You are on page 1of 6

Sajeel Chaudhry

Evaluate the dynamic correspondence of weight lifting for a rowing stroke Strength and conditioning coaches are often set the task of selecting exercises which enhance the performance of an athlete in a competition. Hence training modalities should be specific to the type of exercises in the sport skill, which means taking into account movement pattern, movement velocity and the muscle groups activated (Duncan, Kraemer & Volek, 1998). Specificity has also been described as the transfer of training results to the sports skill (Zatsiorsky & Kraemer, 2006) and there is a need to continuously assess and search for training exercises that can have a positive impact on the sports skill. Having this in mind, a coach is able to use the principle of dynamic correspondence (Siff & Verkhoshansky, 2006), in order to select strength exercises specific to the sports skill, which enhance the required motor qualities of an athlete. The principle of dynamic correspondence has five criteria and these shall be discussed individually in order to evaluate whether weightlifting is appropriate and sufficient for the transfer of the training results to the skill of a rowing stroke. A rowing stroke can be broken into sequences and starts with the catch, which is the first phase of power generation, the drive, the finish and recovery (Mazzone, 1988). The catch till the finish is period of force production and this phase should be reviewed when comparing to a weightlifting technique. The amplitude and direction of the body segments due to the activation of the muscles to generate force is the first criterion in the principle of dynamic correspondence. This requires an understanding of the direction in which the joints move and the range they move through along with an understanding of which muscles are recruited (Siff & Verkhoshansky, 2006). Barrent and Manning (2004) have identified triple extension in ergometer rowing with mean angles at the catch as: hip 25 extending to 110 at the finish, knee 47 extending to 147 at the finish, shin at 90 relative to the horizontal extending to 30 at finish, during force production. Similar joint angle results have been found by Nowicky, Burdett and Horne (2005) in ergometer rowing with hip angle at a catch starting at 20 and 120 at the finish, knee angle at catch 50 and 168 at the finish. On water tests have shown joint angles at the catch as: knee approximately 51 and hip approximately 34 (Elliot, Lyttle & Birkett, 2002). It is important to note that the joint kinematics is dependent upon the anthropometric dimensions of the subjects. These joint movements can be explained by the muscle recruitment pattern as Mazzone (1988) highlights that when the body goes from the catch position into the drive, the knees extend due to the quadriceps and the ankle joint plantar flexes, due to the gastrocnemius and soleus muscles. During the completion of knee extension, the hip extends due to the contraction of the gluteus and hamstring. Analysis of joint kinematics during a snatch technique of a single subject showed that the knee extended from a start of 62 and extended to a maximum of 165 during the second pull. The hip extended from a start of 42 to a maximum of 189 during the second pull (Bai, Wang, Zhang, Ji & Wang, 2008). Similar results have been found by Gourgoulis, Aggelousis, Mavromatis and Garas (2000) during the snatch technique in which the following joint angles were observed: knee extended from over 60 at the start to a maximum of 156, hip extended from over 40 at the start to a maximum of 177, ankle extended from over 80 at the start to a maximum of 117. These joint movements can be explained by the similar recruitment of muscles in a rowing stroke as
1

