Real-Time Feedback on Mechanical Power Output: Facilitating Crew Rowers' Compliance With Prescribed Training Intensity.

PURPOSE: Athletes require feedback in order to comply with prescribed training programs designed to optimize their performance. In rowing, current feedback parameters on intensity are inaccurate. Mechanical power output is a suitable objective measure for training intensity, but due to movement restrictions related to crew rowing, it is uncertain whether crew rowers are able to adjust their intensity based on power-output feedback. The authors examined whether rowers improve compliance with prescribed power-output targets when visual real-time feedback on power output is provided in addition to commonly used feedback. METHODS: A total of 16 crew rowers rowed in 3 training sessions. During the first 2 sessions, they received commonly used feedback, followed by a session with additional power-output feedback. Targets were set by their coaches before the experiment. Compliance was operationalized as accuracy (absolute difference between target and delivered power output) and consistency (high- and low-frequency variations in delivered power output). RESULTS: Multilevel analyses indicated that accuracy and low-frequency variations improved by, respectively, 65% (P > .001) and 32% (P = .024) when additional feedback was provided. CONCLUSION: Compliance with power-output targets improved when crew rowers received additional feedback on power output. Two additional observations were made during the study that highlighted the relevance of power-output feedback for practice: There was a marked discrepancy between the prescribed targets and the actually delivered power output by the rowers, and coaches had difficulties perceiving improvements in rowers' compliance with power-output targets.

Scaling and jumping: gravity loses grip on small jumpers.

There are several ways to quantify jumping performance, a common definition being the height gained by the body's centre of mass (CM) in the airborne phase. Under this definition, jump height is determined by take-off velocity. According to the existing literature on jumping and scaling, take-off velocity, and hence jumping performance is independent of size because the energy that differently sized geometrically scaled jumpers can generate with their muscles is proportional to their mass. In this article it is shown, based on a simple energy balance, that it is incorrect to presume that jump height does not depend on size. Contrary to common belief, size as such has does have an effect on take-off velocity, putting small jumpers at a mechanical advantage, as is shown analytically. To quantify the effect of size on take-off velocity, a generic jumper model was scaled geometrically and evaluated numerically. While a 70-kg jumper took off at 2.65 m/s and raised its CM by 0.36 m after take-off, a perfectly geometrically similar jumper of 0.7 g reached a take-off velocity of 3.46 m/s and raised its CM by 0.61 m. The reason for the better performance of small jumpers is their higher efficacy in transforming the energy generated by the actuators into energy due to vertical velocity of the CM. Considering the ecological and evolutionary relevance of different definitions of jump height, size-dependent efficacy might explain why habitual jumping is especially prominent among small animals such as insects.