 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State

 

University

 

 

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5’08 KIProleccatProsICIRClDateDuejndd

 

 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND 2K ROWING
ERGOMETER PERFORMANCE IN COLLEGIATE FEMALE ROWERS

By

Rebecca A. Battista

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
_ Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Kinesiology

2004

ABSTRACT

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND 2K ROWING
ERGOMETER PERFORMANCE IN COLLEGIATE FEMALE ROWERS

By
Rebecca A. Battista

Physical characteristics such as body size, proportions, and composition are
important determinants of athletic performance (Maestu, Jurimae, & Jurimae, 2000;
Malina, 1995; Shephard, 1998). These determinants may be particularly important in a
sport such as rowing where technique as well as teamwork and synchronicity within the
boat or crew are critical. Large muscular body sizes, similar body proportions and
composition of the crew may be the advantageous in sweep rowing due to the heaviness
of the boat and in turn, the force needed to accelerate the boat through the water. Despite
a signiﬁcant increase in women’s crew in the past two decades, no studies have evaluated
physical characteristics of female collegiate rowers.

The purposes of this study were to describe and compare the physical and
ﬁinctional characteristics of female collegiate rowers by level (novice versus varsity) and
by year of college rowing experience (0, 1, 2 and 3 years), and to estimate the
contribution of these characteristics to 2 kilometer (K) rowing performance. Participants
included 90 female collegiate rowers from three Big Ten universities. .Physical
characteristics measured included: height, weight, sitting height, arm span, skinfolds,
limb circumferences, skeletal breadths, low back ﬂexibility, and vertical jump. Physical
characteristics derived included: leg length, sitting height to height ratio, arm span to
height ratio, sum of trunk and extremity adiposity, body composition, leg power and

somatotype. The performance measure was a timed 2K race (seconds) on a rowing

ergometer. Descriptive statistics were performed for the total group, varsity and novice
levels, and years of experience. A MANOVA (P<0.05) and a Bonferoni adjusted alpha
level were used to determine differences between novice and varsity rowers and among
years of rowing experience. For the prediction aspect of the study, a stepwise regression
analysis was used to determine 2K time from physical characteristics.

The results indicated signiﬁcant differences between novice and varsity rowers in
years of rowing experience prior to college, vertical jump, 2K time and endomorphy.
Varsity rowers had signiﬁcantly more years of experience prior to entering college,
signiﬁcantly higher vertical jumps, and signiﬁcantly faster 2K times. Among years of
rowing experience, year 0 rowers were signiﬁcantly slower versus year 3 rowers and year
2 rowers were signiﬁcantly shorter versus year 2 rowers. Regression analysis revealed
fat—free mass, experience in college rowing, height and years experience prior to rowing
in college accounted for 57% of the variance (r = 0.75, r2 = 0.57) in 2K performance
time.

The primary implication from this study is that as an athlete progresses through a
collegiate rowing career, her performance will improve. Improvement in performance
may be a result of changes in fat-free mass and increased years of training and
experience. Future studies should include longitudinal designs to observe changes in
rowers’ performance as impacted by training and improvement in technique over the

course of a collegiate career.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are many people who contributed to my completion of this degree. First
and foremost I would like the thank the members of my dissertation committee, Jim
Pivarnik, Gail Dummer, Bob Malina, and Norm Sauer. They are certainly appreciated
for all of their time and effort toward the completion of my degree. A special thank you
to Jim Pivarnik and Gail Dummer who somewhat “adopted” me over the past two years.

I would also like to thank my friends and colleagues for their undying support.
First to my colleagues, who have encouraged me and supported me over my entire
graduate career. This includes Jeremy Knous for his help in recording data for this
project and Patti Bauer, my marathon training partner, and often sounding board during
the 4 years here at Michigan State. Second, I would like to thank my friends for their
never ending support, love and even harassment for being a student for over 12 years.
Third, I would like to thank my roommate, colleague, and dear friend Cooker Perkins, for
her support, encouragement and her uncanny ability to deal with me at times. And to my
best friend Pam VanSant, who always been there for me offering never ending words of
encouragement and support through all of my life changes.

I would also like to thank my undergraduate advisor from Lock Haven University,
Jim Dolan, whom without his belief in me, I honestly would not be where I am today.

And last but certainly not least, I would like to thank my family. To my parents,
Bill and Rosanne Battista, and my brother, Billy Battista. I thank you from the bottom of
my heart for all the years of support, encouragement and, love. Without my family I
would have never have had the many opportunities to pursue my dreams and turn them

into reality. Thank you.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1: Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
Signiﬁcance of the Problem ......................................................................... 3

Purposes of the Study ................................................................................... 4

Need for the Study ....................................................................................... 5

Research Questions ...................................................................................... 7
Characteristics of Rowers .................................................... 7

Prediction of Rowing Performances .................................... 8

Delirnitations ................................................................................................ 8

Limitations ................................................................................................... 9

Assumptions ................................................................................................. 9

Deﬁnition of Terms .................................................................................... 10

CHAPTER 2: Review of Literature .................................................................................. 12
Introduction ................................................................................................ 12

Collegiate Rowing and Racing .................................................................. 13

Elite Male and Female Rowers .......................................... 15

Physical Characteristics and Rowing Performance ................................... 19

Applications to Rowing ..................................................... 20

Performance Predictors ...................................................... 22

Summary ............................................................................ 25

CHAPTER 3: Methods ..................................................................................................... 27
Participants ................................................................................................. 27

Recruitment of Participants ................................................ 27

Selection Criteria ............................................................... 28

Sample Size ........................................................................ 29

Power Analysis .................................................................. 29

Background Information .................................................... 30

Instrumentation .......................................................................................... 30

Physical Characteristics of Rowers .................................... 30

Height ................................................................................. 30

Body Mass ......................................................................... 31

Sitting Height ..................................................................... 31

Arm Span ........................................................................... 31

Skeletal Breadths ............................................................... 31

Limb Circumferences ......................................................... 32

Skinfolds ............................................................................ 32

Flexibility ........................................................................... 33

Vertical Jump ..................................................................... 34

Derived Measures .............................................................. 34
Somatotype ........................................................................ 36
Rowing Performance ......................................................... 37

Data (‘nllpntinn prnrpdnrrac

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
AND 2K ROWING ERGOMETER PERFORMANCE IN

COLLEGIATE FEMALE ROWERS

presented by

Rebecca A. Battista

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the
PhD.

degree in Kinesiology

 

 

. p /_ . ,~

............................................. 38
............................................. 38
............................................. 38
............................................. 38
............................................. 39
............................................. 39
II Characteristics .................. 40
and Varsity ......................... 40
ate Rowing Experience ....... 40
on 1 ...................................... 40
on 2 and 3 ........................... 40
?onnance .............................. 41
on 4 ...................................... 41

............................................. 45
:s .......................................... 45
............................................. 45
perience ............................... 46
............................................. 46

............................................. 57
............................................. 57
............................................. 62

............................................. 67
............................................. 69
............................................. 71
............................................. 73
e Variables in Female

............................................. 77

............................................. 88

 

(y Major Professor’s Signature

95-25" CH

Date

 

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

vi

Derived Measures .........
Somatotype ...................

