A Physiological and Kinematic Comparison of two Different Lean Back Positions During Stationary Rowing on a Concept II Machine
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".