A Physiological and Kinematic Comparison of two Different Lean Back Positions During Stationary Rowing on a Concept II Machine
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared two different body positions at the finish of a stroke during stationary rowing exercise on physiological and kinematic measurements. Nine male and five female rowers volunteered for the study: mean age (± SD), body height and body mass were 27 ±9 yrs, 180.5 ±12.3 cm and 81.2 ±14.2 kg. The two body positions at the finish were controlled at an upright posture or a novel greater lean back position. All subjects completed 3 different experimental trials on a Concept IID rowing machine at 3 different exercise intensities and comparisons were made between the lean back position at the same stroke rate and the same power output as the upright trial. Power output, heart rate, oxygen uptake, energy expenditure and % efficiency were higher (p<0.05) with the greater lean back position at the same stroke rate compared to all other conditions. Range of motion at the hip, ankle, and elbow and the handle velocity and distance moved were greater (p<0.05) with the lean back position. In conclusion, a greater lean back posture at the finish during stationary rowing produces a higher power output and improved efficiency at the same stroke rate but at an elevated physiological cost compared to a more upright position. Despite the higher energy expenditure, the relative gain in power output and efficiency with no negative kinematic changes suggests that a greater lean back position at the finish will enhance performance during stationary rowing exercise.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it