Original Research

Spinal and Pelvic Kinematics During Prolonged

Rowing on an Ergometer vs. Indoor Tank Rowing
Katharina Trompeter,1 Jeronimo Weerts,2 Daniela Fett,1 Ali Firouzabadi,2 Kai Heinrich,3 Hendrik Schmidt,2
Gert-Peter Brüggemann,3 and Petra Platen1
1
Department of Sports Medicine and Sports Nutrition, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany; 2Julius Wolff Institute, Charité-
University of Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany; and 3Institute of Biomechanics and Orthopaedics, German Sport University Cologne,
Cologne, Germany

Abstract
Trompeter, K, Weerts, J, Fett, D, Firouzabadi, A, Heinrich, K, Schmidt, H, Brüggemann, GP, and Platen, P. Spinal and pelvic
kinematics during prolonged rowing on an ergometer vs. indoor tank rowing. J Strength Cond Res 35(9): 2622–2628, 2021—This
investigation aimed to compare spinopelvic kinematics during rowing on an ergometer vs. in a rowing tank and to evaluate changes
with progressing fatigue. Spinal and pelvic kinematics of 8 competitive scull rowers (19.0 6 2.1 years, 179.9 6 7.6 cm, and 74.8 6
8.1 kg) were collected during 1 hour of rowing on an ergometer and in a rowing tank using a routine training protocol. Kinematics of
the upper thoracic spine, lower thoracic spine, lumbar spine, and pelvis were determined using an infrared camera system (Vicon,
Oxford, United Kingdom). There was a greater lumbar range of motion (ROM) and less posterior pelvic tilt at the catch during rowing
on the ergometer compared with in the rowing tank (p 5 0.001–0.048), but no differences in pelvic ROM. In the rowing tank, the
pelvic ROM increased over time (p 5 0.002) and the ROM of the lower thoracic spine decreased (p 5 0.002). In addition, there was
an extended drive phase (when the rower applies pressure to the oar levering the boat forward) and an abbreviated recovery phase
(setting up the rower’s body for the next stroke) in the rowing tank (p 5 0.032). Different rowing training methods lead to differences
in spinopelvic kinematics, which may lead to substantially different spinal loading situations. Greater pelvic rotation and lesser
lumbar ROM are considered ideal; therefore, the present results indicate that rowing in the rowing tank might facilitate the
maintenance of this targeted spinopelvic posture, which might help protect the lower back. Rowers, coaches, and researchers
should consider the differences between rowing training methods, especially when giving training recommendations.
Key Words: spine, pelvis, fatigue, movement

Introduction
Rowing is a popular and physically demanding endurance sport
(15). A systematic review identified rowing as one of the sport
disciplines with the greatest prevalence of low back pain, with
reported values as high as 94% (lifetime prevalence) and 64%
(point prevalence). There is also a high prevalence of thoracic
pain in scull rowers (33). Spinal injury and back pain in different
spinal locations can lead to an average of 24 days per year of
missed training (4) and correlate to the success or failure of
a crew (30).
The high prevalence of low back pain in sports may be due to
factors such as high training volume, repetitive motions, high phys-
ical loads, repetitive mechanical strain, and extreme body positions
(9,12,16,25,34). Recent research into low back pain in rowers has
focused on spinal kinematics (7,20–22,24–27,31,37,39), changes in
technique due to fatigue (15,39), and volume of ergometer rowing
(23,32,33,36). During the multitude of stroke cycles that are com-
pleted during rowing, great forces are placed on the spine, which may
predispose to low back injury and pain (30). Furthermore, rowing
Address correspondence to Katharina Trompeter, katharina.trompeter@rub.de.
Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear
in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on
the journal’s Web site (http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr).
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 35(9)/2622–2628
ª 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association
requires a large amount of lumbar flexion (8), which is a major risk
factor for low back pain (28).
Each rowing stroke cycle consists of different phases (catch,
drive, finish, and recovery). During the catch, the rower sits with
flexed hips and trunk inclination at the foremost slide position
and places the oar blade in the water. The rower then applies force
to the oar to lever the boat forward, which is called the drive.
After this phase, the rower gets into the finish position, in which
she/he sits with trunk reclination and removes the oar blade from
the water. Then, the recovery phase starts, setting up the rower’s
body for the next stroke.
Training and testing of rowers at all competitive levels are
frequently and intensively conducted on ergometers because this
enables rowing in a controlled environment that is protected from
adverse weather (31). However, a high volume of ergometer
training is suggested to be a risk factor for low back pain
(23,32,33,36), especially in combination with fatigue and
resulting changes in technique, such as increased spinal motion
(15,37,39). An investigation into the changes in rowing technique
under progressive fatigue during aerobic ergometer training
showed an increase in maximum spinal flexion and extension
(15). It was revealed in cadaveric studies that changes in the
flexion-extension angle lead to an altered load distribution in the
structures of a lumbar spinal motion segment, whereas tensile
stresses on the outer annulus of the intervertebral disc reportedly
increase considerably above 50% of flexion (1). In line with these
findings, recent studies examining technique on the rowing