......... 34
..................................................... 36

Rowing Performance ......................................................... 37

Data Collection Procedures ...................

Toe-Han GALA-Jvu' -

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
AND 2K ROWING ERGOMETER PERFORMANCE IN
COLLEGIATE FEMALE ROWERS

presented by

Rebecca A. Battista

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph. D. degree in Kinesiolggy

 

   

W w' [ﬂan/£1

(7 Major Professor’s Signature
(5 -2 5" oil

Date

 

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

..................................................... 38

............................................... 38
............................................... 38
............................................... 38
............................................... 39
............................................... 39
.al Characteristics .................. 40
3 and Varsity ......................... 40
iate Rowing Experience ....... 40
ion 1 ...................................... 40
:ion 2 and 3 ........................... 40
formance .............................. 41
ion 4 ...................................... 41

.............................................. 45
cs .......................................... 45
...... 45
penence ............................... 46
............................................. 46

............................................. 57
............................................. 57
............................................. 62

............................................. 67
............................................. 69
............................................. 71
............................................ 73
e Variables in Female

............................................ 77

............................................ 88

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8:

Table 9:

Table 10:

LIST OF TABLES

Attributes of Collegiate Female Rowers ........................................................ 42
Technical Error of Measurement for Height, Weight, and Sitting Height ..... 44
Correlations for Intra-tester Reliability .......................................................... 44
Performance Measures, Physical Characteristics, Body Proportions,
Somatotypes, Body Composition, and Relative Muscularity of Novice and
Varsity Female Collegiate Rowers ................................................................. 49
Performance Measures, Physical Characteristics, Body Proportions,
Somatotypes, Body Composition, and Relative Muscularity of Female
Collegiate Rowers with 0, 1, 2, and 3 Years of Rowing Experience ............. 52

Correlations of 2K Rowing Ergometer Time and Variables Used in the
Regression Model ........................................................................................... 55

Regression Analysis of Prediction of 2K Performance Using Physical
Characteristics ................................................................................................ 56

Comparisons of Physical Characteristics of Olympic Rowers, Junior Sweep
Rowers, Junior Sculling Rowers, and Collegiate Varsity Rowers ................. 65

Descriptive Statistics for Novice and Varsity According to the Deﬁnitions .66

Comparisons of Somatotype of Female Collegiate Rowers, Olympic
Rowers, and Olympic Canoeists ................................................................... 66

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Previous Sports Participation of Female Collegiate Rowers ............................. 43

viii

Chapter 1
Introduction

Physical characteristics such as body size, proportions, and composition are
important determinants of athletic performance, in addition to speciﬁc sports skills and
training (Maestu, Jurimae, & Jurimae, 2000; Malina, 1995; Shephard, 1998). Demands
of a sport may, in fact, dictate the morphology or physical make-up of the athlete who is
likely to excel in the sport. For example, cross country runners are, on average, relatively
short and light weight; basketball players are tall; throwers are tall and heavy; and
swimmers are tall with relatively long arms. In a sport such as rowing, where proper
technique is essential for high level performance, body size and proportions may be
important for success. For example, skills necessary for sweep rowing typically require
athletes with large body sizes (tall, heavy, etc.). A large body size is an advantageous
physical characteristic of a sweep rower due to the heavy weight of the sweep boat and in
turn the force needed to move the boat through the water (Secher, 1990; Shephard, 1998).
A large body size includes characteristics such as height and weight greater than average
and a muscular physique.

In addition to body size, body proportions may also be important in rowing.
Proportions refer to relationships between different segments of the body. In the case of
rowing, arm span relative to height and sitting height relative to height. With each stroke
taken, the rower must exert sufﬁcient force to reaccelerate the boat. Having long arms
and long legs, hence long levers, increases the biomechanical advantage for sweep

rowing (Bloomﬁeld, Blanksby, & Elliott, 1973; Claessens et al., 2002).

Derived Measures .............................................................. 34

Somatotype ........................................................................ 36
Rowing Performance ......................................................... 37
Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................ 38
Testing Schedule ................................................................ 38
Testing Procedures ............................................................. 38
Personnel ............................................................................ 38
Measurement Variability and Reliability ................................................... 39
Data Analysis ............................................................................................. 39
Research Question 1: Physical Characteristics .................. 40
Research Question 2: Novice and Varsity ......................... 40
Research Question 3: Collegiate Rowing Experience ....... 40
Analysis for Research Question 1 ...................................... 40
Analyses for Research Question 2 and 3 ........................... 40
Research Question 4: 2K Performance .............................. 41
Analysis for Research Question 4 ...................................... 41
CHAPTER 4: Results ....................................................................................................... 45
Research Question 1: Physical Characteristics .......................................... 45
Research Question 2: Novice and Varsity ................................................. 45
Research Question 3: Collegiate Rowing Experience ............................... 46
Research Question 4: 2K Performance ...................................................... 46
CHAPTER 5: Discussion .................................................................................................. 57
Characteristics of Rowers .......................................................................... 57
Prediction of Rowing Performance ............................................................ 62
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................... 67
A. UCRIHS Approval ............................................................................... 69
B. Informed Consent ................................................................................. 71
C. Data Sheet and Questionnaire .............................................................. 73
D. Correlations of 2K Times and Descriptive Variables in Female
Collegiate Rowers ................................................................................ 77
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 88

vi

Quantifying the physical characteristics of rowers and relating them to actual
performances can be beneﬁcial to a coach in terms of identiﬁcation of potential talent and
to an athlete in terms of potential success in the sport. This study focuses on physical
characteristics (body size, segment length, limb circumferences, subcutaneous fatness),
body proportions (sitting height to height ratio, arm span to height ratio), physique
(somatotype), estimated body composition (fat mass, fat-free mass, percent body fat),
power (vertical jump), ﬂexibility (low back ﬂexibility) and performance (2 kilometer
ergometer time [2K]) of female collegiate rowers.

It is difﬁcult for coaches to assess speciﬁc physical characteristics when deciding
which athletes make a team, which athletes actually race in varsity and novice boats, and
which athletes are assigned to speciﬁc positions. The task is daunting given the number
of important variables, the short time period available for try outs, the number of athletes
on a team and often their relative inexperience. A collegiate rowing team typically
consists of approximately 40 to 80 women split into novice and varsity levels. Novice is
deﬁned as an athlete in her ﬁrst year of collegiate rowing, while varsity is deﬁned as an
athlete in her second, third or fourth year of rowing. Most novices have never rowed
prior to joining the intercollegiate team.

