on power in relation to the change in the height of the
float in the return phase (Brown, Delau, & Desgorces, 2010). In this context, the technical adjustments that
improve performance in the boat do not always present the same behaviour in the technique on an ergometer,

BIANCA MIARKA, FÁBIO DAL BELLO, CIRO JOSÉ BRITO, MARCELO VAZ, FABRÍCIO B. DEL
VECCHIO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
199
even if the simulators have a lateral unbalanced effect. Therefore, implements were also studied in addition to
the ergometer. It is known that the paddle design affects the course and the applied power, and this encouraged
the creation of diverse models. Although the results do not present comparisons for the different types of paddle
blades, studies have shown some interference; for example, with the Big Blade, which generates a significant
increase in paddle angle when compared to other paddles (Caplan & Gardner, 2007). Although the influence of
the blade design does not show significant increases in force coefficients in the water, this discussion allows to
present results that provide higher individual comfort in choosing equipment according to the rower's
appreciation. In relation to the paddle size, an increase of the rod length allows more prolonged course of the
blade in the water (between 15-19 cm), which can improve the production of force by 40-80 N (McGregor,
Patankar, & Bull, 2007).
Kinematics
In kinematics, biomechanical investigations have analysed the forces acting on a system such as the
relationship between bodies and the boat and/or equipment. Therefore, it is essential to summarize information
on technology and methodological implements that aid in technical improvements which can increase the force
application and muscular activation throughout competition (Cabrera, Ruina, & Kleshnev, 2006; Caplan &
Gardner, 2005; Roemer, Hortobagyi, Richter, Munoz-Maldonado, & Hamilton, 2013). Furthermore, the use of
instrumental innovations of kinetics and predictive models of kinematics to create models of average speed of
the boats allows for improving boat slipping (Cabrera et al., 2006). In order to ensure the accuracy of measured
speed, kinetic studies bring important equipment validations and present accurate results on which factors would
affect the paddling efficiency, such as angular variations combined with cine-anthropometric and mechanical
aspects (Roemer et al., 2013). The complexity in developing studies in kinematics (Table 2) begins with the need
for equipment such as high-resolution cameras, markers, force transducers, potentiometers and
electrogoniometers connected to the rowers' joints to provide signals which are proportional to the main angles
that interfere in speed. However, they are important elements to provide feedback to coaches and athletes, with
the possibility of estimating performance and reconstructing an animated puppet with kinematic and kinetic
overlap. Newly developed software allows rapid mechanical change and is used to evaluate images during
movement, with calculations of the dependent variables observed in position, orientation, speed and acceleration
of the rower's body and/or segments, as well as the effect of the technical change on the power produced by the
athletes (Hawkins, 2000).
The reviewed studies indicate that it is possible to measure kinematic parameters from the images
acquired during the movement by calculating the dependent variables of the observed data such as position,
orientation, speed and acceleration of the body or segments (Table 2). For example, rowing efficiency can be
affected with angular modification of the knee joint throughout the rowing action, with varying the height where
the feet are supported on the boat (foot cradle). This assertion is confirmed by a study with 10 rowers, which
verified that the acceleration and the fatigue produced during 3min and 30s at three different heights in relation
to the position of the foot cradle obtained better results in the highest position with no change in velocity, and
increased efficacy by fatigue reduction (Halliday, Zavatsky, & Hase, 2004). In addition to altering the foot
cradle, the mechanics of the ergometers change the fatigue associated to the competitive level; meaning higher
expertise results in lower interference of the fatigue (Colloud, Bahuaud, Doriot, Champely, & Chèze, 2006).