2622

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Spinopelvic Kinematics in Rowing (2021) 35:9
ergometer have indicated the importance of lumbopelvic motion
during rowing (32,38). It is suggested that it is ideal to have
a greater pelvic rotation and a lesser lumbar flexion and extension
at either end of the stroke, enabling a smoothly flexed spine with
a continuous flexion of the lumbar and thoracic spine (32,38).
This curvature of the spine is necessary for its load-bearing
function, which performs best with the load evenly distributed
(32,38). Considering the results of recent investigations and the
high prevalence of low back pain and thoracic pain in rowers, it
needs to be clarified whether changes in lumbopelvic and thoracic
motion occur during the time progression of routine training
sessions. In addition, it remains unclear whether changes occur
during rowing training using other methods, such as the rowing
tank. The rowing tank is a well-established indoor facility that
simulates an open-water situation. Rowers sit in a fixed rowing
position with sliding seats and 1 (sweep) or 2 (scull) oars and are
surrounded by a channel of water.
The evaluation of spinopelvic kinematics during different
rowing training conditions would facilitate the development of
training protocols to prevent low back pain and thoracic pain in
rowers. As lumbar flexion significantly increases during ergom-
eter training, but not during open-water rowing (37), spinal ki-
nematics and rowing technique might also not significantly
change during training in the rowing tank. Hence, rowers might
be able to compensate better for high spinal loads during rowing
tank training compared with ergometer training.
This study aimed to compare spinopelvic kinematics in the
sagittal plane during a training session on the ergometer vs. in the
rowing tank using a routine training protocol. In addition, we
aimed to evaluate the changes over time during the training ses-
sion. We hypothesized that spinopelvic kinematics differ between
different rowing training methods and that rowing technique
changes over time.
Methods
Experimental Approach to the Problem
We tested the hypothesis that spinopelvic kinematics differ be-
tween different rowing training methods and that rowing tech-
nique changes over time during the training session. Healthy
competitive scull rowers were recruited. Spinal and pelvic kine-
matic data were collected during 1 hour of rowing on an er-
gometer and in a rowing tank using a routine training protocol.
The range of motion (ROM) and the angles at the catch and finish
positions were determined for different spinal locations and for
the pelvis. Differences between the 2 rowing conditions were
evaluated using the paired Student’s t-test and Bonferroni-
adjusted p values. Changes over time were evaluated conduct-
ing a separate 2-way repeated-measures analysis of variance
(ANOVA) for all variables in each of the 2 rowing conditions
(rowing tank and ergometer). Changes over time were explored
using Bonferroni post hoc analysis with adjusted p values.
Subjects
An a priori power analysis revealed a statistical power of 0.9 with
a sample size of n 5 8. Eight competitive scull rowers (4 men, 4
women, age 19.0 6 2.1 years (mean 6 SD), age range 17–22
years, height 179.9 6 7.6 cm (mean 6 SD), and body mass 74.8 6
8.1 kg (mean 6 SD)) were recruited from a local rowing club.
Subjects were informed of the benefits and risks of the in-
vestigation before providing written informed consent for study
2623
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
participation. Written informed parental consent was also
obtained for subjects younger than 18 years. Five of the rowers
were competing at an international level, whereas 3 were com-
peting at a national level. The weekly training volume was 18.0 6
1.5 hours and did not significantly differ between rowers of the
national vs. international competition level. Subjects were free
from acute back pain in any spinal region and other injury, had no
history of back pain within the previous 7 days, and had no his-
tory of spinal surgery. All subjects were accustomed with the
experimental protocol. This study was approved by the ethics
committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Ruhr-University Bochum.
The study took place at the federal base for junior athletes (Rhein-
Ruhr) in Essen, Germany.
Procedures
Each subject was tested twice using the same protocol: once in the
rowing tank that was adjusted for sculling and once on the
CONCEPT2 indoor rowing ergometer (model D, Inc., Morris-
ville, NC). To simulate a realistic training setting, 2 rowers were
individually tested at the same time both on the ergometer and in
the rowing tank. Each subject had 48 hours of rest between the 2
tests. In accordance with a previous study (18), a 60-minute
training protocol was used. The experimental protocol (Figure 1)
was regularly used by the subjects. During the first 15 minutes of
this protocol, the rowers performed at a stroke rate of 18 strokes/
minute followed by a 5-minute interval phase of higher intensity.
Within this interval phase, the stroke rate was first increased to 20
strokes/minute for 3 minutes, followed by 15 strokes at 24, 28,
32, and 36 strokes/minute, respectively (15 strokes at respective
frequencies equaled to 38, 32, 28, and 26 seconds). After this
interval (starting from minute 20), the stroke rate was decreased
back to 18 strokes/minute until minute 45. Then, a second 5-
minute interval phase followed, which was identical to the first
one. From minute 50 until minute 60, the stroke rate was again
decreased back to 18 strokes/minute. For the test, five 30-second
recordings with a stroke rate of 18 strokes/minute were made: 1
recording at minute 0 and another recording 30 seconds before
minutes 15, 30, 45, and 60.
Kinematic data were collected in a motion capture laboratory
that was constructed directly in the training center of the par-
ticipating rowers. Data were determined using an infrared camera
system (VICON, Oxford, United Kingdom) with 10 infrared
cameras (MX F40) at 250 Hz and 11 light-reflecting markers. The
markers were placed on the spine (C7, T6, L1, and L5) and pelvis
(left anterior superior iliac spine [LASI], right anterior superior
iliac spine [RASI], left posterior superior iliac spine [LPSI], and
right posterior superior iliac spine [RPSI]). Four segments were
defined: the upper thoracic spine (C7–T6), lower thoracic spine
(T6–L1), lumbar spine (L1–L5), and pelvis (LASI, RASI, LPSI,
and RPSI). In addition, to define a local coordinate system for
each segment, 1 marker was placed 7 cm from C7, T6, and L1,
respectively (see Supplementary Material 1, Supplemental Digital
Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JSCR/A134).
Kinematic data were filtered using a fourth-order Butterworth
filter with a cutoff frequency of 6 Hz and analyzed using an in-
house developed unpublished MATLAB routine (MathWorks,
Inc., Natick, MA). The position in which the z axes of adjoining
local coordinate systems were in 1 straight line was defined as
0°. Movements of each spinal segment in the sagittal plane were
defined as changes in extension (negative angle) and flexion
(positive angle) in relation to the adjoining segment below.
 Spinopelvic Kinematics in Rowing (2021) 35:9

