Journal of Sports Sciences

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

Prediction of rowing ergometer performance by

technical and core stability parameters

Frédéric R. Simon, Geoffrey N. Ertel, Youri Duchene, Hugo Maciejewski,

Gérome C. Gauchard & Guillaume Mornieux

To cite this article: Frédéric R. Simon, Geoffrey N. Ertel, Youri Duchene, Hugo Maciejewski,
Gérome C. Gauchard & Guillaume Mornieux (2023) Prediction of rowing ergometer
performance by technical and core stability parameters, Journal of Sports Sciences, 41:5,
399-407, DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2023.2219076

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2023.2219076

Published online: 30 May 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 172

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsp20
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
2023, VOL. 41, NO. 5, 399–407
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2023.2219076

SPORTS PERFORMANCE

Prediction of rowing ergometer performance by technical and core stability

parameters
Frédéric R. Simon a, Geoffrey N. Ertel a
, Youri Duchene a
, Hugo Maciejewski b
, Gérome C. Gauchard a,c

and Guillaume Mornieux a,c

a
Développement, Adaptation et Handicap (DevAH), Faculté de Médecine, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France; bFrench Rowing Federation, Nogent-
Sur-Marne, France; cUniversité de Lorraine, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Nancy, France

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of technical and core stability parameters on rowing Received 25 August 2022
ergometer performance defined as mean power at the handle. Twenty-four high-level rowers were evaluated Accepted 19 May 2023
at their competitive stroke rate on an instrumented RowPerfect 3 ergometer to determine leg, trunk and arm KEYWORDS
power output, while trunk and pelvis 3D kinematics were measured. Linear mixed models revealed that mean power output; kinetic chain;
power at the handle was predicted by the power output of legs, trunk and arms (r2 = 0.99), with trunk power segments power; trunk
being the best predictor. Time to peak power, work ratio and mean to peak power ratio were relevant kinematics; trunk
technical parameters significantly predicting the different segments’ power. In addition, a greater trunk range electromyography
of motion significantly influenced the power produced by this segment. Accordingly, achieving an earlier peak
power together with enhanced work production at the trunk and arm levels, as well as distributing the
segments power over the whole drive phase, could serve as recommendations for technical training of rowers
on dynamic ergometers in order to produce higher power output. Furthermore, the trunk appears to play
a major role as a power producer within the kinetic chain from the legs to the arms.

Introduction
In rowing, as in other cyclic sport activities, quantification of the
mechanical power output is necessary to monitor and analyse
performance (Hofmijster et al., 2007; Holt et al., 2022; Kleshnev,
2000; Lintmeijer et al., 2018). Mechanical power output has often
been evaluated in many rowing ergometer studies (Bourdin et al.,
2004; Buckeridge, Weinert-Aplin, et al., 2016; Colloud et al., 2006;
Greene et al., 2013) and can be defined as the work rate generated
at the handle level with respect to the stretcher. This power at the
handle can be described as the sum of leg, trunk and arm power
(Kleshnev, 1996). This measurement of the power generated by
the rower at these three levels enables the characterization of
rowing technical styles (Kleshnev, 2000). These latter are depen­
dent on the ability to develop large forces through the lower limbs
and to efficiently transmit these forces via the trunk to the upper
limbs. For instance, it has been shown that during the drive phase
of on-water rowing, the power of the legs generates about 45% of
the power output; the power of the trunk and arms contribute,
respectively, 29% and 26% of the power output (Kleshnev, 2000).
Different power production by these segments, in terms of relative
contribution and sequence of legs and trunk to handle power, has
been related to different rowing techniques (Kleshnev, 2016) and
would be relevant parameters to consider to further analyse
performance during ergometer rowing.
Other parameters have been used in the literature to analyse
rowing technique. First, the mean to peak force ratio has been
used to define the shape of the handle force curve (Holt et al.,
2020; Smith & Draper, 2006), where a higher ratio (i.e., repre­
senting a “flatness” of force application) is associated with
better performance due to reduced velocity fluctuation result­
ing in less power loss (Smith & Draper, 2006). In the same way,
more or less rectangular (i.e., “flat”) segment power curve
shapes have been associated with rowing styles (Kleshnev,
2016). Secondly, work per stroke is also considered in the
literature due to the time dependency of power (Held et al.,
2020; McGregor et al., 2004). This work per stroke could be
maximized with a more rectangular force profile (Kleshnev,
2016). Thus, analysing work per stroke at each segment level
would provide relevant information when dealing with rowing
technique. Lastly, timing of peak force has been analysed at the
handle (McGregor et al., 2004) and stretcher (Buckeridge et al.,
2014) levels, and found to be related to stroke rate. The timing
of peak handle force has also been used to compare ergometer
types (Vinther et al., 2013) and earlier peak forces have been
shown to improve velocity through increasing power output
(Holt et al., 2020). Moreover, analysis of peak timing on power
parameters has shown that a peak shifted towards the end of
the drive for trunk and arm segments at a higher stroke rate
(Kleshnev, 1996). Timing of peak segment power enables one
to describe whether legs, trunk and arms act simultaneously or
consecutively (Kleshnev, 2016), and seems therefore a relevant
parameter to analyse rowing technique. In addition, foot-
stretcher force asymmetry has been investigated in the litera­
ture and is typically about 10% to 15% for the horizontal force