Sajeel Chaudhry

Garhammer (1984) identifies that the knee extends due to the contraction of the quadriceps and the hip extends due to the gluteus maximus and hamstring during the first pull in a power clean. Another anatomical region to consider is the trunk section. During a rowing stroke the trunk acts as a link in transferring force from the legs and arms to the oar, within the kinetic chain (Pollock, Jenkyn, Jones, Ivanova, & Garland 2009). If a rower can produce a large pushing force on the foot stretcher, but the back cannot support this force, then force transmission to the oar will be reduced because of back flexion (Baudouin & Hawkins, 2002). This suggests that the rower needs to contract trunk extensor muscles during the drive phase in order to transfer the force efficiently and maximally to the oar. Though specifically the amplitude of back extension is unknown, the direction is known since the back undergoes extension and thus we can form an understanding of the muscles recruited. Pollock et al (2009) and Nowicky, Burdett and Horne (2005) work shows that during the drive phase the trunk extensor muscles were recruited in order to avoid back flexion, whereas the trunk flexors were recruited in the finish and recovery in order to avoid excessive back extension at the end of the drive. At the start of a weightlifting technique the lumbar spine undergoes a large flexion bending moment. As a result the spinal extensor muscles are recruited in order to perform the lift (Fortin & Falco, 1997). Thus weightlifting shows similar recruitment of trunk muscles to a rowing technique. The accentuated region of force production is the second criterion in the principle of dynamic correspondence. This requires the need to produce the required force at a specific joint angle, in accordance with the amplitude and direction of the muscle movement (Siff & Verkhoshansky, 2006). A comparison of peak forces at the joint angle shall express the level of correspondence. During ergometer rowing peak forces in the body occur at 15-25% of time in a single stroke from catch to recovery (Pollock et al ,2009) and (Hase, Kaya, Zavatsky, & Halliday, 2004) and (Benson et al, 2011) which is 40-50% of stroke time in a drive phase. These peak forces translate into a knee angle of between 85-95 during a complete rowing stroke (Sforza et al, 2012). At these knee angles peak foot reaction forces of 400N have been recorded. (Hase et al, 2004). At 90 angle of the knee, foot forces of approximately 2kN have been recorded for a single subject during the first pull of a snatch (Bai et al, 2008) which far exceeds the 400N foot forces recorded in Hase et al (2004) work during a rowing stroke. The dynamics of the effort is the third criterion in the principle of dynamic correspondence. This requires the training stimulus or effort to exceed the forces generated in the specific sports skill itself (Siff & Verkhoshansky, 2006). Maximum forces of 500N at the knee joint have been recorded during a rowing technique (Takeshima, Shimada, Matsunaga, Iwami, & Hiramoto, 2009) though the subjects were not professional rowers. During a power clean compressive forces of the knee have been recorded to start from 600N at the beginning of the first pull and achieving maximum knee forces of 2kN during the second pull (Souza & Shimada, 2002). Variations in the power clean have recorded peak foot forces of up to 3kN (Comfort, Allen & Phillip, 2011) which exceeds the peak foot force of 800N during a rowing stroke (Kleshnev, 2005). Thus weightlifting exceeds the stimulus requirements in a rowing technique. The rate and time of force production is the fourth criterion in the principle of dynamic correspondence. Understanding rate of force and varying power outputs development is essential since it trains the neuromuscular system i.e. recruitment of motor units and skeletal muscle adaptations (Kyrolainen et al, 2005). Approximately 1 second drive phase has been recorded in rowing, with peak force occurring between 41-49% of time in drive phase which equates to 0.410.49 seconds (Baudouin & Hawkins, 2004). Similar time to peak force has been recorded by Kleshnev (2005) occurring at 0.54 seconds with foot force of 800N from an initial force of 200N.
2