Figure 1. Experimental protocol with 2 interval phases. TP 5 timepoint. Minutes 0–15: 18

strokes/minute, minutes 15–20: first interval phase (3 minutes at 20 strokes/minute followed by
15 strokes at 24, 28, 32, and 36 strokes/minute, respectively), minutes 20–45: 18 strokes/
minute, minutes 45–50: second interval (3 minutes at 20 strokes/minute followed by 15 strokes
at 24, 28, 32, and 36 strokes/minute, respectively), and minutes 50–60:18 strokes/minute.

Movements of the pelvis were defined as anterior and posterior
rotation.
Sagittal plane changes in spinal and pelvic angles were recor-
ded for each rower on the ergometer and in the rowing tank. Data
from each rowing cycle were characterized into percentage
points, with 0% representing the finish position of the stroke
(defined as the maximum posterior tilt of the pelvis) and 100%
representing the return of this finish position (Figure 2). The catch
position was defined as the maximum flexion angle of the lumbar
segment.
The ROM and the angles at the catch and finish positions were
determined for the defined spinal sections (upper thoracic, lower
thoracic, and lumbar) and pelvis by calculating the mean of 3
stroke cycles per measurement using MATLAB. The coefficient of
multiple correlation was calculated and revealed excellent
between-stroke reliability (r . 0.9).
Determination of Variables. The investigated variables were the
ROM and the angles during the catch and the finish positions of
the upper thoracic spine, the lower thoracic spine, the lumbar
spine, and the pelvis at each of the 5 timepoints, respectively.
Lumbopelvic (L/P) ratios were calculated by dividing the lumbar
ROM by the pelvic ROM for each timepoint and used as a mea-
sure of lumbar-pelvic coordination; a value of 1 represents equal
contributions of the lumbar spine and pelvis to the movement,
whereas values below or above 1 represent a greater contribution
from the pelvis or the lumbar spine, respectively. In addition, the
percentage length of the separate rowing stroke phases (recovery
and drive) was analyzed by determining the proportion of the
catch position in relation to the entire rowing stroke at each of the
5 timepoints. Values are expressed as the mean and SD.
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was performed to confirm the
normality of the distribution of each investigated variable and
the differences between compared variables. For the comparison
of all variables over time, the differences between the 5 time-
points were tested for normal distribution. To compare the 2
rowing conditions, the differences in all variables during train-
ing on the ergometer vs. the rowing tank were tested for each
timepoint.
Statistical Analyses
Statistical analysis was undertaken using SPSS software (version
23; IBM, Armonk, NY, US). Two statistical analyses were con-
ducted to answer the research questions of this investigation:
c Differences between the 2 rowing conditions were com-
pared using the paired Student’s t-test for each variable at
each of the 5 timepoints. Bonferroni adjustment of p values
was used to correct the alpha error rate because of multiple

Figure 2. Spinal and pelvic angles during an exemplary rowing stroke cycle on the ergometer and in a rowing tank. Illustration
of rowing phases: the American Academy of Pediatrics (2).