CONTACT Frédéric R. Simon frederic.simon@univ-lorraine.fr EA 3450 Développement, Adaptation et Handicap (DevAH), Faculté de Médecine, Université de
Lorraine, 9 avenue de la Forêt de Haye CS 50184, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy 54505, France
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
400 F. R. SIMON ET AL.
in elite rowers (Buckeridge et al., 2014; Fohanno et al., 2015).
Although this parameter was defined as detrimental for rowers’
performance by these authors, the link between asymmetry
and performance, i.e., the power output at the handle during
ergometer rowing, remains unclear. Thus, together with mean
to peak power ratio, work per stroke and timing of peak power,
these parameters would enable further analysis of rower’s
technique during ergometer rowing. Such an analysis would
particularly be relevant if the rowing technique is associated to
rowing ergometer performance.
As mentioned above, the trunk is a central element in
efficiently transmitting forces during rowing. However, little
attention has been paid to the kinetics of the trunk with
respect to the legs and arms. The ability to control the trunk
with respect to the pelvis through core muscles and to allow
optimal transfer or production of force to the end segments
refers to the notion of core stability (Kibler et al., 2006). In
rowing, kinematics of the pelvis and spine has been described
(Li et al., 2020; Ng et al., 2013; Pollock et al., 2009). Their range
of motion depends on the rower’s technical style (Kleshnev,
2016; Ng et al., 2013) and are increased at a higher stroke rate
(Buckeridge, Bull, et al., 2016; Li et al., 2020; McGregor et al.,
2004). However, no study has yet investigated the influence of
core stability kinematics on rowing performance.
Electromyographic (EMG) activity of the main trunk and pelvis
muscles during the rowing stroke has been described (Pollock
et al., 2009, 2012) and used, for instance, to compare station­
ary ergometers, dynamic ergometers and on-water rowing
(Fleming et al., 2014; Vinther et al., 2011). However, a deeper
understanding of the neuromuscular aspect of core stability
would also provide a better understanding of pelvis and trunk
control during rowing. Thus, core stability kinematics and
neuromuscular parameters could help to underline the role
of the trunk during rowing, and possibly help to further under­
stand overall rowing performance.
The purpose of this study was to analyse the influence of
rowing technique parameters and core stability on the
mechanical power output during ergometer rowing. The first
hypothesis was that segment powers explain the power devel­
oped at the handle (i.e., ergometer rowing performance).
The second hypothesis was that it is possible to predict the
power of each body segment using technical parameters such
as time to peak, mean to peak, work ratio, leg asymmetry and
trunk kinematics. Finally, core stability muscle EMG would pre­
dict trunk kinematics relative to the pelvis.
Methods
Participants
Twenty-four healthy and voluntary rowers with international or
national experience were recruited (17 men and 7 women, 20.8
± 2.8 years old; 1.84 ± 0.07 m; 77.6 ± 6.1 kg). The group mean
absolute 2000 m record on a fixed stretcher ergometer
(Concept2, Morrisville, VT, USA) was 6 min 34 s ±30
s. Participants who had current low back pain or any injury
were not included in the investigation. The study was approved
by the Sud-Ouest et Outre-Mer III ethics committee (approval
reference 20.07.21.43000- ID_9115) and conformed to
requirements stipulated in the Declaration of Helsinki. All parti­
cipants were informed about the procedures, purpose and
possible risks associated with the experimental setup and
gave their written consent prior to testing.
Test procedure
After a free warm-up, each rower performed two trials at max­
imal intensity separated by a one-minute recovery period. The
first trial was at 34 strokes per minute (spm) and the second at
their own competitive stroke rate, i.e., the one achieved on an
all-out 2000 m. The rowers were asked to row with their usual
rowing technique, corresponding to usual stroke length and
stroke rhythm, to closely simulate 2000 m race. During these
tasks, the kinematic and neuromuscular parameters of core
stability as well as the mechanical variables of ergometer row­
ing were recorded during 15 consecutive strokes.
The mobile rowing ergometer (RP3®, Care RowPerfect BV,
Haaksbergen, The Netherlands) was used at maximum gearing
(i.e., fixed at level 10). It was equipped with custom-made load
cells with strain gauges at the pull handle cable and left and right
foot-stretchers (BioRow Tech, BioRow, London, UK) to determine
the applied forces (the horizontal component at the foot-
stretcher level). In addition, three position sensors, using
a spring-loaded string, provided information on seat, trunk and
handle displacement relative to the foot stretcher (BioRow Tech,
BioRow, London, UK). These data were measured at 25 Hz.
Core stability kinematics was measured using two inertial
measurement units (iSen, STT Systems, San Sebastián, Spain)
placed on the back between the two scapulars, at the T6 verteb­
rae level and between the two posterior superior iliac spines,
recording at 100 Hz the 3D spatial orientations of the trunk and
pelvis segments with respect to the vertical axis. Inertial mea­
surement units are a viable option for measuring accurate sagit­
tal plane angle data during rowing (Brice et al., 2022). These two
sensors did not cause any discomfort to the athlete, given their
small volume (56 × 38 × 18 mm) and low mass (0.046 kg). This
system had an accuracy <0.5° in the pitch dimension.
The neuromuscular parameters of core stability were
assessed by means of surface EMG measurements. After
the skin had been shaved, sanded and cleaned, to ensure
an impedance below 5 kΩ, electrodes (Ambu® BlueSensor
SP, Ambu A/S, Ballerup, Denmark) were attached parallel to
the muscle fibres over the following muscles, bilaterally: the
rectus abdominis (RA), the external obliquus (EOB), the erec­
tor spinae (ES), the tensor fasciae latae (TFL) and the gluteus
maximus (GM) in line with the SENIAM project’s recommen­
dations (Hermens et al., 2000). RA electrodes were placed 2
cm laterally from the umbilicus, EOB electrodes at 15 cm
laterally from the umbilicus, ES electrodes at about 2 cm
from the L1 spinous process, TFL electrodes on the line
from the anterior spina iliac superior to the lateral femoral
condyle in the proximal 1/6 and GM electrodes were placed
halfway along the line between the sacral vertebrae and the
greater trochanter. These EMG signals were measured with
Trigno Snap Lead wireless sensors (Trigno™, Delsys, Natick,
MA, USA) at 2000 Hz and synchronized with inertial measure­
ment unit data through their integration in the iSen
software.

