Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39275598›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Assessment of Angular and Straight Linear Rowing Ergometers at Different Intensities of Exercise.

Ricardo Cardoso, Manoel Rios, Pedro Fonseca, Joana Leão, Filipa Cardoso, Jose Arturo Abraldes Abraldes, Beatriz B Gomes, João Paulo Vilas-Boas, Ricardo J Fernandes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The Effects of CrossFitInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Ricardo CardosoCentre of Research, Education, Innovation and Intervention in Sport, Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, 4200-450 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-9722-3910
Manoel RiosCentre of Research, Education, Innovation and Intervention in Sport, Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, 4200-450 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-3574-6692
Pedro FonsecaPorto Biomechanics Laboratory, Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, 4200-450 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-4885-4924
Joana LeãoCentre of Research, Education, Innovation and Intervention in Sport, Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, 4200-450 Porto, Portugal.
Filipa CardosoCentre of Research, Education, Innovation and Intervention in Sport, Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, 4200-450 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-7829-5222
Jose Arturo Abraldes AbraldesResearch Group Movement Sciences and Sport (MS&SPORT), Department of Physical Activity and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Campus San Javier, University of Murcia, 30720 San Javier, Murcia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4527-3865
Beatriz B GomesCIDAF-Research Unit for Sport and Physical Activity, Faculty of Sport Sciences and Physical Education, University of Coimbra, 3040-248 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-2885-7666
João Paulo Vilas-BoasCentre of Research, Education, Innovation and Intervention in Sport, Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, 4200-450 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-4109-2939
Ricardo J FernandesCentre of Research, Education, Innovation and Intervention in Sport, Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, 4200-450 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-5811-0443

Funding

FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, I.P reference 2021. 04976.BD and DOI identifier https://doi.org/10.54499/2021.04976.BD
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We aimed to conduct a biophysical comparison of angular (Biorower) and linear (Concept2) rowing ergometers across a wide spectrum of exercise intensities. Sixteen (eleven male) skilled rowers, aged 29.8 ± 8.6 and 23.6 ± 1.5 years, with international competitive experience, performed 7 × 3 min bouts with 30 W increments and 60 s intervals, plus 1 min of all-out rowing on both machines with 48 h in between. The ventilatory and kinematical variables were measured breath-by-breath using a telemetric portable gas analyzer and determined using a full-body markerless system, respectively. Similar values of oxygen uptake were observed between ergometers across all intensity domains (e.g., 60.36 ± 8.40 vs. 58.14 ± 7.55 mL/min/kg for the Biorower and Concept2 at severe intensity). The rowing rate was higher on the Biorower vs. Concept2 at heavy and severe intensities (27.88 ± 3.22 vs. 25.69 ± 1.99 and 30.63 ± 3.18 vs. 28.94 ± 2.29). Other differences in kinematics were observed across all intensity domains, particularly in the thorax angle at the finish (e.g., 19.44 ± 4.49 vs. 27.51 ± 7.59° for the Biorower compared to Concep2 at heavy intensity), likely due to closer alignment of the Biorower with an on-water rowing technique. The overall perceived effort was lower on the Biorower when compared to the Concept2 (14.38 ± 1.76 vs. 15.88 ± 1.88). Rowers presented similar cardiorespiratory function on both rowing ergometers, while important biomechanical differences were observed, possibly due to the Biorower's closer alignment with an on-water rowing technique.

Indexed as

ErgometryExerciseOxygen ConsumptionWater SportsAdultBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adultbiomechanicskinematicsphysiologyrowing ergometry

Identifiers

PMID39275598
PMCPMC11397995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.