東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Kinematics of the Feet-Out Rowing Drill on the Concept2® Model D Versus the Rowperfect 3S Rowing Ergometers.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Kinematics of the Feet-Out Rowing Drill on the Concept2® Model D Versus the Rowperfect 3S Rowing Ergometers./
Author:	Sharis, Elizabeth.
Published:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2021,
Description:	63 p.
Notes:	Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 83-04.
Contained By:	Masters Abstracts International83-04.
Subject:	Biomechanics. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28850387
ISBN:	9798471109070

Kinematics of the Feet-Out Rowing Drill on the Concept2® Model D Versus the Rowperfect 3S Rowing Ergometers.
Sharis, Elizabeth.

Kinematics of the Feet-Out Rowing Drill on the Concept2® Model D Versus the Rowperfect 3S Rowing Ergometers. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2021 - 63 p.

Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 83-04.

Thesis (M.S.)--St. Ambrose University, 2021.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

Rowing is a competitive sport contested at the high school, collegiate, and Olympic levels which relies heavily on technique for success in the highly aerobic sport. Improper rowing technique can be improved upon through drill work. The feet-out rowing drill is a drill in which the rower does not strap feet into either the foot stretcher (on a rowing ergometer) or the built-in shoes (in a rowing boat). PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to observe the feet-out rowing drill by comparing joint angles and peak angular velocities of the knee and lumbar spine, as well as peak lumbar extension timing within the stroke, on the Concept2 Model D (C2D) versus the RowPerfect 3S (RP3S) rowing ergometers. METHODS: 15 experienced rowers (8 females, 7 males) ages 22.73 ± 5.51 years participated in this study. Using a within-subjects, repeated measures design, subjects completed 750 meters rowing feet-out on both the C2D and RP3S at 20 ± 1 strokes per minute with ten minutes rest. Seven inertial measurement units (IMUs) were placed bilaterally on the subjects' 7th cervical spinal process, sacrum, 12th thoracic spinal process, and bilateral thigh and leg segments. Using a custom MATLAB program (MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, v. R2020b), peak lumbar extension timing for ten consecutive strokes as defined by maximum knee flexion was calculated. A mixed between-within ANOVA was run to compare males and females between ergometers. Paired t-tests were run to assess differences between kinematic variables between ergometers. Pearson correlations were used for weight and height with kinematic data. The alpha used was .05. RESULTS: A difference was found between ergometers only in peak lumbar extension timing (F1,11= 9.56, p = .01, partial n2 = .47) where peak lumbar extension occurred later on the C2D (38.08 ± 5.18%) when compared to the RP3S (34.60 ± 3.93%). There was a significantly different main effect for sex between female (n = 7, RP3S 32.43 ± 3.05%, C2D 35.23 ± 4.12%) and male (n = 6, RP3S 37.13 ± 3.40%, C2D 41.40 ± 4.41%) subjects (F1,11 = 9.55, p = 01, partial n2 = .47). A strong, positive correlation was noted between C2D lumbar spine ROM and weight (r = .86, p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: If a stroke with less emphasis on both the second half of the drive and finish phase is wanted during the feet-out drill, due to either technical needs or for possible injury prevention, the RP3S appears to be the more ideal choice. If a heavier athlete is assigned to complete the feet-out drill, the RP3S could be the better choice than the C2D if the desire is to limit lumbar spine range of motion. The ratio of the phases of the drive and finish of the rowing stroke appears to be affected during the feet-out drill, as seen by the variable peak lumbar extension timing. Coaches and athletes should proceed with awareness of such differences in completing the same drill on the two rowing ergometers.

ISBN: 9798471109070Subjects--Topical Terms:

548685
Biomechanics.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Rowing Biomechanics

Kinematics of the Feet-Out Rowing Drill on the Concept2® Model D Versus the Rowperfect 3S Rowing Ergometers.
LDR:04030nmm a2200349 4500 001 2351960
005 20221111113724.5
008 241004s2021 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798471109070
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI28850387
035 $a AAI28850387
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Sharis, Elizabeth. $3 3691562
245 1 0 $a Kinematics of the Feet-Out Rowing Drill on the Concept2® Model D Versus the Rowperfect 3S Rowing Ergometers.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2021
300 $a 63 p.
500 $a Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 83-04.
500 $a Advisor: Lund, Sandra T.
502 $a Thesis (M.S.)--St. Ambrose University, 2021.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a Rowing is a competitive sport contested at the high school, collegiate, and Olympic levels which relies heavily on technique for success in the highly aerobic sport. Improper rowing technique can be improved upon through drill work. The feet-out rowing drill is a drill in which the rower does not strap feet into either the foot stretcher (on a rowing ergometer) or the built-in shoes (in a rowing boat). PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to observe the feet-out rowing drill by comparing joint angles and peak angular velocities of the knee and lumbar spine, as well as peak lumbar extension timing within the stroke, on the Concept2 Model D (C2D) versus the RowPerfect 3S (RP3S) rowing ergometers. METHODS: 15 experienced rowers (8 females, 7 males) ages 22.73 ± 5.51 years participated in this study. Using a within-subjects, repeated measures design, subjects completed 750 meters rowing feet-out on both the C2D and RP3S at 20 ± 1 strokes per minute with ten minutes rest. Seven inertial measurement units (IMUs) were placed bilaterally on the subjects' 7th cervical spinal process, sacrum, 12th thoracic spinal process, and bilateral thigh and leg segments. Using a custom MATLAB program (MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, v. R2020b), peak lumbar extension timing for ten consecutive strokes as defined by maximum knee flexion was calculated. A mixed between-within ANOVA was run to compare males and females between ergometers. Paired t-tests were run to assess differences between kinematic variables between ergometers. Pearson correlations were used for weight and height with kinematic data. The alpha used was .05. RESULTS: A difference was found between ergometers only in peak lumbar extension timing (F1,11= 9.56, p = .01, partial n2 = .47) where peak lumbar extension occurred later on the C2D (38.08 ± 5.18%) when compared to the RP3S (34.60 ± 3.93%). There was a significantly different main effect for sex between female (n = 7, RP3S 32.43 ± 3.05%, C2D 35.23 ± 4.12%) and male (n = 6, RP3S 37.13 ± 3.40%, C2D 41.40 ± 4.41%) subjects (F1,11 = 9.55, p = 01, partial n2 = .47). A strong, positive correlation was noted between C2D lumbar spine ROM and weight (r = .86, p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: If a stroke with less emphasis on both the second half of the drive and finish phase is wanted during the feet-out drill, due to either technical needs or for possible injury prevention, the RP3S appears to be the more ideal choice. If a heavier athlete is assigned to complete the feet-out drill, the RP3S could be the better choice than the C2D if the desire is to limit lumbar spine range of motion. The ratio of the phases of the drive and finish of the rowing stroke appears to be affected during the feet-out drill, as seen by the variable peak lumbar extension timing. Coaches and athletes should proceed with awareness of such differences in completing the same drill on the two rowing ergometers.
590 $a School code: 1469.
650 4 $a Biomechanics. $3 548685
650 4 $a Kinesiology. $3 517627
653 $a Rowing Biomechanics
653 $a Rowing Ergometers
653 $a Rowing
653 $a Lumbar Kinematics
690 $a 0648
690 $a 0575
710 2 $a St. Ambrose University. $b Kinesiology. $3 3691563
773 0 $t Masters Abstracts International $g 83-04.
790 $a 1469
791 $a M.S.
792 $a 2021
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28850387