Initial Evaluation of the Concept-2 Rowing Ergometer's Accuracy Using a Motorized Test Rig.
automated testing
home-based training
indoor rowing
power output
validity
Journal
Frontiers in sports and active living
ISSN: 2624-9367
Titre abrégé: Front Sports Act Living
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101765780
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
17
11
2021
accepted:
08
12
2021
entrez:
11
2
2022
pubmed:
12
2
2022
medline:
12
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Concept 2 (C2) rowing ergometer is used worldwide for home-based training, official competitions, and performance assessment in sports and science. Previous studies reported a disparate underestimation of mechanical power output positively related to an unclearly defined stroke variability. The aim of this study was to quantify the accuracy of the C2 while controlling for the potentially influencing variables of the rowing stroke by using a test rig for air-braked rowing ergometers and thus excluding biological variability. A unique motorized test rig for rowing ergometers was employed. Accuracy was assessed as the difference in mechanical power output between C2 and a reference system during steady (i.e., minimal variations of stroke power within a series of 50 spacemark, no -strokes) and unsteady simulated rowing (i.e., persistent variations during measurement series) while manipulating the stroke variables shape, force, or rate. During steady simulated rowing, differences between C2 and the reference system ranged 2.9-4.3%. Differences were not significantly affected by stroke shapes ( Due to the enormous underestimation of the start strokes, the nominal accuracy of the C2 depends on the total number of strokes considered. It ranges 0.2-1.9%, once the flywheel has been sufficiently accelerated. Inaccuracy increases with uneven rowing, but the stroke shape has a marginal impact. Hence, rowers should row as even as possible and prefer higher stroke rates to optimize C2 readings. We recommend external reference systems for scientific and high-performance assessments, especially for short tests designs where the start strokes will have a major impact.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35146423
doi: 10.3389/fspor.2021.801617
pmc: PMC8821892
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
801617Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Treff, Mentz, Mayer, Winkert, Engleder and Steinacker.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Sports Med. 2012 Apr 1;42(4):343-58
pubmed: 22401296
Stat Methods Med Res. 1999 Jun;8(2):135-60
pubmed: 10501650
J Sports Sci. 1995 Oct;13(5):377-85
pubmed: 8558624
Front Psychol. 2020 Dec 09;11:589708
pubmed: 33362655
Sports Biomech. 2004 Jul;3(2):237-48
pubmed: 15552583
Sports Med. 2001;31(7):489-96
pubmed: 11428686
Front Physiol. 2018 Jul 30;9:1010
pubmed: 30104984
Int J Sports Med. 2006 Oct;27(10):830-3
pubmed: 16612738
Int J Sports Med. 1993 Sep;14 Suppl 1:S29-31
pubmed: 8262703
Front Physiol. 2021 Feb 26;12:623885
pubmed: 33716770
J Biomech. 2020 Jun 9;106:109833
pubmed: 32517994
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Nov;43(11):2155-60
pubmed: 21502896
Front Physiol. 2017 Aug 02;8:515
pubmed: 28824440
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2018 Jul 1;13(6):729-734
pubmed: 29035587
Sports Med. 2014 Dec;44(12):1763-74
pubmed: 25108349