The t0p two boats from each level participate in collegiate rowing competitions.
The top competitive boats for the varsity consist of 2 boats of 8 women (ﬁrst varsity 8
and second varsity 8) and 2 boats of 4 women (ﬁrst varsity 4 and second varsity 4). At
the novice level, only 2 competitive boats consisting of 8 women (ﬁrst novice 8 and
second novice 8) ordinarily race. In other words, even though there may be 40 or more

women in each respective level, only 24 will race for varsity, and for novice, only 16 will

race. Therefore, coaches need a reasonably accurate, efﬁcient and easy to administer
screening tool to help determine tryout outcomes (on/off team), team status
(competing/not competing), boat status (novice/varsity) and seat position (1 through 8).
In this context, an evaluation of physical characteristics may be an asset for a coach to
determine potential successful rowers for his/her team.

An experienced rowing coach may be subjective in his/her selection process and
rely more on “eyeballing” qualities which he/she believes to be important in rowing
performance. Perhaps anthropometry or easily obtainable ﬁeld measures such as
ﬂexibility or vertical jump, may provide the coach with more objective tools to help
identify future novice and varsity members, boat status, and seat position.

Significance of the Problem

Women’s involvement in rowing has increased tremendously in the past 20 years.
Among the advances in women’s rowing include its recognition as an Olympic sport at
the 1976 Olympic Games. In addition, the enactment of Title IX in 1972 (although it was
not put into effect until 1975) may have inﬂuenced women’s rowing by causing an
increase in the number of collegiate teams. There can be as many as 80 women on a
collegiate rowing team which ultimately increases the total number of athletes per school.
This increase in female athletes helps athletic departments achieve compliance with Title
IX. Further, the NCAA designated women’s open weight rowing as an NCAA
sanctioned sport in 1996.

The sport of rowing is unique in that it relies heavily on teamwork and
synchronicity. Women’s collegiate rowing has sweep boats of 8 or 4 athletes plus a

coxswain. In order to move the boat through the water, each rower must perform the

rowing stroke together. The movement of the boat through the water should be a
continuous ﬂuid motion at a consistent speed. Ideally, rowers with different leg and arm
lengths adjust to each other in order to maximize speed potential. Therefore selecting
athletes of similar sizes for each boat may promote the synchronicity required for
successful rowing.

The combination of the increase in number of collegiate women’s rowing teams
and the uniqueness of the sport present the coach with the problem of recruitment and
evaluation of the most capable female athletes to ﬁt their novice and varsity teams.
Coaches’ decisions about tryout outcomes, team status, boat status, and seat position are
important to a team’s success. Success depends on the goals set forth by the respective
coach and team. Success may include placing in the top half of the respective
conference, placing at the regional championships and/or qualifying for the national
championships. To a coach, success in rowing competitions is related to recruiting
possibilities, as well as the ﬁnancial support received from the athletic department,
university, and community. To an athlete, success in rowing begins with making the
team and being assigned to a competitive boat. Those who make the team and are
assigned to the competitive boats are more likely to receive more coaching attention, and
have opportunities to advance to higher levels (e. g., all-star or national or international
teams).

Purposes of the Study
The purposes of the study were:

1. To describe the physical and functional characteristics of female collegiate rowers.

2. To compare the physical and functional characteristics of female collegiate rowers by
level (novice versus varsity) and by year of college rowing experience (0, l, 2 and 3
years).
3. To estimate the contribution of physical and functional body characteristics to two
kilometer rowing performance.
Need for the Study

Women’s rowing at the collegiate level is growing, as evidenced by the increasing
number of teams and the size of teams. Many university athletic departments encourage
large numbers on a team in an effort to help the entire athletic department comply with
NCAA Title IX regulations. Coaches cannot rely totally on recruitment due to the
limited number of high school rowing teams. As a result, they hold try outs which attract
many potential athletes. This process may present a coach with a difﬁcult task,
objectively identifying the important physical characteristics of potential athletes;
speciﬁcally which athletes make the team and, eventually, which athletes will participate
in the competitions.

The difﬁculty in selecting potential athletes for rowing lies in the composition of
a collegiate women’s team. While rowing level is determined by years of experience, the
coach decides placement into a speciﬁc boat within each level (competitive versus non-
competitive) and seat position (seat one versus seat eight) in that boat. The current study
was designed to examine the potential beneﬁts of using a more objective or scientiﬁc
basis versus subjective (“eyeball”) basis of selecting athletes for the team. In addition to
selection for the team, placement within a speciﬁc boat as well as in a speciﬁc seat

position may also be affected.

Evaluating and selecting certain physical characteristics is important because not
all body types are equally suited to the high intensity training demands of the sport
(Secher, 1990; Shephard, 1998). Quantifying physical characteristics and using them to
predict success may help a coach more objectively select potential novice and varsity
athletes. The process would also provide the athlete with more deﬁnitive criteria of what
may be important to make a collegiate team, competitive boat, or seat position in the
boat. However, an athlete who exhibits none of these physical characteristics and still
makes the team may compensate in another manner (e. g., having a short stature but
compensating with strong, powerful legs).

Coaches would prefer to use practice time for conditioning and technique
instruction rather than assessment of athletes. This concern is exacerbated by the NCAA
limits placed on training time. Assessment of the characteristics of rowers should
provide a coach with more time for conditioning and instruction.

Success in rowing is dependent on physiological (aerobic and anaerobic
capacity), functional (power, speed), physical (e.g., anthropometry, somatotype, body
composition), and behavioral characteristics, among other factors. However, it is also
important to study physical characteristics because body size is related to strength and
mechanical leverage, total weight of a boat and, in turn, drag of the boat through the
water (Secher, 1990; Shephard, 1998). Currently, there is relatively little research
describing the collegiate female rower and the relationship between her physical
characteristics and performance.

As noted earlier, growth and increased popularity of women’s rowing in the

United States is to a large extent a result of attempts to maintain compliance with Title

IX. The addition of women’s rowing as a varsity sport has signiﬁcantly increased the
total number of female athletes per school. For example, from 1981- 2000, the number of
NCAA sanctioned women’s rowing teams has increased dramatically (Division I, from
28 to 80 teams, Divisions II and 111 from 43 to 132 teams). The trend has been
accompanied by an expansion of individual members per squad (Division I, from 30.8 to
54.7 members, Divisions II and III, from 27.6 to 46.3 members) (Bray, 2002). As a result
of the increased interest in collegiate women’s rowing, there are pressures for coaches to
not only recruit large numbers of women, but also to retain them throughout a season and
a collegiate athletic career.