2624

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Spinopelvic Kinematics in Rowing (2021) 35:9
testing with help of an online calculator tool (13) (pi 5 p*n,
n 5 number of tests for 5 timepoints 5 5, pi 5 p*5).
c Changes over time during training on the ergometer and in
the rowing tank were evaluated by calculating a 2-way
repeated-measures ANOVA that was conducted for each
variable in the 2 rowing conditions. Bonferroni adjustment
of p values was used (pi 5 p*n, n 5 number of tests in 2
rowing conditions 5 2, pi 5 p*2) (13). The Greenhouse-
Geisser adjustment was used to correct for violations of
sphericity. Changes over time were explored using Bonfer-
roni post hoc analysis with adjusted p values (pi 5 p*n, n 5
number of tests for 5 timepoints 5 5, pi 5 p*5) (13). The
statistical threshold was set at p # 0.05.
Results
Figure 2 shows the course of spinal and pelvic angles during an
exemplary rowing stroke cycle on the ergometer and in the
rowing tank. Descriptive data of the mean spinal and pelvic
ROMs of the 5 timepoints under the 2 rowing conditions are
shown in Table 1.
Differences Between the Two Rowing Conditions
The thoracic region did not show differences between the 2
rowing conditions at any of the 5 timepoints (p . 0.05). How-
ever, on the ergometer, the pelvis showed a less posterior tilt at the
catch (p , 0.05), and the lumbar spine had a greater ROM and
was less flexed at the finish compared with in the rowing tank
(p , 0.05, Table 2).
Changes in Spinal and Pelvic Angles Over Time in Both
Rowing Conditions
Ergometer Rowing. The only significant change over time on the
ergometer was an increased posterior pelvic tilt at the catch po-
sition (F(4, 28) 5 5.37, pi 5 0.004, partial h2 5 0.43). Bonferroni-
adjusted post hoc analysis identified the timepoints at which this
change occurred (Table 2).
Tank Rowing. In the rowing tank, the pelvis had an increased
ROM (F(4, 28) 5 7.26, pi 5 0.002, partial h2 5 0.51), a more
posterior tilt at the catch (F(4, 28) 5 3.28, pi 5 0.05, partial h2 5
0.319), and a more posterior tilt at the finish (F(4, 28) 5 9.20, pi
5 0.002, partial h2 5 0.57). The ROM of the upper thoracic spine
did not change over time; however, there was increased flexion at
the catch (Greenhouse-Geisser: F(2.3, 15.8) 5 5.29, pi 5 0.03,
partial h2 5 0.43) and increased flexion at the finish (F(4, 24) 5
4.31, pi 5 0.018; partial h2 5 0.42). The lower thoracic spine had
a decreased ROM (F(4, 24) 5 14.49, pi 5 0.002, partial h2 5
0.71), a more flexed posture at the finish (Greenhouse-Geisser:
F(1.6, 9.4) 5 7.66, pi 5 0.028, partial h2 5 0.56), and no changes
at the catch. In addition, the percentage proportion of the catch
position in relation to the entire rowing stroke shifted forward
over time during the rowing cycle in the rowing tank (F(4, 28) 5
3.65, pi 5 0.032, partial h2 5 0.34), meaning that the drive phase
lengthened and the recovery phase shortened (catch position at %
of the rowing cycle at timepoint 1: 63.3 6 2.5%, timepoint 2:
61.4 6 4.6%, timepoint 3: 57.6 6 4.4%, timepoint 4: 58.8 6
6.7%, timepoint 5: 56.0 6 6.8%). Table 2 shows in which
timepoints the changes over time occurred.
2625
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
Table 1
Descriptive data of the mean range of motion of 5 timepoints:
mean (6 SD), maximum and minimum range of motion of the
pelvis, and different spinal locations during rowing on an
ergometer and in a rowing tank.*
Mean 6 SD (˚) Min–Max (˚)
Upper thoracic spine
Ergometer 18.4 6 4.8 12.3–24.9
Rowing tank 15.4 6 3.2 10.6–21.3
Lower thoracic spine
Ergometer 12.7 6 5.5 8.5–24.2
Rowing tank 10.9 6 2.7 8.4–15.2
Lumbar spine
Ergometer 22.6 6 4.5 17.1–29.2
Rowing tank 18.5 6 1.9 14.6–20.0
Pelvis
Ergometer 37.0 6 7.1 26.4–45.4
Rowing tank 35.7 6 4.7 28.7–42.7
*Min 5 minimum; max 5 maximum.
Discussion
The evaluation of spinopelvic kinematics during different rowing
training conditions would facilitate the development of training
protocols to prevent back pain in rowers. Therefore, this study
aimed to evaluate spinopelvic kinematics in the sagittal plane
during training on the ergometer compared with training in
a rowing tank and to evaluate changes over the time progression
of the training session. We determined the ROM and the angles at
the catch and finish positions of different spinopelvic locations.
These measurements were made for healthy competitive scull
rowers during 1 hour of rowing on an ergometer and in a rowing
tank. We hypothesized that spinopelvic kinematics differ between
the 2 rowing training conditions and that rowing technique
changes over the time progression of the training session. The
data analysis confirmed this hypothesis and showed large effects
with a partial h2 of 0.34–0.71.
The main findings of the present investigation were as follows:
(a) differences between the 2 rowing conditions (greater lumbar
ROM on the ergometer compared with the rowing tank) and (b)
changes over time on the ergometer (increased posterior pelvic tilt
at the catch position) and in the rowing tank (increased pelvic
ROM and decreased ROM of the lower thoracic spine, and an
extended drive phase and an abbreviated recovery phase in re-
lation to the entire rowing stroke).
The present results gave the first indication that there is a dif-
ference in spinopelvic kinematics between rowing on the ergom-
eter vs. in the rowing tank. Recent studies also found differences
between different rowing training conditions (30,31,37). Spinal
kinematics seem to depend on rowing conditions such as er-
gometer type (30), open-water condition (37), or rowing tank
condition. This should be taken into account in kinematic train-
ing analyses and in training recommendations.
In the present investigation, the most considerable differences
between the 2 rowing conditions were seen in the lumbar spine,
which had a greater ROM on the ergometer compared with in the
rowing tank. The achievement of the appropriate body positions
during the rowing stroke requires more anterior rotation of the
pelvis than extreme flexion of the lumbar spine at the catch po-
sition, as well as more posterior rotation of the pelvis and less
extension of the lumbar spine at the finish position (38). On the
ergometer, rowers extended their lumbar spine more during the
finish position, thereby increasing the overall ROM. However, no
 Spinopelvic Kinematics in Rowing (2021) 35:9