Data analysis
Foot-stretcher and handle forces, as well as seat, trunk and
handle positions were filtered with a Butterworth (4th order)
low-pass filter at 10 and 5 Hz, respectively (Fohanno et al., 2015;
Greene et al., 2009).
The power (P) at each level was determined as follows
(Kleshnev, 2000), where handle, seat and trunk velocities were
derived from their measured position:
Phandle (W) = handle force × handle velocity.
Plegs (W) = (left foot-stretcher force + right foot-stretcher
force) × seat velocity.
Ptrunk (W) = handle force × (trunk velocity − seat velocity).
Parms (W) = handle force × (handle velocity − trunk velocity).
Ergometer performance was defined as the average power
output at the handle over the drive phase (Buckeridge,
Weinert-Aplin, et al., 2016). This phase was determined
according to the handle position, i.e., from the catch (the
minimum handle position) to the finish (the maximum han­
dle position).
Technical parameters of the rowers during the drive phase
were defined by the following variables. Mean segment power
and the ratio between mean and peak power (M2P) were
calculated for legs, trunk and arms. The rationale for M2P
was the expected relationship between the power curve
shape and performance. Work was determined as the integral
of the power over time. Work per stroke ratio (WR) was calcu­
lated as the ratio between the work done till the peak power
value and the overall work over the drive phase. WR was used
to tease out the importance of producing maximal power in
a short time at each segment level. Time to peak power (T2P)
from the catch (%drive) was calculated for each segment as
the occurrence of peak power delivery over the normalized
drive-phase time. Finally, leg asymmetry (%) between the left
and right foot was calculated using the method of Buckeridge
et al. (2014).
Trunk and pelvis spatial orientations were filtered with
a 4th order Butterworth low-pass filter at 10 Hz. Trunk and
pelvis range of motion (ROM; °) was determined to define
trunk extension and pelvis retroversion in the sagittal plane.
In addition, the ROM of the trunk with respect to the pelvis
(°) was calculated to express core stability. For kinematics
and EMG parameters, the drive phase was determined
according to trunk angular position, i.e., from the catch
(the maximum trunk flexion) to the finish (the minimum
trunk flexion).
The EMG signal of each muscle was filtered (Butterworth
4th order band-pass filter, 30–450 Hz) and a 25 ms electro­
mechanical delay was considered (Le Mansec et al., 2018).
The rowing trial at 34 spm was used for EMG amplitude
normalization purposes. Hence, linear envelopes were
obtained using root mean squared (RMS) with a 50 ms
window, from which the peak activation could be deter­
mined. The RMS values over the drive phase for each mus­
cle were determined at competitive stroke rate and
normalized with respect to the aforementioned peak value.
Then, bilateral muscle normalized activity at competitive
stroke rate was averaged.
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 401
Statistics
The different parameters were computed for 12 consecutive
cycles for each rower, yielding a total of 288 trials. Linear mixed
models were used to verify the main hypothesis of
a relationship between technique, core stability and rowing
ergometer performance. First, a linear mixed model was com­
puted to determine the association between Phandle and seg­
ment power (model 1). No constant was added to this model as
Phandle should theoretically have a null value if all other powers
are at 0. For all the following models, the constant was com­
puted. Three models evaluated the association between the
power of each segment and its respective technical determi­
nants (models 2, 3 and 4). Another model (model 5) was used to
assess the relationship between the ROM of the trunk and
pelvis and the normalized EMG activity of the different core
muscles. These models are reported in Table 2.
The predictor variables were considered as a fixed effect and
participants were entered as a random effect. The alpha signifi­
cance level was set at 0.05. Backward elimination of predictor
variables (fixed effect) was performed by sequentially removing
nonsignificant predictors until all predictors were significant.
Standardized effects of each predictor were computed by
multiplying the predictor standard deviation (SD) by its esti­
mate. Estimated values were coefficients of independent vari­
ables in a linear mixed model. Standardized effects were
expressed with respect to the mean of the dependent variable,
i.e., the one SD change of the dependent variable when all
other predictors were set to their average value (Staynor
et al., 2020).
A k-fold (k = 10) cross-validation was performed by ran­
domly assigning the 288 trials across 10 folds. Each trial was
used both for testing and training in the statistical model. For
each testing fold, the parameter estimates predicting the
dependent variable were calculated. Then, we averaged each
parameter estimate across the 10 folds. The relationship
between the predicted values was computed thanks to the
mean parameter estimates and the measured values were
assessed by Pearson’s correlations (r2).
Results
At the competitive stroke rate (38.9 ± 3.1 spm), mean values of
cycle length (i.e., total handle displacement from catch to
finish) were 1.65 m ± 0.1 m. Cycle time and drive time were
1.56 ± 0.15 s and 0.79 ± 0.06 s, respectively (stroke rhythm of
0.51 ± 0.03). Mean (± SD) values of performance (mean Phandle),
technical parameters and core stability parameters are reported
in Table 1. Averaged maximal powers recorded were 2270 ±
502 W at the handle, 1264 ± 269 W at the leg, 1221 ± 332 W at
the trunk and 562 ± 167 W at the arm levels.
Prediction of performance and segments power
Performance, i.e., mean handle power, was predicted by the
power of the legs, trunk and arms (Table 2; model 1; r2 = 0.99).
The sequencing of these three segments to produce power
output at the handle level during the drive phase is presented
in Figure 1.
402 F. R. SIMON ET AL.