The combination of issues surrounding the increase in numbers of collegiate
teams and the uniqueness of the sport in its composition, competitions, and training,
present the coach with the problem of recruiting and evaluating the most capable women
to ﬁt both novice and varsity teams. Therefore, the general intent of this study is ﬁrst, to
describe the female collegiate rower, and second, to evaluate the relationship between
physical characteristics and performance.

Research Questions
Characteristics of Rowers
1. What are the physical characteristics of female collegiate rowers?
2. Among female collegiate Big Ten rowers, do varsity athletes differ from novice
athletes in physical characteristics, body proportions, somatotype, body composition,
relative muscularity, ﬂexibility, leg power, and 2K rowing ergometer performance?
3. Among female collegiate Big Ten rowers, do athletes with 0, l, 2, and 3 years of

collegiate rowing experience differ in physical characteristics, body proportions,

somatotype, body composition, relative muscularity, ﬂexibility, leg power, and 2K
rowing ergometer performance?
Prediction of Rowing Performances
After determining possible correlations among variables:
4. What are the estimated contributions of physical characteristics, body proportions,
body composition, somatotype, relative muscularity, ﬂexibility, and leg power of female
collegiate rowers to 2K rowing ergometer performance?

Delimitations
The study is delimited to the following:
1. Participants included female collegiate rowers who were members of Big Ten
university women’s rowing teams at the time of data collection. The Big Ten Conference
is comprised of six varsity level women’s rowing teams that compete in the Midwest
Region. The Big Ten Conference is considered an elite conference because it has
consistently placed at least three teams in the top 12 at the NCAA Championships within
the past 2 years. For example, at the 2003 NCAA Championships, the University of
Michigan placed fourth, Ohio State University placed eighth and Michigan State
University placed eleventh.
2. Anthropometric dimensions were measured according to established techniques
described by Lohman, Roche, and Martorell (1988).
3. The rowing ergometer is a training method used during the off-season and can be used
as an indicator of actual racing performance. The rowing ergometer reports total time

(seconds), power (watts), and stroke rate (strokes per minute).

4. Testing occurred at Michigan State University, the University of Michigan, and
Indiana University.
Limitations

The study is limited by the following:
1. The sample was a cross-sectional representation of female collegiate rowers across
years of experience or participation. As such, there is variation in age and experience.
2. Some participants during the course of the research project may have left or quit the
team for various reasons. Some reasons may include the requirements and rigors of the
sport, including coaching staff, training demands, academics, or being cut from the team.
3. Due to the use of more than one collegiate team, there was the possibility of variation
in training protocols among the teams. Examples of training differences may be in the
form of volume of work, amount of time spent on the water versus ergometers, weight
training, and/or philosophical differences among coaches.
4. Considering the different experience level between the novice and varsity rowers,
there will be training differences. During most of the year, novice and varsity rowers
train similarly; however, technique is stressed at the novice level, with less emphasis on
training volume.
5. Measurements were taken at the beginning of the spring racing season and two
kilometer ergometer times were taken at the end of the preseason dry land training
(March/April 2004).

Assumptions

It was assumed that:

1. All instruments (standing anthropometer, scale, tape measure, sliding calipers,
skinfold calipers, sit and reach box, wall stadiometer, Concept II ergometer) used for
measuring the variables were valid and reliable. The technician was consistent for each
testing procedure.
2. There were no differences between the rowers from Indiana University, the University
of Michigan and Michigan State University.
2. All participants were cooperative and motivated throughout the testing sessions.
3. The coach regularly conducted a 2K rowing ergometer test for each rower.
Definition of Terms

The following terms are deﬁned to clarify their use in the study:

Anaerobic power. The power estimated from vertical jump, used to estimate leg
power (Adams, 1994).

Anthropometry. A series of speciﬁc techniques used for measuring speciﬁc
dimensions of the body (Lohman et al., 1988; Malina, 1995).

Body proportions. The relationship between speciﬁc pairs of linear
anthropometric dimensions e.g. ratio of sitting height to height (Malina, 1995).

Body composition. The estimated composition of the body compartments
expressed as fat mass and fat-free mass (Lohman et al., 1988; Malina, 1995).

Coxswain. The on-water rowing coach and the person responsible for steering
the boat (US Rowing, 2002).

Flexibility. The range of motion of the lower back (ﬂexion) as measured by the
standard sit and reach test (Adams, 1994).

Junior level. A rower age 17 years or younger.

10

Novice. An athlete in her ﬁrst year of collegiate rowing.

Physique. An individual’s body form, or make-up of the entire body, most often
expressed as somatotype (Malina, 1995).

Performance. A 2K timed row on a rowing ergometer.

Sculling. A rower that uses two oars or holds one oar in each hand. Scullers row
in singles, doubles, and quads. (US Rowing, 2002).

Senior level. A rower age 18 or older.

Somatotype. An estimation of physique based on the contribution of three
components: endomorphy (roundness), mesomorphy (muscularity), and ectomorphy
(linearity) (Carter & Heath, 1990).

Successful. Placing in the top half of the respective conference, placing in the top
half at the regional championships and/or qualifying for the NCAA championships.

Sweep. Rowers that use only one car or hold one oar with both hands. Sweep
rowers row in pairs, fours and eights. (US Rowing, 2002).

Varsity. An athlete in her second, third, or fourth year of collegiate rowing.

VOzmax. A person’s capacity for aerobic metabolism during exercise.

11

CHAPTER 2
Review of Literature
Introduction

While the sport of rowing has been around the United States for approximately
200 years, involvement of women in the sport did not accelerate until the last 40-50
years. Rowing began to develop as a sport in the early 1800’s, with the ﬁrst boat club in
the United States appearing in 1834 in the New York harbor. In 1872 a National
Governing Body for rowing was established. This was the ﬁrst National Governing Body
for a sport in the United States. Whereas, women were rowing as early as 1877 at
Wellesley College, primarily to be “healthful and recreational,” it was not until 1962 that
the National Women’s Rowing association was established. Finally, women’s rowing
was introduced as an Olympic sport at the 1976 Montreal Olympic Games (US Rowing,
2002)

Women’s rowing has grown considerably in the past 20 years at the collegiate
level. As a result of the enactment of the Title IX legislation and more recently increased
enforcement of the law, many universities have added women’s rowing as a varsity sport.
With such a large increase in collegiate women’s rowing, it is important to understand the
sport in terms of the physical and physiological demands placed on the athlete. While
many investigators have evaluated rowers in terms of physiological characteristics, few
have observed their physical characteristics. The studies that have considered physical
characteristics have mainly been done on elite level and collegiate males, (Bourgois et al.,
2001; Bourgois et al., 2000) and on junior elite level males and females (Claessens et al.,

2002). The Montreal Olympic Games Anthropological Project (MOGAP) focused in part

12

on the physical characteristics of female rowers (Hebbelink, Ross, Carter, & Borms,
1980). To this date, no study has evaluated the relationship of physical characteristics to
performance in female collegiate rowers.