Table 2 Table 2
Differences between the 2 rowing conditions.* Differences between the 2 rowing conditions.* (Continued)
Description Description
of angle TP Ergometer (˚) Rowing tank (˚) pi value† 95% CI of angle TP Ergometer (˚) Rowing tank (˚) pi value† 95% CI
Pelvis Finish 1 26.6 6 7.4 19.7 6 6.9 0.09 1.6 to 12.2
ROM 1 34.8 6 7.6 30.4 6 5.8‡3 0.58 21.4 to 10.3 2 28.0 6 7.0 21.8 6 7.2 0.405 21.0 to 13.4
2 38.0 6 7.6 35.5 6 3.6 1.0 24.1 to 9.1 3 26.1 6 8.8 22.4 6 7.8 1.0 24.9 to 12.2
3 36.8 6 6.4 38.2 6 4.3‡1 1.0 27.7 to 5.0 4 26.5 6 9.0 23.0 6 6.4 1.0 24.7 to 11.8
4 38.0 6 8.3 36.7 6 5.8 1.0 25.6 to 8.3 5 27.6 6 7.2 22.8 6 5.6 1.0 22.3 to 9.7
5 37.3 6 8.2 37.9 6 7.5 1.0 25.7 to 4.5
*TP 5 timepoint; CI 5 confidence interval; ROM 5 range of motion.
Catch 1 212.5 6 5.3 216.2 6 6.7 0.025§ 1.6 to 6.0
†With Bonferroni adjustment, TP 1 at minute 0, TP 2 at minute 15, TP 3 at minute 30, TP 4 at minute
2 213.0 6 6.4 217.4 6 5.3 ‖ 3.1 to 5.7 45, and TP 5 at minute 60.
3 214.4 6 5.7 218.4 6 5.7 0.13 0.6 to 7.5 ‡Significant changes over time (pi # 0.05), 1,2,3,4,5 show to which TP a change over time occurred.
4 214.8 6 5.9 217.0 6 5.6 0.71 21.0 to 5.4 §pi # 0.05.
5 214.8 6 6.2 221.1 6 8.5 0.025§ 0.3 to 8.3 ‖pi # 0.001.
Finish 1 244.9 6 10.0 243.6 6 9.5‡3,5 1.0 25.6 to 3.0
2 247.3 6 8.7 248.8 6 8.6 1.0 24.6 to 7.6
3 246.9 6 8.9 251.1 6 6.5‡1 0.23 0.1 to 8.3
4 248.3 6 9.9 249.4 6 9.1‡5 1.0 23.8 to 5.9
5 247.2 6 10.9 252.2 6 8.3‡4,5 0.28 20.2 to 10.3 differences between the 2 rowing conditions were seen in the catch
Lumbar spine
position. The pelvic ROM was similar in both rowing conditions;
ROM 1 21.0 6 3.1 18.3 6 2.4 0.425 20.5 to 5.6
2 20.9 6 3.6 18.6 6 3.0 0.171 21.3 to 6.0
however, rowers had a lesser anterior tilt at the catch and a ten-
3 23.8 6 6.6 17.9 6 2.7 0.048§ 0.1 to 11.7 dency toward greater posterior tilt at the finish position in the
4 22.1 6 5.0 18.4 6 2.8 0.035§ 0.4 to 7.1 rowing tank (Table 2). After the conception of Wilson et al. (38)
5 25.1 6 7.5 18.3 6 0.8 0.037§ 0.6 to 13.1 who suggested that it is ideal to have greater pelvic rotation and
Catch 1 30.9 6 3.7 32.1 6 6.3 1.0 24.8 to 2.4 lesser lumbar flexion and extension at either end of the stroke, the
2 31.6 6 3.4 33.8 6 5.9 1.0 26.1 to 1.8 technique during ergometer rowing was unfavorable compared
3 31.9 6 6.1 32.5 6 5.6 1.0 25.2 to 4.0 with that in the rowing tank.
4 30.8 6 4.4 32.4 6 5.5 0.63 23.7 to 0.6 Differences in spinopelvic kinematics between different rowing
5 32.8 6 5.6 32.3 6 4.7 1.0 23.0 to 4.0 training methods might be explained by differences in the angle of
Finish 1 10.2 6 5.1 14.3 6 4.7 0.015§ 26.2 to 21.8
the footplate and its relation to the seat (30), and by differences in
2 10.2 6 5.2 14.3 6 5.2 0.015§ 26.3 to 21.9
3 8.6 6 6.3 13.6 6 6.8 0.02§ 27.6 to 22.2 the handle (1 more freely moving handle on the ergometer vs. 2
4 9.2 6 6.6 14.7 6 5.1 0.015§ 28.4 to 22.6 oars in the rowing tank) that might have led to different load