Table 1. Mean and SD performance, technical parameters and core stability values during the drive phase.
Parameter Mean SD Parameter Mean SD
Mean Phandle (W) 1086 246 T2P handle (%drive) 51.8 2.95
Mean Plegs (W) 481 106 T2P legs (%drive) 40.4 5.42
Mean Ptrunk (W) 387 116 T2P trunk (%drive) 59.4 3.05
Mean Parms (W) 236 61.7 T2P arms (%drive) 77.1 2.99
M2P handle 0.48 0.02 Pelvis ROM (°) 42.8 7.8
M2P legs 0.38 0.03 Trunk ROM (°) 73.9 6.9
M2P trunk 0.32 0.03 Trunk to pelvis ROM (°) 31.15 8.84
M2P arms 0.44 0.09 RA (%peak) 26.9 10.6
WR handle 0.65 0.04 EOB (%peak) 33.3 11.2
WR legs 0.68 0.11 ES (%peak) 24.6 8.2
WR trunk 0.71 0.07 TFL (%peak) 34.9 10.9
WR arms 0.89 0.04 GM (%peak) 27.0 12.1
Legs asymmetry (%) 13.9 12.1

Table 2. Linear mixed models using technical parameters and trunk kinematics to predict the power produced at the handle and at the
different segment levels. *: p < 0.05. NS: no significant predictor.
Model Predicted variable and model r2 Predictor Estimate One SD change (%)
1 Mean Phandle Mean Ptrunk * 1.08 11.5
0.99 Mean Plegs * 0.87 8.46
Mean Parms * 1.07 6.06
2 Mean Plegs WR legs * −393 8.63
0.10 T2P legs * 5.70 6.43
M2P legs * 527 3.83
Legs asymmetry NS
3 Mean Ptrunk Mean Plegs * 0.89 24.3
0.90 Trunk ROM * 4.67 8.37
M2P trunk * 434 3.53
T2P trunk * −4.02 3.17
WR trunk * 165 2.78
Pelvis ROM NS
4 Mean Parms M2P arms * 425 16.3
0.60 Mean Plegs * 0.35 15.7
Mean Ptrunk * 0.20 9.74
WR arms * 527 9.52
T2P arms * −3.60 4.56

Power

2500

2000
Handle
Legs
Power (W)

1500 Trunk
Arms

1000

500

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Drive phase (%)

Figure 1. Mean curves of the power generated at the handle and each body segment during the drive phase. Grey lines represent the 95% confident interval for handle
power. Those for the segments are not displayed for readability reason.
 JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 403

