This is a new scientific study shedding light on an old question, giving a new perspective to an answer we probably already knew, but couldn’t really do anything about, until now.Let me explain … without question the rowing machine has been one of the most important innovations for our sport. It enables us to train all year round, teach basic techniques and importantly to test athletes. Indoor rowing is part of World Rowing’s gateway strategy to greater participation in rowing as a whole. It has also not escaped anyone’s attention that the ergometer and the on-water rowing stroke are different. Rowers have overcome its differences with a few workarounds that seem to be effective in delivering the same on-water performance. The giants of the indoor rowing scene deliver enormous scores with a huge lean back and a sneaky under-the-chin handle pull, a technique simply not possible in the boat.
As with all innovations, we are left to deal with the unintended consequences. The classic example is the invention of the light bulb. Its transformative innovation led to extraordinary productivity and extended leisure hours but has negatively affected our sleeping habits and wider environmental ecosystems. All innovation is a two-sided coin, we take the good and hope to be able to deal with the bad. Each iteration solves one problem but always creates another, what is important is that we continue the process of making improvements.
In our sport, the rowing machine has had the same transformative effect as the light bulb technology, but we have yet to address the unintended consequences of its introduction. The emerging science is showing our use, promotion and attitudes towards the standardised rowing machine may be causing harm to our elite athletes. This is a topic I have touched on before at JRN where I have addressed in more detail The Ergometer Fallacy [insert link https://juniorrowingnews.com/the-ergometer-fallacy/] and A Letter To My Nephew [insert link https://juniorrowingnews.com/a-letter-to-my-nephew-u19-world-championships/]
Many studies are pointing to the prevalence of back and rib stress injuries that have grown in our sport since the 1980’s, coinciding with the rise of the rowing machine. Manufacturers have been quick to dismiss the correlation and added warnings for overuse or improper technique. The question has even been raised that perhaps rowing itself is inherently harmful or parallel innovations within the sport, like the introduction of carbon fibre are the real cause. One study that was particularly concerning revealed that many rowers are lying about personal injury so as not to jeopardise their selection. I recommend reading the paper ‘You’re the best liar in the world’ – https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/6/327
A recent study at the University of Porto titled “Assessment of Angular and Straight Linear Rowing Ergometers at Different Intensities of Exercise” [https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/24/17/5686] looked at the difference between the World Rowing standardised, stationary, linear chain and handle, Concept 2 (™) machine compared to a dynamic, two handle Biorower (™) rowing simulator. Two machines side-by-side with a group of elite rowers completing identical workouts on the machines and measuring the effects on their bodies. A simple comparative experiment.
The findings showed that athletes using both machines were able to simulate identical cardio-vascular demands of on-water rowing. Both machines were able to replicate the athletic output of the athlete as rowers completed a similar session. Heart rate, watts, power, and effort were identical but it was here where the similarities ended. The study then looked at the different impacts on the skeletal and muscular systems of the athlete. The X-ray-like, skeletal imaging analysis showed that the standardised machine induced higher skeletal pressures at the catch and finish of the stroke. Whereas the rowing simulator replicated the on-water physical motion of the rowing stroke and did not. I would very much like to see further application of skeletal imaging analysis to give us insights into athletic performance.
This study measured that on a standardised rowing machine, the stroke length was longer, particularly at the catch and shortened at the finish of the stroke. This change in the position of the athlete was found to impact the body differently from on-water rowing, placing excess stresses on the bones and muscles creating longer recovery times between sessions. It was this aspect that was perhaps the most revealing, as so much of our attention is on effective training and recovery, but this study reveals that the design of the standard machine has an unintended impact on the body, creating longer recovery times for athletes.
The study concludes, “post-rowing muscular function showed greater impairment on the Concept2, indicating a need for prolonged recovery compared to the Biorower. This is supported by higher perceived exertion for the Concept2, suggesting that the Biorower may offer potential benefits for injury prevention during extended indoor training. The Biorower simulates on-water rowing, enhancing competition transfer and potentially reducing lower-back stress. In contrast, the Concept2 requires fewer skills but may place greater strain on the lower-back muscles.”
From the perspective of innovation, this is not a Pepsi-vs-Coke challenge, but a study into two different rowing machine designs and their unintended consequences. The study shows that we have work to do to overcome the limitations of the standardised rowing machine design. It is simply taking the next step in the design and innovation process, making the right design changes based on our knowledge. As coaches, there are implications for the machine training workloads we prescribe our squads. For club managers, there are alternative machines to consider for our programs. And as athletes, there is the need to be careful about the strain we place our bodies under so as not to become meat in the machine.
Listen to the Innovation Interviews by Ian Randall https://open.spotify.com/episode/57HO1PzXz79GjxZ1tTqAXx?si=ewnIsODERZCPOp7rPakp8w
———————————-