5 8.9 6 6.7 14.7 6 5.2 0.035§ 29.3 to 22.3 distributions. In addition, the power output might have differed
Lower thoracic spine because of differences in the flow dynamics of the airwheel vs.
ROM 1 13.6 6 5.0 13.6 6 4.2‡3,5 1.0 25.7 to 5.8 water. We standardized the rowing protocol by the stroke rate
2 13.5 6 5.8 11.4 6 3.2 1.0 24.6 to 8.8 because this is the established method in training practice and did
3 12.8 6 5.3 10.2 6 2.7‡1 1.0 23.5 to 8.9 not evaluate whether this resulted in a greater or lesser effort for
4 13.3 6 6.7 10.5 6 2.6 1.0 23.7 to 9.3
the rowers. Further studies should evaluate the power developed
5 12.7 6 6.4 9.6 6 2.2‡1 1.0 24.4 to 10.6
Catch 1 18.5 6 7.5 20.4 6 8.8 1.0 26.2 to 2.4 by rowing when comparing different rowing conditions. In ad-
2 18.2 6 8.3 19.7 6 7.9 1.0 26.5 to 3.6 dition, it would be beneficial to further quantify the physiological
3 18.1 6 8.0 18.2 6 6.7 1.0 25.1 to 5.0 or subjective state of fatigue by evaluating physiological param-
4 17.4 6 8.1 18.5 6 7.9 1.0 26.4 to 4.2 eters such as the heart rate or lactate concentration, or subjective
5 17.6 6 9.5 18.9 6 8.4 1.0 25.7 to 3.1 rating scales as the rating of perceived exertion (5,6).
Finish 1 8.4 6 9.5 9.0 6 7.6‡5 1.0 24.3 to 3.11 In line with our findings, previous studies found changes in spinal
2 8.5 6 8.2 11.0 6 11.0 0.51 25.6 to 0.6 kinematics over time in the sagittal plane during rowing
3 11.9 6 6.8 10.9 6 6.8 1.0 25.1 to 7.0
(8,15,21,37). These changes in kinematics may be associated with
4 11.5 6 10.5 10.7 6 8.4‡5 1.0 24.7 to 6.3
substantial fatigue in rowers (20,21) or may be due to fatigue of the
5 11.4 6 7.4 15.3 6 4.7‡1,4 0.47 28.7 to 0.9
Upper thoracic spine erector spinae muscles (8), and fatigue may be associated with
ROM 1 20.8 6 6.8 14.2 6 2.5 0.265 20.9 to 13.2 a greater risk of injury (8,21,37,39). In contrast to the literature, we
2 21.2 6 6.7 15.2 6 2.7 0.28 20.2 to 12.0 found a relatively small lumbar ROM and an increased pelvic ROM
3 18.8 6 6.2 16.4 6 4.4 1.0 22.7 to 7.4 in the rowing tank; although we did not follow the subjects during
4 19.5 6 5.0 15.6 6 4.3 0.135 0.6 to 7.1 the season to relate these findings to injury risk, we suggest that they
5 17.7 6 5.5 14.9 6 5.0 0.825 21.6 to 7.1 would not be associated with greater risk of injury. A straighter
Catch 1 12.4 6 6.5 8.7 6 6.5‡5 0.92 22.3 to 9.7 lumbar area during rowing could prevent injury by enabling better
2 14.2 6 7.5 11.2 6 5.8‡5 0.87 21.7 to 7.8 force transference from the hips to the shoulders (17). Furthermore,
3 14.7 6 7.2 10.6 6 6.0 0.95 0.9 to 7.4
an increased pelvic motion is considered ideal because it enables
4 15.3 6 6.9 13.0 6 5.7 1.0 22.2 to 6.9
a smoothly flexed spine, which performs best with the load evenly
5 16.2 6 5.5 14.1 6 5.4‡1,2 1.0 21.9 to 6.3
distributed (32,38). We conclude that prolonged rowing in the