Sajeel Chaudhry

Time spent in producing force in a snatch to the second pull is approximately 1 second (Souza & Shimada, 2002) and time to peak force in the first pull in a snatch has been recorded at approximately 0.3seconds with foot forces reaching 2kN from an initial force of 1.2kN (Bai et al, 2008). Peak knee force of 500N from an initial force of 300N in 0.5 seconds has been recorded in rowing (Takeshima et al, 2009). In comparison to a power clean, time to peak force in first pull has been recorded at approximately 0.5 seconds, with knee forces reaching 1.4kN from an initial force of 650N (Souza & Shimada, 2002). Using simple arithmetic, Average RFD (Rate of Force Development) can be calculated by dividing peak force with time to peak force and thus RFDs in the first pull are much higher in comparison to rowing. However the RFD in the second pull is even greater. Time to peak force in the second pull in a snatch has been recorded at approximately 0.2seconds with foot forces reaching 2.5kN from an initial force of 1.5kN (Bai et al, 2008). Souza and Shimada (2002) work shows that the time spent in the second pull is approximately 0.25 seconds and reaching knee forces of up to 2kN from an initial force of 600N. The regime of muscular work is the fifth and final criterion in the principle of dynamic correspondence. This requires an understanding of the cyclical work of the muscles. However it also needs to take into consideration changing from one activity to another in the sports exercise (Siff & Verkhoshansky, 2006). Rowing is a cyclical movement of muscles where rowers spend 7090% of training time below aerobic-anaerobic threshold (AAT) thus training regimes are more endurance based (Steinacker, 1993). Soper and Hume (2004) identify that during a rowing competition, an athlete uses 40% of their maximum power output and use high repetitions of muscle contractions. In terms of cyclical nature, weightlifting techniques do not correspond with this criterion and due to the low level of cyclical training the physiological adaptations are different. In terms of switching activity, the rower is not required to change a technique from one form to another e.g. a high jumper from running to take off, however the start spurt does require the most power output with peak handle forces of 1500N for approximately 10 seconds as opposed to 500700N cyclical during a race (Steinacker, 1993). As mentioned previously, weightlifting techniques far exceed the power outputs and forces generated during rowing, and thus training regimes of weightlifting can be transferable to the 10 second spurt during the start of a rowing race. Having reviewed the criteria for dynamic correspondence, Olympic lifting can be prescribed as an effective specific training modality towards rowing. Both exhibit triple extension of the hip, knee and ankle in a closed kinetic chain with a rowing stroke experiencing a fluid extension of the joint angles. In contrast a snatch technique undergoes a decrease in angle of the knee and ankle after the first pull, and then resumes extension again during the second pull. On the other hand the hip continuously extends to reach maximum angle from the first to the second pull. The direction of the joint movement in weightlifting is similar to rowing thus similar musculature recruitment. However the joint angles at the start are not matched but are within close proximity. Since the catch position is the start of a rowing stroke, maximum hip and knee flexion is required in order to generate immediate power to improve the speed efficiency of the boat as the boat is the slowest in the catch position (Mazzone, 1988). In contrast to a power clean, the knee and hip joints are not fully flexed at the starting position (Garhammer, 1984). However there is a greater range of joint movement and forces experienced throughout an Olympic lift. The RFDs are much higher in Olympic lifting too and time spent producing force are similar. Where Olympic lifting differs from rowing is in its
3

Sajeel Chaudhry

inherently low cyclical nature and thus more research needs to be carried out in assessing the physiological adaptations of weightlifting techniques. During the review of weightlifting, the lower extremities of the body have mainly been discussed. It is however important to also consider the upper extremities of the body. Thus a resisted seated row can also be prescribed as a specific training exercise towards rowing. Seated row and rowing both have similar muscle recruitment since the upper body generates a pulling action as the elbow is flexed via the biceps and deltoids adducted. In a rowing stroke the supra spinatus, infraspinatus, subscapularis, teres major and minor are contracting to stabilise the shoulder muscles, with the scapula stabilised by the serratus anterior and trapezius muscles (Mazzone, 1988) which is also seen in a pronated seated row grip (Yessis, 2009). Peak handle forces at 80% of 1 RM have been recorded at 1077N (Conrin, Jones & Hagstrom, 2007) which exceed the peak handle forces of 800N in rowing (Benson, Abendroth, King & Swensen, 2011). The RFD is also higher in a seated row as time to peak force has been recorded at approximately 0.18secs (Conrin, Jones & Hagstrom, 2007) compared to approximately 0.5secs in rowing (Baudouin & Hawkins, 2004; Kleshnev, 2005). A resisted seated row may also be used in a similar cyclical manner as rowing however further investigation into the physiological adaptations need to be considered.