Studies that combine kinematic and kinesiology analysis associated to mechanical efficiency such as in
strength training are rare. Only one study investigated the efficacy in the performance of finishing the stroke
using different handgrips in the semi-pronate, supinate and pronate positions conventionally used in training with
resistance training. According to the results, the semi-pronate position generates higher acceleration and muscle
activity, thus being superior to the classic pronate handgrip, which reinforces the premise about training
specificity for performance improvement (Bompa, Borms, & Hebbelinck, 1990). Kinematic analyses has
provided significant motivation for rowing adherence in recent years; not only in high performance, but also in
practitioners having some type of motor limitation, since they showed that the sport did not result in sudden
accelerations combined with ballistic impact forces that are associated with traumatisms (Boykin et al., 2013;
Christiansen & Kanstrup, 1997). In rowers with disabilities, studies with functional electrostimulation and
modified indoor rowing machines have been performed (van Soest & Hofmijster, 2009). In comparing muscle
activation between university rowers and a subject with a spinal cord injury using functional electrical
stimulation in the leg musculature, Halliday et al. (2004) observed similarities in movements of the upper limbs,
ankles and knees, with the only differences in the forces applied to the ergometer. However, no significant
changes were observed implementing electrostimulation to reduce the frequency of strokes per minute.
Electromyography (EMG)
Electromyography studies help coaches to technically develop athletes in order to make muscular
actions focusing on large muscle groups more effective (Turpin, Guével, Durand, & Hug, 2011a); in addition,
showing the relation between the action mechanics combined with fatigue (Di Prampero, Cortili, Celentano, &
Cerretelli, 1971) together with the physiological characteristics of the rowers can reveal differences in the

BIANCA MIARKA, FÁBIO DAL BELLO, CIRO JOSÉ BRITO, MARCELO VAZ, FABRÍCIO B. DEL
VECCHIO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
200
kinematic pattern during training and improve performance by biofeedback (McGregor, Anderton, & Gedroyc,
2002). Moreover, an analysis of protocols and results stimulates future research (Cabrera et al., 2006; Caplan &
Gardner, 2005; Roemer et al., 2013). According to Caplan and Gardner (2005), EMG is an essential method for
analysis of neuromuscular activity in rowers by measuring the forces produced by the activated muscle groups.
Despite being essential, studies show restrictions on the replicability of protocols in the ways and methods still
under development; for example, many modifications occur in the protocol for EMG signal acquisition. The first
studies were performed with only 12 points, but more recently they are being done using 23 observation points
(Turpin, Guével, Durand, & Hug, 2011b).
The use of EMG in rowing presupposes that the superficial muscles are the most important for
performance (Table 3). However, a deep neuromuscular evaluation shows that an increase of training sessions on
an ergometer is correlated with a higher probability of injury in the knee and spine (Sprague, Martin, Davidson,
& Farrar, 2007). Hip injuries in rowers between 2003-2010 show a higher prevalence in young rowers (14-23
years), and in women affecting the hips (85%). In addition, this study observed a higher occurrence of injury in
preparatory school rowers (44%) and high school rowers (56%) (Boykin et al., 2013).The injuries were mostly
related to tendonitis in the wrist, intersection syndrome of the forearm and fractures in the ribs (Christiansen &
Kanstrup, 1997). EMG, isokinetic muscle strength, and video analysis performed on an ergometer by seven
international level rowers and seven controls showed that all higher means in elite athletes for muscle
acceleration and activation, including co-contraction of the anterior serratus and trapezium, indicating a higher
predisposition to the occurrence of a stress fracture (Vinther et al., 2006). In high performance women, a 2,000
m test presented minimal coactivation of the trunk flexors and extensors, and most of the muscular activations of
the spinal segments occurred between L3-S1, which may make this region more susceptible to soft tissue injuries
(Pollock, Jones, Jenkyn, Ivanova, & Garland, 2012).
Conclusion
The present study has discussed factors, experimental designs and results from research on kinematic,
kinetic and electromyographic aspects of rowers. Regarding kinetic aspects, stationary ergometers showed an
increasing standard error with an increase of distance in the official 2,000-meter race, but with similar muscular
activation in relation to a rower in the water and in comparison between different types of equipment. However,
ergometers with mechanical slides showed a mechanical lag compared to stationary ergometers, and show
increased fatigue when compared to boats. These observations are important for practical application because the
specific mechanical restriction of slides and/or non-slide ergometers can affect the muscle recruitment pattern,
coordination and possible adjustments made during a water race. Regarding kinematic components, the research
results showed that angular modification of the joints along the rowing action could be modified with variation
in the foot cradle height. Studies of electromyography showed greater activation in the recto femoral, dorsal,
paravertebral, vast lateral, and gluteus Maximus muscles. In turn, studies using electromyography show that
ergometer training increases the risk of injury to the hip, spine and knee regions. Furthermore, the results of
assessing neuromuscular activation show differences between competitive level, age and gender. Coaches and
athletes can use this information’s in prophylaxis for injuries, as well as in planning a specific training.