Segments’ mean powers were predicted by the different Discussion and implications
technical parameters (Table 2). Plegs was predicted by its T2P,
This study aimed to determine the influence of rowing technique
WR and M2P (Table 2; model 2) but not leg asymmetry.
and core stability on rowing ergometer performance. The main
However, this model 2 could only explain a small proportion
findings were: 1) rowing performance is predicted by the power
of the variance for Plegs (r2 = 0.10). Ptrunk was well predicted (r2
output of legs, trunk and arms, with trunk power being the best
= 0.90) by Plegs, trunk ROM as well as its M2P, WR and T2P but
predictor; 2) time to peak power, work ratio and mean to peak
not pelvis ROM (Table 2; model 3). Finally, Plegs, Ptrunk, M2P, WR
power ratio are relevant technical parameters predicting the dif­
and T2P explained a large proportion of the variance for Parms
ferent segment power; and 3) trunk kinematics influences the
(Table 2; model 4; r2 = 0.60).
power production of this segment and core muscle activity pre­
dicts the range of motion of the trunk with respect to the pelvis.

Core stability
During the drive phase, the pelvis operated continuously at Prediction of performance
a backward rotation of up to roughly 40°. At the same time, the
Ergometer performance can be explained and predicted by the
trunk extended from a flexed position at the catch (60°) until
power produced by each body segment (model 1; r2 = 0.99).
reaching a slightly extended position at around 80% of the
Indeed, mean Phandle was positively associated with the mean
drive phase (Figure 2).
power of each measured segment and was better predicted by
Core muscle activation showed two distinct phases
the trunk according to the higher one SD change. This is con­
(Figure 3). During the first 60% of the drive phase, ES and GM
sistent with previous results showing enhanced mean Phandle
muscles activated, followed by the RA, EOB and TFL muscles
together with higher Plegs (Held et al., 2020; Kleshnev, 1996)
during the remaining 40% of the drive.
and Ptrunk (Kleshnev, 1996) when stroke rate increases.
Finally, activation of the different core muscles could predict
Moreover, the importance of the trunk might underline its
the trunk relative to pelvis ROM during the drive phase (Table 3;
function as a power producer. Therefore, core stability would
model 5; r2 = 0.63).

Table 3. Linear mixed model using muscles’ EMG RMS values to predict trunk to pelvis ROM. *: p < 0.05.
Model Predicted variable and model r2 Predictor Estimate One SD change (%)
5 Trunk to pelvis ROM EOB * −0.50 16.17
0.63 GM * −0.38 12.89
TFL * 0.29 8.92
RA * 0.29 8.57
ES * 0.21 4.79

Pelvis and trunk kinematics

60

40

20
Sagittal plane angle (°)

-20

-40

Pelvis
-60 Trunk

-80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Drive phase (%)

Figure 2. Mean curves (black lines) of pelvis ante- and retroversion angle and trunk flexion and extension angle (°) during the drive phase. Nine-five per cent confident
interval are displayed by the grey lines.
404 F. R. SIMON ET AL.
Figure 3. Filtered and normalized EMG activity (%peak) of the bilateral averaged
core stability muscles during the drive phase for one representative rower.
require special attention when seeking to improve rowing
performance.
Prediction of segments powers
The power of each of the segments was predicted by the power
generated at the previous level, given the kinetic chain from
legs to arms (models 3 and 4). The one SD change of these
parameters belonged to the highest predictors of these mod­
els. This probably highlights the importance of carrying out the
movement with an optimal technique to allow high power
generation in each segment, which will result in increased
power in subsequent segments and thus at the handle.
Analysis of the technical parameters that significantly predicted
the power output of each body segment allowed a definition of
the importance of each parameter, which was different according
to the segment.
Firstly, achieving earlier peak power at the trunk and arm
levels, i.e., closer to the catch, enhanced their respective mean
power production, but delayed leg peak power was beneficial
for the lower limb power. Put together, this would suggest
recommending a modification of the rowing technique
towards a more simultaneous leg and trunk action to enhance
the power output of these segments and therefore perfor­
mance. This could be achieved, for instance, by slowing down
the leg extension and opening the trunk earlier. Finally, in line
with this latter, an earlier arm action appears to be relevant in
order to improve the power output produced by the upper
limbs. Thus, timing of peak power production in each seg­
ment is important to consider during ergometer rowing. This
provides a more detailed analysis of the timing of power
production within the kinetic chain compared to the sole
evaluation of the peak force timing at the handle level (Holt
et al., 2020; McGregor et al., 2004; Warmenhoven et al., 2018).
Accordingly, this would allow specific technical instructions to
the rower (e.g., verbal instructions or real-time feedback of
a specific parameter) to improve their handle power to
achieve a better performance.
In addition to the timing of peak power production, the
work performed by the rower at each segment level influenced
power delivery to the handle. Work ratio underlined the impor­
tance of increasing work production before the peak power at
the trunk and arm levels but contrariwise to reduce this para­
meter for the legs, in order to maximize their respective power.
Along with earlier opening of the trunk, a larger trunk power
profile with more work produced before trunk peak power
would be needed to increase the work ratio and consequently
trunk mean power output. Model 4, explaining mean arm
power, also showed that enhanced work ratio was related to
mean arm power. This is in line with the need for early power
production to maintain the tension of the chain accelerating
the flywheel when the legs are extending. These findings deal­
ing with work ratio parameters would result in a more even
distribution of power through the drive (Kleshnev, 2016) and
would minimize power loss due to velocity fluctuations
(Hofmijster et al., 2008).
Mean to peak power was also a significant predictor for each
segment’s power. This indicates that the highest possible per­
centage of peak power should be produced throughout leg
and trunk extension, as well as arm flexion. These results con­
firm the link between high performance and the “flatness
curve” observed on force data (Smith & Draper, 2006) and
could potentially yield more work per stroke (Kleshnev, 2016).
If this technique could be transferred to on-water rowing, this
might reduce fluctuations in boat velocity, limit drag factors
and thus limit power losses (Soper & Hume, 2004).
Finally, even though leg asymmetry was 13.9% during the
propulsion phase and remains an obvious variable studied in
rowing biomechanics (Buckeridge et al., 2014; Fohanno et al.,
2015), this parameter could not predict the power produced by