Sajeel Chaudhry

References Barrett, R.S., & Manning, J.M. (2004). Relationships between rigging set-up, anthropometry, physical capacity, rowing kinematics and rowing performance. Sports Biomechanics, Vol. 3 Issue: Number 2, 221-235. Bai, X., Wang, H., Zhang, X., Ji, W., & Wang, C. (2008). Three-dimension kinematics simulation and biomechanics analysis of snatch technique. Computer Science in Sports, Volume 1, 291296. Baudouin, A., & Hawkins, D. (2002): A biomechanical review of factors affecting rowing performance. Br.J.Sports Med. 369:402 Baudouin, A., & Hawkins, D. (2004). Investigation of biomechanical factors affecting rowing performance. Journal of biomechanics, 37, 969-976. Benson, A., Abendroth, J., King, D., & Swensen, T. (2011). Comparison of rowing on a Concept 2 stationary and dynamic ergometer. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 10, 267-273. Comfort, P., Allen, M., & Smith, G. (2011). Comparisons of peak ground reaction force and rate of force development during variations of the power clean. NSCA, Vol 25, Number 5. Chui, L.Z.F., & Schilling, B.K. (2005). A primer on weightlifting: From sports to sports training. NSCA, Vol 27, Number 1, pages 42-48. Cronin, J.B., Jones, V.J., & Hagstrom, J.T. (2007). Kinematics and kinetics of the seated row and implications for conditioning. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 21(4), 12651270. Duncan, N.D., Kraemer, W.J. & Volek, J.S. (1998). Resistance training and elite athletes: Adaptations and program considerations. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 28(2), 110-119. Elliott, B.C., Lyttle, A, & Birkett, O. (2002). The RowPerfect ergometer: A training aid for onwater single scull rowing. Sports Biomechanics, 1, 123-134. Fortin, J.D., & Falco, F.J.E. (1997). The biomechanical principles of preventing weightlifting injuries. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 11, 697-716. Garhammer, J. (1984). Bridging the gap: Power clean, kinesological evaluation. NSCA Journal, 6(6):40. Gourgoulis, V., Aggelousis, N., Mavromatis, G., & Garas, A., (2000). Three-dimensional kinematic analysis of the snatch of elite Greek weightlifters. Journal of Sports Science, Vol. 18, Issue 8, 643-652.

Sajeel Chaudhry

Hase, K., Kaya, M., Zavatsky, A.B., & Halliday, S.E (2004). Musculoskeletal loads in ergometer rowing. Journal of Applied Biomechanics. 20, 317-323. Kleshnev, V. (2005). Comparison of on-water rowing with its simulation on concept2 and RowPerfect machines. Proceedings of XXIII International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports. Ed: Q. Wang Q. China Institute of Sport Science, 130-133 Kyrolainen, H., Avela, J., McBride, J.M., Koskinen, S., Andersen, J.L., Sipila, S., Takala, T.E., & Komi, P.V. (2005) Effects of power training on muscle structure and neuromuscular performance. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 15, 5864. Mazzone, T. (1988). Kinesiology of the rowing stroke. NSCA Journal, Volume 10, Number 2. Nowicky, A.V., Richard Burdett, R., & Horne, S. (2005). The impact of ergometer design on hip and trunk muscle activity patterns in elite rowers: An electromyographic assessment. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 4, 18-28. Pollock, C.L., Jenkyn, T.R., Jones, I.C., Ivanova, T.D., & Garland, S.J. (2009) Electromyography and kinematics of the trunk during the Rowing Stroke in Elite Female Rowers . Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 41(3):628-636 Sforza, C., Casiraghi, E., Lovecchio, N., Galante, D., & Ferrario, V.F. (2012). A three-dimensional study of body motion during ergometer rowing. The Open Sports Medicine Journal, 6, 2228. Siff & Verkhoshansky (2006). Supertraining. Chapter 4, pages 241-247 Soper, C., & Hume, P.A. (2004). Towards an ideal rowing technique for performance: The contributions of biomechanics. Sports Medicine, 34, 825-848. Souza, A.L., & Shimada, S.D. (2002). Biomechanical analysis of the knee during the power clean. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 16(2), 290297. Steinacker, J.M. (1993). Physiological aspects of training in rowing. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 14, S3-S10. Takeshima, M., Shimada,Y., Matsunaga, T., Iwami, T., & Hiramoto, K. (2009). Biomechanical analysis of lower extremities during conventional and functional electrical stimulation (FES) rowing in non-disabled individuals. Akita Journal of Medicine, 36, 203-213. Yessis, M. (2009). KinesPDFS. Kinesiology of exercise information products based on the work of Dr. Michael Yessis. Zatsiorsky, V. M., & Kraemer, W. J. (2006). Science and practice of strength training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Chapter 1 pages 14-16.