Conflict of interest
The authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with
any financial interest, or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.
References
Anderson, R., Harrison, A., & Lyons, G. M. (2005). Rowing: Accelerometry‐based feedback‐can it improve
movement consistency and performance in Rowing? Sports Biomechanics, 4(2), 179-195.
Attenborough, A. S., Smith, R. M., & Sinclair, P. J. (2012). Effect of gender and stroke rate on joint power
characteristics of the upper extremity during simulated rowing. Journal of Sports Science, 30(5), 449-
458.
Baudouin, A., & Hawkins, D. (2004). Investigation of biomechanical factors affecting rowing performance.
Journal of Biomechanics, 37(7), 969-976.
Bazzucchi, I., Sbriccoli, P., Nicolò, A., Passerini, A., Quinzi, F., Felici, F., & Sacchetti, M. (2013). Cardio-
respiratory and electromyographic responses to ergometer and on-water rowing in elite rowers.
European Journal of Applied Physiology, 113(5), 1271-1277.
Bompa, T. O., Borms, J., & Hebbelinck, M. (1990). Mechanical efficiency of the elbow flexors in rowing.
American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 69(3), 140-143.
Boykin, R. E., McFeely, E. D., Ackerman, K. E., Yen, Y.-M., Nasreddine, A., & Kocher, M. S. (2013). Labral
injuries of the hip in rowers. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 471(8), 2517-2522.
Brown, M. R., Delau, S., & Desgorces, F. D. (2010). Effort regulation in rowing races depends on performance
level and exercise mode. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 13(6), 613-617.

BIANCA MIARKA, FÁBIO DAL BELLO, CIRO JOSÉ BRITO, MARCELO VAZ, FABRÍCIO B. DEL
VECCHIO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
201
Buckeridge, E., Hislop, S., Bull, A., & McGregor, A. (2012). Kinematic asymmetries of the lower limbs during
ergometer rowing. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 44(11), 2147-2153.
Buckeridge, E. M., Bull, A. M., & McGregor, A. H. (2014). Foot force production and asymmetries in elite
rowers. Sports Biomechanics, 13(1), 47-61.
Bull, A. M., & McGregor, A. H. (2000). Measuring spinal motion in rowers: the use of an electromagnetic
device. Clinical Biomechanics, 15(10), 772-776.
Cabrera, D., Ruina, A., & Kleshnev, V. (2006). A simple 1+ dimensional model of rowing mimics observed
forces and motions. Human Movement Science, 25(2), 192-220.
Caldwell, J. S., McNair, P. J., & Williams, M. (2003). The effects of repetitive motion on lumbar flexion and
erector spinae muscle activity in rowers. Clinical Biomechanics, 18(8), 704-711.
Caplan, N., & Gardner, T. (2007). A mathematical model of the oar blade–water interaction in rowing. Journal
of Sports Science, 25(9), 1025-1034.
Caplan, N., & Gardner, T. N. (2005). The influence of stretcher height on the mechanical effectiveness of
rowing. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 21(3), 286-296.
Celentano, F., Cortili, G., Di Prampero, P., & Cerretelli, P. (1971). The biomechanics of rowing. II. Efficiency of
the progression. Bulletin of the Italian Society of Experimental Biology, 47(7), 185-187.
Černe, T., Kamnik, R., Vesnicer, B., Gros, J. Ž., & Munih, M. (2013). Differences between elite, junior and non-
rowers in kinematic and kinetic parameters during ergometer rowing. Human Movement Science,
32(4), 691-707.
Christiansen, E., & Kanstrup, I. L. (1997). Increased risk of stress fractures of the ribs in elite rowers.
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 7(1), 49-52.
Colloud, F., Bahuaud, P., Doriot, N., Champely, S., & Chèze, L. (2006). Fixed versus free-floating stretcher
mechanism in rowing ergometers: mechanical aspects. Journal of Sports Science, 24(05), 479-493.
