A new approach to rowing ergometry: establishing exercise intensity relative to maximum force output

• Published in: European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology Vol. 62; no. 1; pp. 44 - 48
• Main Authors: Jensen, R L, Katch, F I
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Germany 1991
• Subjects: Energy Metabolism - physiology; Ergonomics; Female; Heart Rate - physiology; Humans; Oxygen Consumption - physiology; Physical Endurance - physiology; Physical Exertion - physiology; Sports; Ventilation-Perfusion Ratio - physiology
• ISSN: 0301-5548; 1439-6319; 1439-6327
• DOI: 10.1007/BF00635633

The present experiment evaluated a new approach to establish exercise intensity during hydraulic rowing ergometry. In contrast to the traditional approach where exercise intensity is augmented by systematically increasing workload, the new procedure increments the intensity of exercise while maintaining a constant percentage of maximum force output. Ten college females exercised on a hydraulic rower that allowed for control of rowing speed and resistance. The new method to establish work intensity was to row at a cadence of 30 c.min-1 at a force output equal to 50% of maximum rowing force at each setting determined dynamically prior to testing. Two protocols were used for the maximum tests on the hydraulic rower. Row 1 was a 17-min, six-stage, incremental continuous row test performed at increasingly difficult settings from easy (setting 1; 603 N) to difficult (setting 6; 893 N). Row 2 was identical to row 1 until 15 min when resistance was reduced to setting 2 (658 N) for "allout" effort during the last 2 min. During this time, cadence declined from 30 c.min-1 to 19.4 c.min-1 at dial setting 6 and increased to 35.4 c.min-1 at dial setting 2. Both rowing protocols were compared to maximal physiological responses during treadmill running (TM). Compared to TM, both rowing protocols elicited significantly lower maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max; P less than 0.05; row 1 = delta 29.0% and row 2 = delta 12.9%) and maximum heart rate (HRmax; P less than 0.05; row 1 = delta 12.9% and row 2 = delta 6.7%). Maximum ventilation (VEmax) during row 1 was also lower by 30.4% than TM (P less than 0.05).