The focus of this literature review is to initially describe the sport of rowing and
its unique demands placed on the athletes. The review then explores other sports that
have used physical characteristics to estimate variation in performance.

Collegiate Rowing and Racing

Collegiate rowing competitions consist of sweep rowing, which involves a shell
(boat) with one oar for each individual. The athletes are considered part of a “crew” and
are identiﬁed according to position in the boat. They sit in conﬁgurations that have oars
on alternate sides along the boat (port or left side and starboard or right side).

A collegiate team consists of crews of 8 or 4 athletes with a coxswain. The
coxswain steers the boat and acts as an on-water coach. The eight person boats are
approximately 60 feet long and weigh over 200 pounds whereas the four person boats are
approximately 50 feet long and weigh over 100 pounds (M.Weise, Head Coach,
Michigan State University, personal communication, June 11, 2004). To generate
enough force to move the mass of the boat, including eight individuals in the boat, and to
reaccelerate the boat through the water after each stroke, rowers may need to be tall and
heavy. The additional weight of the coxswain adds additional drag and causes the crew
to work harder.

Typical collegiate competitions consist of 2K races in 8 and 4 person sweep boats.
Races usually are 6 to 7 minutes in duration. Racing in a collegiate competition consists

of only the top two boats from each level from each participating school. Athletes are

13

divided into two levels, novice and varsity. A novice level rower is one who has no
collegiate rowing experience while a varsity level rower has one or more years of
collegiate rowing experience. Varsity teams are allowed to race in boats of 8 and boats
of 4 athletes while novice teams only ofﬁcially race in boats of 8. These boats are called
the ﬁrst varsity 8, second varsity 8, ﬁrst varsity 4, second varsity 4, ﬁrst novice 8 and
second novice 8. These top crews are the ones who participate in the racing competition.
Considering there are approximately 40 to 80 athletes on each team, and only 24 athletes
may race in varsity and 16 athletes may race in novice, this makes each athlete want to be
in one of these top boats regardless of her team status.

Participating in the ﬁrst or second 8 boats is important. Athletes also compete for
seat positions. The seat position or number in the boat is also important. In an 8 person
boat, the ﬁrst person to cross the ﬁnish line is called the bow, while the last person to
cross the ﬁnish line is called the stroke. The stroke is considered the most important
member of the crew as she sets the rhythm of the boat. This individual is typically the
most knowledgeable about rowing, the strongest in the boat, and has the best technique.
Seat position in the boat moves down from the stern where the stroke or the number eight
position sits, to the bow or the number one position. Seat positions are set up in pairs
because each seat holds one oar. Even numbered seats hold the oar on the port (left) side
while the odd numbered seats hold the oar on the starboard (right) side of the boat. While
deciding whether an athlete should row port or starboard is not apparently a critical
component, placing athletes into pairs or partners and in an appropriate order in the boat

may be critical.

14

Elite Male and Female Rowers

Both male and female rowers are typically taller and heavier, have smaller
Skinfolds, longer limb lengths and greater limb circumferences, and lower percent body
fat compared to average individuals (Bourgois et al., 2000; Bourgois et al., 2001;
Hebbelinck et al., 1980; Ross, Ward, Leahy, & Day, 1982). With age of menarche as the
criterion, elite female rowers tend to be average (“on time”) in maturity status compared
to non-athletes. Claessens et a1. (2001 , 2003) reported an age of menarche for elite level
female junior rowers (N = 220) of 12.75 i 1.2 years of age, which is comparable to the
Flemish population (12.91 i 1.3 years). Olympic rowers and canoeists at the Montreal
Olympic Games had an age at menarche of 13.7 i 1.1 years, which was slightly later
than non-athletes (Malina, Bouchard, Shoup, Demirjian, & Lariviere, 1982). While elite
female rowers may tend to be taller, heavier and generally larger versus the average
individual, they are also of average maturity status, attaining menarche between 12.00 to
13.99 years of age (Malina, Bouchard, & Bar-Or, 2004).

Physical characteristics discriminate an elite male rower from a lower level male
rower. At the junior level, more elite rowers show greater differences in physical
characteristics compared to lower level rowers. In a large sample (N = 383) of junior
level rowers, age 17.8 i 0.7 years, the elite level male rowers, those ranked in the top 6 at
the 1997 World Junior Rowing Championships, were characterized by greater heights,
larger skeletal robustness, and greater muscle development compared to the remaining
rowers participating at the championships. When ﬁnalists versus non-ﬁnalists were
compared at the 1997 World Junior Rowing Championships, the former had signiﬁcantly

larger leg and arm lengths, biacromial breadths, arm and thigh girths, and body mass. Of

15

interest, only one skinfold (triceps) showed a signiﬁcant difference between ﬁnalists and
non-ﬁnalists. Relative to the rowing stroke, rowers having longer legs may be at an
advantage in that this characteristic may potentially increase the leg and drive phase of
the rowing stroke (Bourgois et al., 2000). The advantages in size of more elite compared
to lower level rowers may beneﬁt rowing performance.

Characteristics that predict success in older male rowers are similar to those of the
younger group in terms of larger body sizes. Among 48 Australian male rowers, height
and weight-for-height were determinants in predicting top level performances. Of the six
boats participating in a competition, the top three boats consisted of males who were
taller and heavier, had a better index of body build [height (in)/ 22 * weight (lbs)], and a
greater, estimated surface area, and a greater biacromial breadth (Bloomﬁeld etal.,
1973). However, the differences were simply plotted as standardized scores from the
mean and standard deviation of the entire group and not statistically tested.

Female rowers at the Montreal Olympic Games showed similar trends in physical
characteristics (Hebbelink et al., 1980) as evident in male rowers. Compared to male
rowers, females were not different in proportion of body mass, but did differ in other
physical characteristics. While male rowers showed greater skeletal breadths, segment
lengths, and upper body girths compared to female rowers (Ross et al., 1982), these
characteristics were larger in the female rowers compared to female non-rowers. Female
rowers also had sum of Skinfolds similar to canoeists and swimmers in the Montreal
Olympic athlete sample (Carter, 1982).

Elite level junior and senior level rowers also show similar physical

characteristics including large body sizes and muscular physiques. Female Olympic

16

rowers at the Montreal Olympic Games were, on average, 23.8 years old, 174.3 cm tall,
weighed 67.4 kg and were classiﬁed as mesomorphic and endomorphic (Carter, Sleet, &
Climie, 1982). At the 1997 FISA World Rowing Championships, elite level junior
rowers were on average, 17.5 years old, 174.9 cm tall, weighed 69.5 kg and were
classiﬁed as mesomorphic and endomorphic (Claessens et al., 2002).