Di Prampero, P., Cortili, G., Celentano, F., & Cerretelli, P. (1971). The biomechanics of rowing. IV. The energy
cost. Bulletin of the Italian Society of Experimental Biology, 47(7), 190-191.
Gauthier, G. M. (1985). Visually and acoustically augmented performance feedback as an aid in motor control
learning: a study of selected components of the rowing action. Journal of Sports Science, 3(1), 3-26.
Gerževic, M., Strojnik, V., & Jarm, T. (2011). Differences in muscle activation between submaximal and
maximal 6-minute rowing tests. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(9), 2470-2481.
Guével, A., Boyas, S., Guihard, V., Cornu, C., Hug, F., & Nordez, A. (2011). Thigh muscle activities in elite
rowers during on-water rowing. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 32(02), 109-116.
Halliday, S. E., Zavatsky, A. B., & Hase, K. (2004). Can functional electric stimulation-assisted rowing
reproduce a race-winning rowing stroke? Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85(8),
1265-1272.
Hartmann, U., Mader, A., Wasser, K., & Klauer, I. (1993). Peak force, velocity, and power during five and ten
maximal rowing ergometer strokes by world class female and male rowers. International Journal of
Sports Medicine, 14(S 1), S42-S45.
Hawkins, D. (2000). A new instrumentation system for training rowers. Journal of Biomechanics, 33(2), 241-
245.
Holsgaard-Larsen, A., & Jensen, K. (2010). Ergometer rowing with and without slides. International Journal of
Sports Medicine, 31(12), 870-874.
Janshen, L., Mattes, K., & Tidow, G. (2009). Muscular coordination of the lower extremities of oarsmen during
ergometer rowing. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 25(2), 156-164.
Kane, D., MacKenzie, S., Jensen, R., & Watts, P. (2013). Effects of stroke resistance on rowing economy in club
rowers post-season. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 34(02), 131-137.
Lamb, D. H. (1989). A kinematic comparison of ergometer and on-water rowing. American Journal of Sports
Medicine, 17(3), 367-373.
Lander, P. J., Butterly, R. J., & Edwards, A. M. (2009). Self-paced exercise is less physically challenging than
enforced constant pace exercise of the same intensity: influence of complex central metabolic control.
British Journal of Sports Medicine, 43(10), 789-795.
Lormes, W., Buckwitz, R., Rehbein, H., & Steinacker, J. (1993). Performance and blood lactate on Gjessing and
Concept II rowing ergometers. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 14(S 1), S29-S31.
Mäestu, J., Cicchella, A., Purge, P., Ruosi, S., Jürimäe, J., & JÜrimÄe, T. (2006). Electromyographic and
neuromuscular fatigue thresholds as concepts of fatigue. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 20(4), 824-828.
Mahler, D., Parker, H., & Andresen, D. (1985). Physiologic changes in rowing performance associated with
training in collegiate women rowers. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 6(04), 229-233.
Martin, T. P., & Bernfield, J. S. (1979). Effect of stroke rate on velocity of a rowing shell. Medicine and Science
in Sports and Exercise, 12(4), 250-256.
Martindale, W., & Robertson, D. (1984). Mechanical energy in sculling and in rowing an ergometer. Canadian
Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 9(3), 153-163.

BIANCA MIARKA, FÁBIO DAL BELLO, CIRO JOSÉ BRITO, MARCELO VAZ, FABRÍCIO B. DEL
VECCHIO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
202
McGregor, A., Anderton, L., & Gedroyc, W. (2002). The assessment of intersegmental motion and pelvic tilt in
elite oarsmen. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 34(7), 1143-1149.
McGregor, A., Bull, A., & Byng-Maddick, R. (2004). A comparison of rowing technique at different stroke
rates: a description of sequencing, force production and kinematics. International Journal of Sports
Medicine, 25(06), 465-470.
McGregor, A. H., Patankar, Z. S., & Bull, A. M. (2007). Longitudinal changes in the spinal kinematics of
oarswomen during step testing. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 6(1), 29-35.
Nelson, W. N., & Widule, C. J. (1982). Kinematic analysis and efficiency estimate of intercollegiate female
rowers. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 15(6), 535-541.
Ng, L., Campbell, A., Burnett, A., & O’Sullivan, P. (2013). Gender differences in trunk and pelvic kinematics
during prolonged ergometer rowing in adolescents. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 29(2), 180-187.
