Shifting the Energy Toward Los Angeles: Comparing the Energetic Contribution and Pacing Approach Between 2000- and 1500-m Maximal Ergometer Rowing.

PURPOSE: To compare the energetic contribution and pacing in 2000- and 1500-m maximal rowing-ergometer performances. METHODS: On separate visits (>48 h apart, random order), 18 trained junior (16.7 [0.4] y) male rowers completed 3 trials: a 7 × 4-minute graded exercise test, a 2000-m time trial (TT2000), and a 1500-m TT (TT1500). Respiratory gases were continuously measured throughout each trial. The submaximal power-to-oxygen-consumption relationship from the graded exercise test was used to determine the accumulated oxygen deficit for each TT. Differences in mean power output (MPO), relative anaerobic contribution, percentage of peak oxygen uptake, pacing index, maximum heart rate, rating of perceived exertion, and blood lactate concentration were assessed using linear mixed modeling. RESULTS: Compared to TT2000 (324 [24] W), MPO was 5.2% (3.3%) higher in TT1500 (341 [29 W]; P < .001, ηp2=.70). There was a 4.9% (3.3%) increase (P < .001, ηp2=.71) in anaerobic contribution from 17.3% (3.3%) (TT2000) to 22.2% (4.3%) (TT1500). Compared to TT1500, maximum heart rate, rating of perceived exertion, and blood lactate concentration were all greater (P < .05) in TT2000. The pacing index was not different between trials. Percentage increase in MPO from TT2000 to TT1500 was negatively associated with pacing variance in TT1500 (R2 = .269, P = .027). CONCLUSIONS: Maximal ergometer performance over 1500 m requires a significantly greater anaerobic contribution compared with 2000 m. Junior male athletes adopt a consistent pacing strategy across both distances. However, those who experienced greater percentage increases in MPO over the shorter test adopted a more even pacing strategy. To prepare for 1500-m performance, greater emphasis should be placed on developing capacity for work in the severe domain and completing race simulations with a more even pacing strategy.

Demarcation of Intensity From 3 to 5 Zones Aids in Understanding Physiological Performance Progression in Highly Trained Under-23 Rowing Athletes.

ABSTRACT: Watts, SP, Binnie, MJ, Goods, PSR, Hewlett, J, Fahey-Gilmour, J, and Peeling, P. Demarcation of intensity from 3 to 5 zones aids in understanding physiological performance progression in highly trained under-23 rowing athletes. J Strength Cond Res 37(11): e593-e600, 2023-The purpose of this investigation was to compare 2 training intensity distribution models (3 and 5 zone) in 15 highly trained rowing athletes ( n = 8 male; n = 7 female; 19.4 ± 1.1 years) to determine the impact on primary (2,000-m single-scull race) and secondary (2,000-m ergometer time trial, peak oxygen consumption [V̇O 2 peak], lactate threshold 2 [LT2 power]) performance variables. Performance was assessed before and after 4 months training, which was monitored through a smart watch (Garmin Ltd, Olathe, KS) and chest-strap heart rate (HR) monitor (Wahoo Fitness, Atlanta, GA). Two training intensity distribution models were quantified and compared: a 3-zone model (Z1: between 50% V̇O 2 peak and lactate threshold 1 (LT1); Z2: between LT1 and 95% LT2; Z3: >95% LT2) and a 5-zone model (T1-T5), where Z1 and Z3 were split into 2 additional zones. There was significant improvement in LT2 power for both male (4.08% ± 1.83, p < 0.01) and female (3.52% ± 3.38, p = 0.02) athletes, with male athletes also demonstrating significant improvement in 2,000-m ergometer time trial (2.3% ± 1.92, p = 0.01). Changes in V̇O 2 peak significantly correlated with high-quality aerobic training (percent time in T2 zone; r = 0.602, p = 0.02), whereas changes in LT2 power significantly correlated with "threshold" training (percent time in T4 zone; r = 0.529, p = 0.04). These correlations were not evident when examining intensity distribution through the 3-zone model. Accordingly, a 5-zone intensity model may aid in understanding the progression of secondary performance metrics in rowing athletes; however, primary (on-water) performance remains complex to quantify.

Quantifying on-water performance in rowing: A perspective on current challenges and future directions.

Winning times at benchmark international rowing competitions (Olympic Games and World Championships) are known to vary greatly between venues, based on environmental conditions and the strength of the field. Further variability in boat speed for any given effort is found in the training environment, with less controlled conditions (i.e., water flow, non-buoyed courses), fewer world class competitors, and the implementation of non-race specific effort distances and intensities. This combination of external factors makes it difficult for coaches and practitioners to contextualise the performance underpinning boat speed or race results on any given day. Currently, a variety of approaches are referenced in the literature and used in practice to quantify this underpinning performance time or boat speed, however, no clear consensus exists. The use of relative performance (i.e., time compared to other competitors), accounting for influence of the weather (i.e., wind and water temperature), and the novel application of instrumented boats (with power instrumentation) have been suggested as potential methods to improve our understanding of on-water rowing speeds. Accordingly, this perspective article will discuss some of these approaches from recent literature, whilst also sharing experience from current practice in the elite environment, to further stimulate discussion and help guide future research.