Delineating rowers by level, or in terms of ﬁnalist or non-ﬁnalist, differences also
appear. As with the males, ﬁnalist female junior rowers were taller and heavier, had
longer arms and legs, and larger girths (biceps ﬂexed and relaxed, forearm and thigh)
(Bourgois et al., 2001). They also had a greater arm muscle area and greater fat-free
mass (Claessens et al., 2002). The heavier body weight of female rowers was probably
due to a large, fat-free mass component (Claessens et al., 2002).

While height, weight, and proportions of limb lengths are important from a
biomechanical perspective, body composition is also important physiologically.
Partitioning the physical characteristics in terms of muscle mass and fat mass can help in
understanding the qualities necessary to be successful in the sport. For example, in a
study of male national team (Sweden) members, peak strength depended on muscle
quantity not muscle quality (Larsson & F orsberg, 1980). Quantity of muscle was
determined by the amount of muscle, while quality was determined by the ﬁber type,
either fast or slow twitch that predominates in the muscle area. In this study, the quality
of the muscle in the leg and arm consisted of predominately aerobic or slow twitch ﬁbers.
However, a strength test elicited such high peak strength values that the authors
suggested it was the quantity of muscle, or the amount of muscle mass, versus the quality

of muscle, that resulted in higher strength values in contrast to the quality of muscle, or

17

the fact that the muscle consisted of predominately made of more aerobic ﬁbers. This
result was not expected. The authors noted that athletes with a large muscle mass and a
high level of strength are usually characterized by a higher proportion of fast twitch or
anaerobic ﬁbers. This suggests that the amount of muscle mass seen in elite male rowers
is important to success in rowing.

In lightweight rowing, thigh muscle mass is also often viewed as important. Male
and female lightweight rowers had thigh girths and thigh lengths similar to Olympic
rowers, suggesting that muscle mass may be the critical unit to rowing regardless of
weight restriction (DeRose, Crawford, Kerr, Ward, & Ross, 1989).

As in many sports, there are different competitive levels in rowing. Levels are
often associated with age, and athletes at lower levels are typically younger. Novices are
typically the youngest as well as the least experienced among collegiate rowers.
Therefore, age and level are important considerations in comparisons of rowers in
predicting performance. For example, in a comparison of male rowers at three different
ages and levels, physical characteristics were relatively more important in predicting
performance in rowers 19-23 years, while biological and psychological factors were
relatively more important in predicting the performance in the youngest (<19 years) and
oldest (>23 years) rowers (Williams, 1977). In this study physical characteristics
included height, weight, Skinfolds, limb circumferences, and skeletal breadths while
biological characteristics included heart rates at a given stroke rate during a six minute
rowing ergometer performance. In an example of differences between levels of rowers,
Claessens et a1. (2001) showed elite level junior rowers of both sexes had speciﬁc

morphological characteristics that differed among competition level (ﬁnalists versus non-

18

ﬁnalists) (Claessens et al., 2001). Nonetheless, predictors of performance may vary with
age and level of the rowers.

Variability among individuals within a boat may also be a factor in determining
differences in physical characteristics, such as body composition, of rowers. Fifteen
British female rowers (age = 26.3 :t 3.5 years) were measured for body composition using
various methods, which included body mass index (BMI), Skinfolds, densitometry, total
body potassium, and bioelectrical impedance (BIA). After estimating body composition
from the various methods, the authors concluded that: (a) the BMI was not a valid
measure of body composition for rowers; (b) each body composition measure should be
referenced against a norm or “gold standard”; and (c) it may be more beneﬁcial to
estimate the average percent body fat of athletes within a boat instead of by individual
athletes due to the variability within a boat (Pacy et al., 1995). Coaches may view body
composition in terms of an optimal level of leanness essential for successful performance.
However, Pacy et al. (1995) emphasize that setting a standard body composition for a
team may not be recommended. Individual differences are considerable so that a single
standard may be misleading. One implication from this study suggests presenting
individual estimates or averages in different manners. For example, estimates may be
expressed according to a boat average instead of an individual or team average. This may
decrease the amount of variability that may be seen in estimates of body composition
among members of a large team.

Physical Characteristics and Rowing Performance
Understanding relationships between physical characteristics and sport-speciﬁc

indicators of performance may provide insights into selection and coaching. Height,

19

body composition (percentage fat, fat-free mass, muscle mass), skeletal structure, limb
lengths, and overall physique are physical characteristics that may inﬂuence athletic
performance in male and female athletes. Sport-speciﬁc requirements including motor
skills, unique physiological demands, and biomechanical factors also contribute to the
proﬁle of a successful athlete in a sport.

Athletes in various sports have different physical and physiological proﬁles.
Prudent use of such proﬁles may be useful in identifying individuals who have the
potential to excel in a speciﬁc sport. Inter-individual variability probably reﬂects the
speciﬁc demands of a sport as well as the position or specialty within a sport. Further,
athletes at different levels in a sport may have similar physical and physiological
characteristics, but may differ in the expression of traits and expected degree of
association with functional demands (Carter, 1985; Hawes and Sovak, 1994).

The ability to understand how physical size can impact performance requires
appreciation of both the biomechanical requirements of the sport and the physiological
demands placed on the athlete (Carter, 1985). A sport that depends on a great deal on
leverage may require a certain height for success, i.e., longer limbs potentially offer a
greater biomechanical advantage. Body mass generally relates to physiological demands
so that the proportion of mass that is fat versus fat-free mass may affect maximal oxygen
consumption (Carter, 1985). And it is well documented that fat-free mass includes a
major proportion of muscle tissue that is related to muscular strength.

Applications to Rowing
Body mass and, more speciﬁcally, the composition of body mass may contribute

signiﬁcantly to rowing performance. In a study of male rowers, body mass was one

20

variable that predicted performance but weight-for-height was also an important predictor
(Bloomﬁeld et al., 1973). This suggests that absolute mass per se is central to rowing
performance and that the proportion of mass to height is also important. Body mass was
also an important predictor of 2K rowing ergometer time (r = -0.41) in elite schoolboy
rowers (Russel et al., 1998), but body mass, the sum of eight Skinfolds and height
combined, accounted for 68% of the variance in 2K ergometer time in the schoolboy
rowers. In contrast, metabolic variables including maximal oxygen consumption (V 02
max), accumulated oxygen deﬁcit, and net efﬁciency, accounted for only 25% of the
variance in the schoolboy rowers (Russell et al., 1998). Of course, body mass includes
fat mass and fat-free mass, and the absolute amount of fat-free mass is also an important
predictor of rowing performance (Maestu et al., 2000). F at-free mass is related to V02
max, which is a predictor of rowing performance. Further, in male light- and heavy-
weight rowers who trained for ﬁve years, muscle mass was signiﬁcantly related to V02
max. In female rowers, V02 max and experience explained 74% of the variance in
predicting performance from 2500 meter (M) time (Kramer et al., 1994). With VO2max
being a signiﬁcant predictor of rowing performance, and with the high correlation
between fat-free mass and V02max, fat-free mass is perhaps the component of body mass
that is the signiﬁcant predictor of performance in rowers.

Other factors may also contribute to rowing performance. Experience in the
sport, rank assigned by coaches, and V02max are signiﬁcant predictors of 2500 M time
(Kramer et al., 1994). Among male rowers, a timed test on a rowing ergometer
differentiated those who made the Olympic team versus those who did not (Hagerman,

Addington, & Gaensler, 1972). Faster times on the ergometer characterized the Olympic

21

selections. Hence, a relatively simple test such as a timed row on an ergometer may be
an appropriate variable as a study of predictors of rowing performance.

The relative distribution of muscle mass i.e., regional variation in the
development of muscle throughout the body may also be an important factor in rowing
performance. Speciﬁcally, power generated by muscles of the thigh region is important
to rowing performance. The best predictors of success in male rowers were thigh muscle
mass and cross-sectional area (Maestu et al., 2000). Lightweight female rowers at the Xth
Pan American Games had similar thigh girths and lengths as heavyweight Olympic
female rowers at the Montreal Games (DeRose et al., 1989). The similarities between
lightweight and heavyweight female rowers suggest that muscle mass of the thigh region
is important to success in the sport regardless of weight restriction associated with the
former (DeRose et al., 1989). Thigh length, girth, and Skinfolds may provide a non-
invasive and useful estimate of muscle mass of the thigh for use with rowers.
Performance Predictors

An understanding of relationships between physical characteristics and rowing
performance is potentially useful for a coach. For example, several anthropometric
dimensions (height, weight, sitting height, Skinfolds, circumference, skeletal breadths)
and Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotypes were used to predict 10K race time in
adult males (42.7 :I: 10.3 years) and females (39.7 i: 9.2 years). Somatotype and the BMI
were the signiﬁcant contributors to running performance (Berg, Latin & Coffey, 1998).
Endomorphy accounted for 41% of the variance in 10K time in females, while the BMI

and mesomorphy accounted for 38% of the variance in 10K time for males. When male

22

and female runners were combined in the analysis, only endomorphy contributed (22%)
to 10K time.

A variety of anthropometric dimensions and derived indices were used to predict
performance scores (as assigned by judges) of female artistic gymnasts (13.2-23.8 years)
at a world championship competition (Claessens, Lefevre, Beunen, & Malina, 1999).
There were signiﬁcant negative correlations between the total performance score and
Skinfolds, endomorphy, body mass, and limb lengths and girths. However, most of the
variance (32-46%) was explained by endomorphy and age. Endomorphy had a negative
inﬂuence while age had a positive inﬂuence. Age probably corresponds to experience,
with older competitors performing better than younger competitors. The negative
contribution of endomorphy was somewhat surprising because female gymnasts as a
group are not endomorphic. This raises the potential problem of judges (consciously or
subconsciously) using a component of physique in assigning scores to performances.

Among elite level modern pentathletes, the only signiﬁcant correlates of overall
performance were dimensions related to fatness i.e., most Skinfolds, predicted body
density, percent fat, and endomorphy (Claessens, Hlatky, Lefevre, & Holdhaus, 1994).
Using the total score in the ﬁve events as the criterion, the sum of 10 Skinfolds had a
negative inﬂuence while biacromial and epicondylar breadths had a positive inﬂuence.

Physical and physiological characteristics were related to a 200 m race time in 26
elite level sprint kayakers (Von Someran & Palmer, 2003). Relaxed and ﬂexed upper
arm and forearm circumferences, chest circumference and epicondylar breadth were
negatively related to performance time (a lower time indicates better performance so

larger dimensions are positively related to sprint performance), but did not contribute

23

signiﬁcantly to the explained variance. Rather, only a modiﬁed Wingate test, a measure
of anaerobic power, accounted for 53% of the variance in sprint time. When the sprinters
were classiﬁed as national and international caliber, epicondylar breadth of the humerus
was a signiﬁcant predictor of sprint performance (r2 = 0.52) in the latter. The authors
suggested even though arm and forearm circumferences (indicators of muscularity) did
not add to the explained variance in performance in all sprinters, the signiﬁcant
relationship of arm and forearm circumferences to performance and the importance of the
biepicondylar breadth to the performance of international caliber kayak sprinters
emphasizes the importance of the morphology of the upper extremity in kayak sprint
performance. By inference, dimensions of the upper limb may also have implications for
rowing performance.

In a similar study, a variety of physiological tests and physical ﬁtness measures
were used to predict 7K race time in male endurance kayakers (Oliver & Coetsee, 2002).
Relative V02 max estimated with an arm crank ergometry task had a signiﬁcant positive
relationship to race performance. Number of triceps dips and ﬂexibility (sit and reach
test) had a high negative relationship to race performance, indicating a positive
association between upper body muscular strength and endurance (dips) and lower back
ﬂexibility and performance (note, a lower time is a better performance). Relative
V02max based on the arm ergometer task was the best predictor of performance time and
accounted for 66% of the variance. Number of dips signiﬁcantly added to the explained
variance, increasing it to 76%.

In a sample of 19 young elite male rowers (l 8 i 2 years) anthropometric and

physiological measures were used to predict 2K time on a rowing ergometer (Russell et

24

al., 1998). There were signiﬁcant inverse correlations between performance and absolute
V02 max, knee extension strength and body mass meaning that as rowing time decreased,
ﬁtness, strength, and size increased. Subsequent analysis grouped variables into three
categories in an attempt to predict 2K rowing performance: metabolic (absolute V02 max,
aerobic oxygen efﬁciency, net efﬁciency), metabolic and anthropometric combined (body
mass, absolute V02 max, Skinfolds), and anthropometric (Skinfolds, height, body mass).
Anthropometric characteristics alone accounted for the largest proportion of variation in
2K ergometer performance (68%). In contrast, metabolic variables alone and the
combination of metabolic and anthropometric variables accounted for 25% and 63% of
the variance, respectively (Russell et al., 1998).

Summary

Physical characteristics are signiﬁcantly related to successful performance in a
variety of sports. Physiological characteristics are also related to success in several
sports, especially those similar to rowing. F at-free mass as it relates to maximal aerobic
capacity is of speciﬁc importance.

