Skip to main content
British Journal of Sports Medicine logoLink to British Journal of Sports Medicine
. 2002 Apr;36(2):108–112. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.36.2.108

An ergonomic comparison of rowing machine designs: possible implications for safety

I Bernstein 1, O Webber 1, R Woledge 1
PMCID: PMC1724491  PMID: 11916892

Abstract

Objectives: Ergometer training is a common cause of injuries in rowers. A randomised crossover study comparing two power head designs was carried out to examine ergonomic risk factors.

Methods: Six elite male rowers undertook 20 minute fatiguing rowing pieces with both fixed and floating power heads. A CODA MPX infrared telemetric motion analysis detector and the ergometer's interface were used to measure displacement, force, work performed, and power output.

Results: There was no significant difference in the total work performed, power per stroke, or metabolic load between the two ergometer designs. Fatigue was shown by a mean (SEM) fall of 9.7 (0.79) W/stroke (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.0 to 11.5) between minutes 8–10 and minutes 16–18 (p<0.001). The stroke length was 53 (13) mm (95% CI 18 to 89) longer with the fixed power head (p<0.02). With fatigue, the stroke with the fixed power head lengthened at the "catch" (beginning of the stroke) by 19.5 mm (p<0.01) and shortened at the finish of the stroke by 7.2 mm (p<0.05). No significant changes in stroke length were seen with the floating power head. The mean force per stroke was 12.1% (95% CI 3.0 to 21.2) (27.3 (8.0) N) higher with the power head fixed versus floating (p<0.02).

Conclusions: It is postulated that longer stroke lengths and greater forces are risk factors for soft tissue injuries. Further research into whether floating power head rowing ergometers are associated with lower injury rates than fixed power head designs is now needed.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (153.3 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Adams M. A., Hutton W. C. Gradual disc prolapse. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1985 Jul-Aug;10(6):524–531. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198507000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Gardner-Morse M., Stokes I. A., Laible J. P. Role of muscles in lumbar spine stability in maximum extension efforts. J Orthop Res. 1995 Sep;13(5):802–808. doi: 10.1002/jor.1100130521. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Martindale W. O., Robertson D. G. Mechanical energy in sculling and in rowing an ergometer. Can J Appl Sport Sci. 1984 Sep;9(3):153–163. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Miller C., Thépaut-Mathieu C. Strength training by electrostimulation conditions for efficacy. Int J Sports Med. 1993 Jan;14(1):20–28. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-1021140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Sparto P. J., Parnianpour M., Reinsel T. E., Simon S. The effect of fatigue on multijoint kinematics and load sharing during a repetitive lifting test. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997 Nov 15;22(22):2647–2654. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199711150-00013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Wing A. M., Woodburn C. The coordination and consistency of rowers in a racing eight. J Sports Sci. 1995 Jun;13(3):187–197. doi: 10.1080/02640419508732227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. de Looze M. P., Toussaint H. M., van Dieën J. H., Kemper H. C. Joint moments and muscle activity in the lower extremities and lower back in lifting and lowering tasks. J Biomech. 1993 Sep;26(9):1067–1076. doi: 10.1016/s0021-9290(05)80006-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Journal of Sports Medicine are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES