Anthropometrical and physiological testing is carried out to discover the most talented junior rowers.
Lawton et al. (2012) conducted a study on 30 senior (12 females, 18 males) and 26 junior rowers (8 females, 18 males) to determine whether anthropometry, muscle strength and endurance are correlated to differences between elite senior and junior rowers’ ergometer performance. Anthropometrical variables, an all-out 2000 m rowing ergometer time trial, isometric pull, dynamic muscle strength and dynamic muscle endurance were measured.
The results showed no significant differences in the anthropometry of junior and senior male rowers. The sitting height and body mass were found to be larger on senior female rowers compared to junior rowers. Although few differences were found between the anthropometric profile of senior and junior rowers, significant differences were measured in all of the physiological attributes. According to the authors, the main finding of their study was that the 2000 m performance differences between senior and junior rowers could be explained by differences in muscular strength and endurance (particularly of the upper body).
What to learn from this?
As to the relative simplicity of dynamometer testing, development rates in muscle strength and endurance could be used to identify junior rowers with physiological characteristics to potentially excel at rowing.
| Table 1. Mean anthropometrical characteristics (SD) | ||||
| Females | Males | |||
| Junior | Senior | Junior | Senior | |
| Standing height (cm) | 174.6 (6.6) | 178.8 (3.8) | 187.8 (4.9) | 190.0 (5.4) |
| Arm Span (cm) | 177.6 (8.4) | 179.9 (5.5) | 192.1 (6.1) | 193.9 (6.0) |
| Sitting Height (cm) | 89.8 (2.2) | 92.2 (2.7)** | 96.9 (2.7) | 97.9 (2.6) |
| Body mass (kg) | 70.5 (4.6) | 77.2 (5.9)* | 85.5 (6.3) | 90.5 (9.6) |
| Sum of skinfolds (mm)a | 62.0 (13.5) | 52.4 (7.8) | 51.7 (14.9) | 42.4 (13.4)*** |
| *P = 0.01; **P = 0.04; ***P = 0.06 and; a Triceps, subscapularis, iliac crest, suprailiac, and abdominal. | ||||
| Lawton et al., 2012 | ||||
| Table 2. Mean (SD) 2000-m time, isometric pull, muscular strength and endurance dynamometer measures | ||||
| Females | Males | |||
| Juniors | Seniors | Juniors | Seniors | |
| 2000 m (s) | 442 (8.5) | 411 (6.3)* | 382 (5.0) | 366 (9.3)* |
| Isometric pull (N) | 1654 (143) | 1875 (206)* | 2254 (208) | 2678 (229)* |
| Leg Press | ||||
| 5 reps (J) | 536 (55) | 631 (70)* | 781 (81) | 921 (118)* |
| 120 reps (J) | 357 (49) | 404 (46)** | 514 (61) | 581 (77)* |
| Seated arm pulls | ||||
| 5 reps (J) | 267 (41) | 342 (54)* | 469 (60) | 617 (95)* |
| 120 reps (J) | 153 (16) | 204 (46)* | 257 (28) | 339 (66)* |
| *P < 0.01; **P < 0.05; reps = repetitions | ||||
| Lawton et al., 2012 | ||||
Source
Lawton TW, Cronin JB, Mcguigan MR. Anthropometry, strength and benchmarks for development: A basis for junior rowers’ selection? Journal of Sports Sciences 2012; 30(10): 995-1001.