the lower limbs. It could be suggested that the other technical
parameters deserve more attention when seeking perfor­
mance. However, a large degree of asymmetry (e.g., higher
than 15%) might need consideration to prevent any potential
imbalance and thus injury risks in rowers (Buckeridge et al.,
2014; Fohanno et al., 2015).
Accordingly, achieving an earlier peak power together with
enhanced work production at the trunk and arm levels, as well
as distributing the segments’ power over the whole drive phase
with the highest relative peak power could serve as recommen­
dations for technical training of rowers on dynamic ergometers.
These results add new information to the existing technical
determinants of overall rowing performance, e.g., higher stroke
rate (Held et al., 2020; Hofmijster et al., 2007; Holt et al., 2022;
McGregor et al., 2004), greater catch angles, rower force devel­
opment (Holt et al., 2020) and mean race values of power (Holt
et al., 2022).
Link between core stability and rowing performance
The technical determinants of performance described above
underline the importance of the trunk in rowing ergometer
performance. Moreover, core stability kinematics was concor­
dant with previous studies focusing on the trunk (Li et al., 2020;
Ng et al., 2013) and pelvis (Ng et al., 2013). The present study
demonstrates that a higher trunk ROM is related to greater
trunk power production, and in turn to greater power output.
This is in line with Li et al. (2020), who reported a significant
correlation between a higher thoracic ROM and rowing power.
Again, the trunk would therefore appear to be a power produ­
cer. Other studies have described alterations of trunk kine­
matics over a 2000 m race (Pollock et al., 2012) or during
prolonged ergometer rowing (Ng et al., 2013). This also demon­
strates the key role of the trunk, and the challenge for this
segment to be effectively controlled over the entire duration
of the race.
Trunk and pelvis muscle patterns were in agreement with
previous studies (Pollock et al., 2009, 2012; Vinther et al., 2011).
Moreover, the present study adds the description of the activa­
tion of the tensor fasciae latae during rowing. Together, these
muscles could predict core stability kinematics, i.e., trunk to
pelvis ROM (r2 = 0.63). Greater EMG activity of the erector spi­
nae muscles could accelerate and enhance trunk extension
with respect to the pelvis. Their concomitant activity with
gluteus maximus muscles during the first half of the drive
phase also partially limited pelvis retroversion, according to
the lesser gluteus maximus activity reported in the model,
supporting even more the increased trunk to pelvis range of
motion. During the second phase of the drive phase, activation
of the abdominal muscles would brake the trunk motion and
be in favour of pelvis retroversion. Therefore, lesser external
obliquus muscle activity reported in the model yielded a larger
trunk with relation to pelvis ROM. This was further supported
by the higher activity of the tensor fasciae latae muscle that
enhances pelvis anteversion. However, the behaviour of the
rectus abdominis muscle, being a significant predictor but
with a different output than the external oblique, remains
difficult to functionally interpret.
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 405
Neuromuscular control of the trunk and pelvis supports an
increase of the trunk to pelvis angle, by limiting pelvic retroversion
and favouring trunk extension. Consequently, this increase in trunk
extension would improve trunk power production (model 3) and
rowing performance (model 1), potentially due to more efficient
power production and transfer through the trunk. It is also worth
noting that muscle activation patterns (Figure 3) showed limited
coactivation phases between agonist and antagonist muscles.
Thus, coach and rowers should consider that strength exercises
based on concentric or eccentric contractions seem more adapted
than isometric contractions for core muscle training. Accordingly,
the trunk appears to be a power producer rather than a power
transmitter.
Limitations
Although participants represented a wide range of experi­
ence and performance levels, they were all from the same
nation. As the technical style is likely to be dependent on
the nation (Kleshnev, 2016), further studies involving rowers
from other countries, demonstrating therefore probably dif­
ferent technical styles, would further improve the present
performance model.
Kinematics and EMG parameters were computed over the
drive phase, using different criteria to define catch and
finish positions, compared to those used for technical and
power parameters. However, this might only slightly influ­
ence the present results, given that mean EMG, as well as
trunk and pelvis ROM values over the whole drive phase
were considered.
Trunk and pelvis neuromuscular control might not be fully
evaluated with the present setup using surface EMG, because
deeper core muscles could not be assessed. Moreover, future
research is needed to tease out the role of the rectus abdominis
compared to the external oblique muscles when predicting core
stability.
Conclusion
This study shows that the technical parameters of the legs, trunk
and arms play an important role in rowing ergometer perfor­
mance. Time to peak power, work ratio, mean to peak power