2626

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Spinopelvic Kinematics in Rowing (2021) 35:9
rowing tank might facilitate the maintenance of the targeted spino-
pelvic posture. This finding is important for training practice, espe-
cially regarding long-lasting endurance training sessions.
Changes over time were mainly seen in the rowing tank con-
dition, particularly in the pelvis and the lower thoracic spine. The
pelvic ROM increased, whereas the lower thoracic ROM de-
creased over time. The movement of the thoracic spine has not
been previously examined. Although previous investigations
suggested that increased spinal movement of the lumbar spine
might result in greater risk of injury, we cannot conclude whether
a decrease in the movement of the thoracic spine is associated with
a greater, lesser, or constant spinal injury risk. However, because
the lower thoracic spine was defined in reference to the lower
back, the biomechanical characteristics of this spinal area should
be considered. The thoracolumbar spine is particularly predis-
posed to injury because the transition from the relatively rigid
thoracic spine to the much more mobile lumbar spine places
special demands on the spinal stability or protection. The reduced
ROM of this vulnerable spinal area might be the result of a stiff-
ening strategy to handle increased loads. In the rowing tank, the
posterior rotation of the pelvis increased over time, leading to an
increased pelvic ROM that enabled the decreased thoracolumbar
movement.
The upper thoracic spine was defined in reference to the lower
thoracic spine and, hence, describes a thoracic kyphosis. The
ROM of this spinal area tended to be greater on the ergometer, as
did the flexion angles at the catch and the finish positions. The
ROM of the upper thoracic spine did not change over time;
however, it became less upright in the rowing tank, leading to an
increased kyphosis at the catch and finish positions. On the er-
gometer, there was a trend toward a less extended trunk at the
catch (Table 2). Changes in the thoracic kyphosis with pro-
gressing fatigue have not been previously examined. Although
a connection between thoracic kinematics and the high preva-
lence of thoracic pain was not clarified, the present results give
a first indication. It would be beneficial to investigate whether
changes in thoracic kinematics are associated with greater or
lesser loads and muscle activation.
In contrast to recent studies (8,15,21,37), this study found no
changes in lumbar spine kinematics. This might be due to the high
competition level and experienced rowing technique of the sub-
jects because novice rowers use an especially large degree of
lumbar flexion (20). Although no changes over time were ob-
served for the whole group, 2 individuals showed respective in-
creased ROMs of about 10 and 20° on the ergometer. It can only
be speculated whether these individual postures are relevant in the
development of back pain. It would be interesting to investigate
whether there are differences in a few years in the incidence of
back pain in rowers with vs. without increased lumbar ROM.
In the rowing tank, the unchanged lumbar ROM and the in-
creased pelvic ROM resulted in a decreased L/P ratio. This change
over time was not significant and can only be considered as
a trend. However, the L/P ratio was higher on the ergometer than
in the rowing tank, supporting the hypothesis that spinopelvic
kinematics during ergometer rowing are more unfavorable.
In the rowing tank, the drive phase extended over time in re-
lation to the entire rowing stroke, whereas the recovery phase
abbreviated. We assume that the rowers fatigued over time and
were unable to maintain the velocity of the blades and thus the
pressure on the blades; therefore, the drive phase extended. To
reach the required stroke rate, the recovery phase had to be ab-
breviated, which might further increase fatigue.
2627
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
Owing to the instruments used in this investigation, we could
only compare the flexion of relatively large spinal segments; we
were unable to compare the spinal curvature in more detail, which
would have been beneficial.
Furthermore, although women and men differ in the function
and shape of the pelvis and spine, we did not take sex into account
in our analysis. In addition, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction and
the Bonferroni adjustment might have been too conservative, po-
tentially producing false-negative results. Owing to the conserva-
tive correction of multiple testing in the post hoc analysis, it was not
possible to identify the timepoints at which some changes took
place. The Bonferroni correction is one of the most conservative
adjustment methods. We decided to use this method to avoid
producing false-positive results. However, the limitations of this
method have to be considered in the interpretation of results.
Supplemental Digital Content 2 (see Tables A and B, http://link-
s.lww.com/JSCR/A135) shows the results of the ANOVA and the t-
test without Bonferroni adjustment. The results show uncorrected
differences between the 2 rowing conditions and angular changes
over time. Owing to the mentioned limitations, the results of these
calculations can only be considered as trends.
Finally, because of limited access to the training center, it was
not possible to randomize the order of the 2 different rowing
conditions. Because all rowers were familiar with the rowing
protocol in both rowing conditions, we think that the effects of
the order would be negligible. However, future studies should
avoid order effects by randomizing the order of rowing con-
ditions. Despite this limitation, we calculated an ANOVA with 2
within-subject variables (rowing condition and timepoint). The
results of this calculation (see Table C, Supplemental Digital
Content 2, http://links.lww.com/JSCR/A135) underline our
findings and show significant interaction effects between the
rowing condition and timepoint for the pelvis, the lower thoracic
spine, the upper thoracic spine, and the L/P ratio. However, re-
garding the mentioned limitations, these results can only be
regarded as trends.
Practical Applications
The present investigation adds further information for the
understanding of the recently reported relationship between
training and the high prevalence of low back pain and thoracic
pain in rowers (3,11,14,16,19,23,25,29,33). However, addi-
tional training parameters might also influence the de-
velopment of pain in different spinal locations; for instance,
previous studies have reported that strength training is asso-
ciated with the development of low back pain (10,33,35).
Rowing on an ergometer and in a rowing tank leads to
differences in spinal kinematics, which may lead to a sub-
stantially different loading situation in the spine. The present
results indicate that rowing in the rowing tank might facilitate
the maintenance of the targeted spinopelvic posture, which
might help protect the lower back. However, it might also
result in a different loading situation in the thoracic spine, and
the effect of such loading on the risk of injury in this spinal
area is not yet clarified. Rowers, coaches, and researchers
should consider the differences between rowing training
methods, especially when giving training recommendations.
