Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author: Andrew J. Vogler x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Andrew J. Vogler, Anthony J. Rice and Christopher J. Gore

Purpose:

This study evaluated the validity of ergometer tests against the criterion of on-water rowing and determined the reliability of feld measurements by comparing results between ergometer (ERG) and on-water (OW) tests.

Methods:

Seven male rowers completed incremental tests on a Concept2 rowing ergometer and in a single scull. Average power output, oxygen consumption (VO2), heart rate (HR), blood lactate concentration (BLa) and distance completed were measured during each ERG and OW workload.

Data treatment:

Linear regression between power output and HR, BLa, VO2 and distance allowed submaximal results to be compared between ERG and OW tests at equivalent intensities based on five standard power outputs. Submaximal results were analyzed using repeated measure factorial ANOVAs and maximal data used dependent t tests (P < .05), the magnitude of differences were also classified using effect size analyses. The reliability of repeated measurements was established using Typical Error.

Results:

Differences between ERG and OW submaximal results were not statistically significant for power output, HR, BLa, and VO2, but distance completed (P < .001) was higher during the ERG test. However, the magnitude of physiological response differences between the ERG and OW tests varied between individuals. Mean HR at anaerobic threshold showed good agreement between both tests (r = .81), but the standard error of the estimate was 9 beats per minute.

Conclusions:

Individual variation in physiological response differences between ERG and OW tests meant that training intensity recommendations from the ERG test were not applicable to on-water training for some rowers, but provided appropriate prescriptions for most athletes.

Restricted access

Andrew J. Vogler, Anthony J. Rice and Robert T. Withers

Purpose:

The Concept II model C (IIC) rowing ergometer was replaced by the Concept II model D (IID), but the design modifications of the updated ergometer might alter resistance characteristics and rowing technique, thereby potentially influencing ergometer test results. This study evaluated the physiological response to rowing on the IIC and IID ergometers during a submaximal progressive incremental test and maximal-performance time trial.

Methods:

Eight national-level rowers completed submaximal and maximal tests on the IIC and IID ergometers separated by 48 to 72 h. Physiological responses and calculated blood lactate thresholds (LT1 and LT2) were compared between ergometer models (IIC vs IID) using standardized drag-factor settings.

Results:

Power output, oxygen consumption, rowing economy (mL O2 · min−1 · W−1), heart rate, blood lactate concentration, stroke rate, and rating of perceived exertion all displayed similar responses regardless of ergometer model. Calculated physiological values equivalent to LT1 and LT2 were also similar between models, except for blood lactate concentration at LT1, which displayed a small but statistically signifcant difference (P = .02) of 0.2 mmol/L.

Conclusions:

The physiological response when rowing on IIC and IID ergometers is nearly identical, and testing can therefore be carried out on either ergometer and the results directly compared.