Nowicky, A. V., Burdett, R., & Horne, S. (2005). The impact of ergometer design on hip and trunk muscle
activity patterns in elite rowers: an electromyographic assessment. Journal of Sports Science and
Medicine, 4, 18-28.
Peltonen, J. E., Rusko, H. K., Rantamäki, J., Sweins, K., Niittymäki, S., & Viitasalo, J. T. (1997). Effects of
oxygen fraction in inspired air on force production and electromyogram activity during ergometer
rowing. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 76(6), 495-503.
Pelz, P. F., & Vergé, A. (2014). Validated biomechanical model for efficiency and speed of rowing. Journal of
Biomechanics, 47(13), 3415-3422.
Pollock, C., Jones, I., Jenkyn, T., Ivanova, T., & Garland, S. (2012). Changes in kinematics and trunk
electromyography during a 2000 m race simulation in elite female rowers. Scandinavian Journal of
Medicine and Science in Sports, 22(4), 478-487.
Rodriguez, R. J., Rogriguez, R. P., Cook, S., & Sandborn, P. (1990). Electromyographic analysis of rowing
stroke biomechanics. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 30(1), 103-108.
Roemer, K., Hortobagyi, T., Richter, C., Munoz-Maldonado, Y., & Hamilton, S. (2013). Effect of BMI on Knee
Joint Torques in Ergometer Rowing. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 29(6), 763-768.
Seiler, K. S., Spirduso, W. W., & Martin, J. C. (1998). Gender differences in rowing performance and power
with aging. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 30(1), 121-127.
Smith, R. M., & Spinks, W. L. (1995). Discriminant analysis of biomechanical differences between novice, good
and elite rowers. Journal of Sports Science, 13(5), 377-385.
Soper, C., & Hume, P. A. (2004). Towards an ideal rowing technique for performance. Sports Medicine, 34(12),
825-848.
Sprague, R. C., Martin, J. C., Davidson, C. J., & Farrar, R. P. (2007). Force-velocity and power-velocity
relationships during maximal short-term rowing ergometry. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 39(2), 358-364.
Steer, R. R., McGregor, A. H., & Bull, A. M. (2006). A comparison of kinematics and performance measures of
two rowing ergometers. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 5(1), 52-59.
Tachibana, K., Yashiro, K., Miyazaki, J., IKEGAMI, Y., & Higuchi, M. (2007). Muscle cross-sectional areas
and performance power of limbs and trunk in the rowing motion. Sports Biomechanics, 6(1), 44-58.
Torres-Moreno, R., Tanaka, C., & Penney, K. (2000). Joint excursion, handle velocity, and applied force: a
biomechanical analysis of ergonometric rowing. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 21(01), 41-
44.
Turpin, N. A., Guével, A., Durand, S., & Hug, F. (2011a). Effect of power output on muscle coordination during
rowing. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 111(12), 3017-3029.
Turpin, N. A., Guével, A., Durand, S., & Hug, F. (2011b). Fatigue-related adaptations in muscle coordination
during a cyclic exercise in humans. Journal of Experimental Biology, 214(19), 3305-3314.
van Soest, A. K., & Hofmijster, M. (2009). Strapping rowers to their sliding seat improves performance during
the start of ergometer rowing. Journal of Sports Science, 27(3), 283-289.
Vinther, A., Alkjaer, T., Kanstrup, I. L., Zerahn, B., Ekdahl, C., Jensen, K., . . . Aagaard, P. (2013). Slide‐based
ergometer rowing: Effects on force production and neuromuscular activity. Scandinavian Journal of
Medicine and Science in Sports, 23(5), 635-644.
Vinther, A., Kanstrup, I. L., Christiansen, E., Alkjær, T., Larsson, B., Magnusson, S., . . . Aagaard, P. (2006).
Exercise‐induced rib stress fractures: potential risk factors related to thoracic muscle co‐contraction
and movement pattern. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 16(3), 188-196.
Wilson, F., Gissane, C., Gormley, J., & Simms, C. (2013). Sagittal plane motion of the lumbar spine during
ergometer and single scull rowing. Sports Biomechanics, 12(2), 132-142.