and trunk range of motion are relevant parameters to analyse
power production in each segment and suggest technical
improvement in order to produce higher power output, based
for instance on earlier trunk extension and a longer segments’
action. Moreover, this study could be replicated during boat row­
ing to possibly transfer these results to the field.
The technical determinants of performance highlight the
importance of the trunk as a power producer. This is also con­
firmed by the neuromuscular parameters of core stability.
Although the thoraco-pelvic kinematics analysed in this study
provided a better understanding of trunk power production, the
influence of core stability on performance production and its
influence on lower back injury risk (Buckeridge, Bull, et al., 2016;
McGregor et al., 2004) should be investigated jointly in future
studies.
406 F. R. SIMON ET AL.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank all the rowers for their participation in the experiments
and their coaches for their support. This study was supported by grants
(project 19r22) from the French Minister of Sports and Olympic and
Paralympic Games and the National Institute of Sport, Expertise, and
Performance (INSEP). The authors are also grateful to Arnaud Cosson, CEO
of HRV Simulation, for supporting F. Simon during his PhD thesis.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Frédéric R. Simon http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8137-0262
Geoffrey N. Ertel http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0483-0135
Youri Duchene http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2774-2333
Hugo Maciejewski http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0686-921X
Gérome C. Gauchard http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2489-9343
Guillaume Mornieux http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5756-9642
References
Bourdin, M., Messonnier, L., Hager, J.-P., & Lacour, J.-R. (2004). Peak power
output predicts rowing ergometer performance in elite male rowers.
International Journal of Sports Medicine, 25(5), 368‑373. https://doi.org/
10.1055/s-2004-815844
Brice, S. M., Millett, E. L., & Philippa, B. (2022). The validity of using inertial
measurement units to monitor the torso and pelvis sagittal plane
motion of elite rowers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 40(8), 950–958.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2022.2042146
Buckeridge, E. M., Bull, A. M. J., & McGregor, A. H. (2014). Foot force
production and asymmetries in elite rowers. Sports Biomechanics, 13(1),
47‑61. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2013.861013
Buckeridge, E. M., Bull, A. M. J., & McGregor, A. H. (2016). Incremental
training intensities increases loads on the lower back of elite female
rowers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34(4), 369‑378. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02640414.2015.1056821
Buckeridge, E. M., Weinert-Aplin, R. A., Bull, A. M. J., & McGregor, A. H. (2016).
Influence of foot-stretcher height on rowing technique and
performance. Sports Biomechanics, 15(4), 513‑526. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14763141.2016.1185459
Colloud, F., Bahuaud, P., Doriot, N., Champely, S., & Chèze, L. (2006). Fixed
versus free-floating stretcher mechanism in rowing ergometers:
Mechanical aspects. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(5), 479‑493. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02640410500189256
Fleming, N., Donne, B., & Mahony, N. (2014). A comparison of electromyo­
graphy and stroke kinematics during ergometer and on-water rowing.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 32(12), 1127‑1138. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02640414.2014.886128
Fohanno, V., Nordez, A., Smith, R., & Colloud, F. (2015). Asymmetry in elite
rowers: Effect of ergometer design and stroke rate. Sports Biomechanics,
14(3), 310‑322. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2015.1060252
Greene, A. J., Sinclair, P. J., Dickson, M. H., Colloud, F., & Smith, R. M. (2009).
Relative shank to thigh length is associated with different mechanisms
of power production during elite male ergometer rowing. Sports
Biomechanics, 8(4), 302‑317. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14763140903414391
Greene, A. J., Sinclair, P. J., Dickson, M. H., Colloud, F., & Smith, R. M. (2013).
The effect of ergometer design on rowing stroke mechanics.
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 23(4), 468‑477.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01404.x
Held, S., Siebert, T., & Donath, L. (2020). Changes in mechanical power
output in rowing by varying stroke rate and gearing. European Journal
of Sport Science, 20(3), 357‑365. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2019.
1628308
Hermens, H. J., Freriks, B., Disselhorst-Klug, C., & Rau, G. (2000).
Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor place­
ment procedures. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology: Official
Journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology, 10
(5), 361‑374. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1050-6411(00)00027-4
Hofmijster, M. J., Landman, E. H. J., Smith, R. M., & Van Soest, A. J. K. (2007).