Future studies should evaluate whether rowers with low back
pain have a higher L/P ratio and identify which factors besides
the rowing condition lead to this movement behavior.
 Spinopelvic Kinematics in Rowing (2021) 35:9
Acknowledgments
This study was conducted within the National Research Network
for Medicine in Spine Exercise (MiSpEx) consortium. The
authors thank the German Rowing Federation and the federal
base for junior athletes Rhein-Ruhr, Essen, for their support. The
authors also thank Dr. Thomas Henke, Dr. Gernot Jendrusch,
and Vanessa Oertzen-Hagemann for their statistical advice and
inspiring discussions.
This study was funded by the German Federal Institute of Sport
Science (http://www.bisp.de). The research was realized within
the project RAN Rücken (ZMVI1-080102A/11-18). Funding
was received by P. Platen. The funders had no role in the study
design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or
preparation of the manuscript.
References
1. Adams MA, McNally DS, Chinn H, Dolan P. The clinical biomechanics
award paper 1993 Posture and the compressive strength of the lumbar
spine. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 9: 5–14, 1994.
2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Available at: https://www.healthychildren.org/
English/healthy-living/sports/Pages/Rowing.aspx. Accessed May 21, 2018.
3. Bahr R, Andersen SO, Løken S, et al. Low back pain among endurance
athletes with and without specific back loading—a cross-sectional survey
of cross-country skiers, rowers, orienteerers, and nonathletic controls.
Spine 29: 449–454, 2004.
4. Bernstein IA, Webber O, Woledge R. An ergonomic comparison of rowing
machine designs: Possible implications for safety. Br J Sports Med 36:
108–112, 2002.
5. Borg G. Perceived exertion as an indicator of somatic stress. Scand J
Rehabil Med 2: 92–98, 1970.
6. Borg GA. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 14: 377–381, 1982.
7. Bull AM, McGregor AH. Measuring spinal motion in rowers: The use of an
electromagnetic device. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 15: 772–776, 2000.
8. Caldwell JS, McNair PJ, Williams M. The effects of repetitive motion on
lumbar flexion and erector spinae muscle activity in rowers. Clin Biomech
(Bristol, Avon) 18: 704–711, 2003.
9. Dalichau S, Scheele K. The Thoracolumbar spinal curvature in male
competitive volleyball players. German J of Sports Med 53: 12–16,
2002.
10. Eriksson K, Németh G, Eriksson E. Low back pain in elite cross-country
skiers. A retrospective epidemiological study. Scand J Med Sci Sports 6:
31–35, 1996.
11. Fett D, Trompeter K, Platen P. Back pain in elite sports: A cross-sectional
study on 1114 athletes. PLoS One 12: e0180130, 2017.
12. Filler TJ, Peuker ET. Clinical Anatomy of the Spine with Special Con-
sideration of the Lumbar Vertebras in Sports. Sports Ortho Traumatology
20: 13–18, 2004.
13. Hemmerich W. Calculator for adjusting the a-level: StatisticsGuru, 2018.
Available at: https://statistikguru.de/rechner/adjustierung-des-alphani-
veaus.html. Accessed July 1, 2018.
14. Hickey GJ, Fricker PA, McDonald WA. Injuries to elite rowers over a 10-
yr period. Med Sci Sports Exerc 29: 1567–1572, 1997.
15. Holt PJ, Bull AM, Cashman PM, McGregor AH. Kinematics of spinal
motion during prolonged rowing. Int J Sports Med 24: 597–602, 2003.
16. Howell DW. Musculoskeletal profile and incidence of musculoskeletal
injuries in lightweight women rowers. Am J Sports Med 12: 278–282, 1984.
17. Kleshnev V. Technique. In: The Biomechanics of Rowing. Ramsbury,
Wiltshire: The Cronwood Press Ltd, 2016. pp. 96–134.
2628
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
18. Mackenzie HA, Bull AM, McGregor AH. Changes in rowing technique
over a routine one hour low intensity high volume training session.
J Sports Sci Med 7: 486–491, 2008.
19. Maselli F, Ciuro A, Mastrosimone R, et al. Low back pain among Italian
rowers: A cross-sectional survey. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 28:
365–376, 2015.
20. McGregor AH, Bull AMJ, Byng-Maddick R. A comparison of rowing
technique at different stroke rates: A description of sequencing, force
production and kinematics. Int J Sports Med 25: 465–470, 2004.
21. McGregor AH, Patankar ZS, Bull AMJ. Spinal kinematics in elite oars-
women during a routine physiological “step test.” Med Sci Sports Exerc
37: 1014–1020, 2005.
22. McGregor AH, Patankar ZS, Bull AM. Longitudinal changes in the spinal
kinematics of oarswomen during step testing. J Sports Sci Med 6: 29–35,
2007.
23. Newlands C, Reid D, Parmar P. The prevalence, incidence and severity of
low back pain among international-level rowers. Br J Sports Med 49:
951–6, 2015.
24. Ng L, Campbell A, Burnett A, O’Sullivan P. Gender differences in trunk
and pelvic kinematics during prolonged ergometer rowing in adolescents.
J Appl Biomech 29: 180–187, 2013.
25. Orlando K, Fett D, Platen P. Prevalence of back pain in sports: A sys-
tematic review of the literature. Sports Med 47: 1183–1207, 2017.
26. Pollock CL, Jenkyn TR, Jones IC, Ivanova TD, Garland SJ. Electromy-
ography and kinematics of the trunk during rowing in elite female rowers.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 628–636, 2009.
27. Pollock CL, Jones IC, Jenkyn TR, Ivanova TD, Garland SJ. Changes in
kinematics and trunk electromyography during a 2000 m race simu-
lation in elite female rowers. Scand J Med Sci Sports 22: 478–487,
2012.
28. Reid DA, McNair PJ. Factors contributing to low back pain in rowers. Br J
Sports Med 34: 321–322, 2000.
29. Roy SH, De Luca CJ, Snyder-Mackler L, et al. Fatigue, recovery, and low
back pain in varsity rowers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 22: 463–469, 1990.
30. Steer RR, McGregor AH, Bull AM. A comparison of kinematics and
performance measures of two rowing ergometers. J Sports Sci Med 5:
52–59, 2006.
31. Strahan AD, Burnett AF, Caneiro JP, et al. Differences in spinopelvic
kinematics in sweep and scull ergometer rowing. Clin J Sport Med 21:
330–336, 2011.
32. Thornton JS, Vinther A, Wilson F, et al. Rowing injuries: An updated
review. Sports Med 47: 641–661, 2017.
33. Trompeter K, Fett D, Platen P. Back pain in rowers: A cross-sectional
study on prevalence, pain characteristics and risk factors. Sportverletz
Sportschaden 33:51–59, 2019.
34. Trompeter K, Fett D, Platen P. Prevalence of back pain in elite athletes.
Dtsch Z Sportmed 69:240–246, 2018.
35. van Hilst J, Hilgersom NF, Kuilman MC, Kuijer PP, Frings-Dresen MH.
Low back pain in young elite field hockey players, football players and
speed skaters: Prevalence and risk factors. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil
28: 67–73, 2015.
36. Wilson F, Gissane C, Gormley J, Simms C. A 12-month prospective cohort
study of injury in international rowers. Br J Sports Med 44: 207–214,
2010.
37. Wilson F, Gissane C, Gormley J, Simms C. Sagittal plane motion of the
lumbar spine during ergometer and single scull rowing. Sports Biomech
12: 132–142, 2013.
38. Wilson F, Gissane C, McGregor A. Ergometer training volume and pre-
vious injury predict back pain in rowing; strategies for injury prevention
and rehabilitation. Br J Sports Med 48: 1534–1537, 2014.
39. Wilson F, Gormley J, Gissane C, Simms C. The effect of rowing to ex-
haustion on frontal plane angular changes in the lumbar spine of elite
rowers. J Sports Sci 30: 1481–1489, 2012.