Effect of stroke rate on the distribution of net mechanical power in
rowing. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(4), 403‑411. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02640410600718046
Hofmijster, M. J., van Soest, A. J., & de Koning, J. J. (2008). Rowing skill affects
power loss on a modified rowing ergometer. Medicine & Science in Sports
and Exercise, 40(6), 1101‑1110. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.
0b013e3181668671
Holt, A. C., Aughey, R. J., Ball, K., Hopkins, W. G., & Siegel, R. (2020). Technical
Determinants of On-Water Rowing Performance. Frontiers in Sports and
Active Living, 2, 589013. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2020.589013
Holt, A. C., Siegel, R., Ball, K., Hopkins, W. G., & Aughey, R. J. (2022).
Prediction of 2000-m on-water rowing performance with measures
derived from instrumented boats. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine &
Science in Sports, 32(4), 710‑719. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.14125
Kibler, W. B., Press, J., & Sciascia, A. (2006). The role of core stability in
athletic function. Sports Medicine, 36(3), 189‑198. https://doi.org/10.
2165/00007256-200636030-00001
Kleshnev, V. (1996). The effects of stroke rate on biomechanical parameters
and efficiency of rowing. ISBS - Conference Proceedings Archive, 1. https://
ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/view/2726
Kleshnev, V. (2000). Power in rowing. ISBS - Conference Proceedings Archive.
https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/view/2258
Kleshnev, V. (2016). The Biomechanics of Rowing. https://www.semanticscho
lar.org/paper/Biomechanics-of-Rowing-Kleshnev/
43fa58cc402a32b8d0a9e49b5e10d205d8ff6378
Le Mansec, Y., Nordez, A., Dorel, S., & Jubeau, M. (2018). Reaction time can
be measured during voluntary contractions with electrode array. Clinical
Physiology and Functional Imaging, 38(2), 338‑340. https://doi.org/10.
1111/cpf.12455
Li, Y., Koldenhoven, R. M., Jiwan, N. C., Zhan, J., & Liu, T. (2020). Trunk
and shoulder kinematics of rowing displayed by Olympic athletes.
Sports Biomechanics, 1‑13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2020.
1781238
Lintmeijer, L. L., Hofmijster, M. J., Fischedick, G. A. S., Zijlstra, P. J., & Van
Soest, A. J. K. (2018). Improved determination of mechanical power
output in rowing: Experimental results. Journal of Sports Sciences, 36
(18), 2138‑2146. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2017.1367821
McGregor, A. H., Bull, A. M. J., & Byng-Maddick, R. (2004). A comparison of
rowing technique at different stroke rates: A description of sequencing,
force production and kinematics. International Journal of Sports
Medicine, 25(6), 465‑470. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-820936
Ng, L., Campbell, A., Burnett, A., & O’Sullivan, P. (2013). Gender differences
in trunk and pelvic kinematics during prolonged ergometer rowing in
adolescents. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 29(2), 180‑187. https://doi.
org/10.1123/jab.29.2.180
Pollock, C. L., Jenkyn, T. R., Jones, I. C., Ivanova, T. D., & Garland, S. J. (2009).
Electromyography and kinematics of the trunk during rowing in elite
female rowers. Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise, 41(3), 628‑636.
https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818c1300
Pollock, C. L., Jones, I. C., Jenkyn, T. R., Ivanova, T. D., & Garland, S. J. (2012).
Changes in kinematics and trunk electromyography during a 2000 m race
simulation in elite female rowers. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine &
Science in Sports, 22(4), 478‑487. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.
2010.01249.x
Smith, R., & Draper, C. (2006). Skill variables discriminate between the elite
and sub-elite in coxless pair-oared rowing. ISBS - Conference Proceedings
Archive.
Soper, C., & Hume, P. A. (2004). Towards an ideal rowing technique for
performance: The contributions from biomechanics. Sports Medicine, 34
(12), 825‑848. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200434120-00003

Staynor, J. M. D., Alderson, J. A., Byrne, S., Rossi, M., & Donnelly, C. J. (2020).
By failing to prepare, you are preparing your anterior cruciate ligament
to fail. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 30(2),
303‑311. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13571
Vinther, A., Alkjaer, T., Kanstrup, I.-L., Zerahn, B., Ekdahl, C., Jensen, K.,
Holsgaard Larsen, A., & Aagaard, P. (2013). Slide-based ergometer row­
ing: Effects on force production and neuromuscular activity.
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 23(5), 635‑644.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01441.x
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 407
Vinther, A., Alkjær, T., Kanstrup, I., Zerahn, B., Ekdahl, C., Jensen, K.,
Holsgaard Larsen, A., & Aagaard, P. (2011). Neuromuscular activity and
force production during slide-based and stationary ergometer rowing.
British Journal of Sports Medicine, 45(4), 381–382. https://doi.org/10.
1136/bjsm.2011.084038.202
Warmenhoven, J., Cobley, S., Draper, C., & Smith, R. (2018). Over 50
Years of Researching Force Profiles in Rowing: What Do We Know?
Sports Medicine, 48(12), 2703‑2714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-
018-0992-3