Physical characteristics including height, absolutely and relatively long arms and
long legs, and large thigh girths may be important for success in collegiate rowing.
Estimated fat-free mass is another variable of importance. Although the physical
characteristics of elite level female rowers have been reported, they are limited largely to
international level competitors. The present study considers the physical characteristics
of female collegiate rowers and also attempts to estimate the signiﬁcance of the

characteristics to rowing performance.

25

As noted earlier, level of competition and age are potentially important
determinants of rowing performance. Rowers who differ in level of performance (e.g.,
higher versus lower levels) may differ in physical and/or physiological characteristics.
The differences may reﬂect fewer years of experience and younger ages by inference less
sport-speciﬁc training in rowing. Given the relative novelty of collegiate rowing for
women and a relative lack of competitive rowing at the high school level, this may be the
case. Novice collegiate rowers are younger and less experienced, and many are
experiencing the sport for the ﬁrst time. The present study uses a cross sectional
approach to evaluate differences in physical characteristics and performance among
collegiate rowers by level and age.

Rowing depends on the synchrony of each member of the boat. The rowers must
move the mass of the boat through the water, and this requires in part physically large
individuals. Previous research has identiﬁed height, body mass, limb lengths, limb
circumferences, and Skinfolds as important in rowing performance. These variables and
several derived variables (e. g., somatotype) are incorporated into the present study, in

addition to ﬂexibility and leg power.

26

CHAPTER 3
Methods
Participants

Participants were 90 members (age = 18.1 —- 23.4 years) of three women’s
intercollegiate rowing teams within the Big Ten Conference. Members of six Big Ten
teams were initially selected to participate in the study based on location within a
reasonable distance to the investigator at Michigan State University. The teams included
the Ohio State University, the University of Wisconsin, the University of Minnesota,
Michigan State University, the University of Michigan, and Indiana University.
However, due to a lack of interest, coaching changes, and/or scheduling conﬂicts only
Michigan State University, the University of Michigan, and Indiana University agreed to
participate. While a convenience sample, we believe it is a good representation of the
elite level female collegiate rower. The Big Ten has been ranked consistently in the top
20 in the nation and has placed in the top 12 at the NCAA Championships. In 2002, ﬁve
of the seven Big Ten teams were ranked in the top 20 in the nation. In 2003, three Big
Ten teams placed in the top 12 at the NCAA Championships. In the 2004 season, two of
the three schools that participated in the study placed at the NCAA Championships in
May 2004.
Recruitment of Participants

Coaches were contacted via telephone and e-mail for their approval to conduct the
study. Initial contact was made with the coaches in February 2004. Testing at each

university occurred between March and April 2004. Approval for rower participation

27

was received from the Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects (Appendix A). All participants signed the informed consent (Appendix
B) prior to participating in the study.

Once approval was received from the coaches, potential study participants were
solicited by their respective coaches. The coaches informed the athletes about the study
purpose and potential outcomes. Each coach was provided with a schedule of testing
times which was then given to the rowers who signed up according to individual
schedules. Athletes were then given a schedule of times for the two days of testing.
Testing days corresponded to participants’ class schedules. Monday, Wednesday or
Friday was used in addition to a Tuesday or Thursday for the second day of testing.
Athletes from Michigan State University were tested over a period of 3 weeks due to the
proximity of the school to the investigator. Testing sessions were scheduled so that two
athletes could be tested together in approximately 30 minutes.

Selection Criteria

Participants included all rowers participating on each university’s respective
varsity roster. Rowers were designated novice or varsity as determined by the coach of
the respective teams. While novice means having no experience in collegiate rowing, a
few athletes with no experience were placed on the varsity level. To determine how long
each participant was involved with rowing in college, years of collegiate rowing
experience was asked of each participant. The years were counted as follows: rowers in
their ﬁrst year (0 years), in their second year (1 year), in their third year (2 years) and in

their fourth year (3 years). Coxswains were not included in this study.

28

Sample Size

The potential eligible sample from the schools that agreed to participate was 125
rowers. Overall, 90 (72%) female collegiate rowers participated in this study. Of the

rowers who did not participate in the study, reasons for not participating included the

following: conﬂict with academic schedule, illness or injury, and/or missed testing
sessions. In addition, some athletes did not regularly perform 2K tests on the rowing
ergometer. Table 3.1 provides information concerning the number of participating
rowers in the sample according to level on the team and years of rowing experience. Of
the teams that participated in the study 32 out of 45 participated from school A, 21 out of
34 participated from school B, and 37 out of 46 participated from school C. While 90
rowers participated in the study, injury precluded two from performing the vertical jump
and two from performing the 2K rowing ergometer test. In addition, the supraliac
skinfold measure was not obtained from one participant.
Power Analysis

The study was powered using the main outcome measure of interest, 2K race
time. Previous testing in our laboratory resulted in an average (:tSD) 2K time of 456
(21:15) seconds, using varsity rowers. We felt that ﬁnding a difference of 7-8 seconds
between varsity and novice rowers would be meaningful to coaches. This equates to an
effect size of ~0.50, based on our previous pilot data. Given the desired effect size,
sample size calculations indicated that 62 participants (31 novice, 31 varsity) would be

needed to achieve a statistical power of 0.80, at an alpha level of P<0.05. Given the ﬁnal

29

sample size actually used (N = 90), statistical power was slightly higher than this a priori
estimate.
Background Information

Upon arrival of the rower to the designated testing area, informed consents were
given and questions (Appendix C) were asked of each rower. Questions included current
team status (novice or varsity level), date of birth, recalled age of menarche, years of
rowing experience in college, and years of rowing experience prior to college. Prompts
including: in or out of school, in or out of the sports season, season of the year, and/or
major holiday were used to assist the rower in recalling age at menarche. Chronological
age and age at menarche were expressed as decimal ages. Previous experience in
organized sports (Figure 3.1) was also included among the questions, speciﬁcally which
sports were played in high school and/or for an extended period of time (greater than four
years).

Instrumentation

Physical Characteristics of Rowers

Measurements were taken during the spring semester 2004. Dimensions were
taken according to accepted protocols (Lohman, et al., 1988; Malina, 1995). Bilateral
measurements were taken on the right side of the body. Participants wore light clothing
(sports bra and shorts) but no shoes. Circumferences were taken twice with the mean
being used in the analysis. Skinfolds were taken three times with the mean being used in
the analysis.

Height

30

Stature (height) was measured using a free standing ﬁeld anthropometer. The
participant stood erect with eyes looking straight forward (Frankfort horizontal plane),
weight evenly distributed between feet, heels together, and arms hanging relaxed by the
side. Height was measured as the distance from the ﬂoor to the top of the head (vertex)
to the nearest 0.1 centimeter (cm).

Body Mass

Body mass (weight) was measured using a standard portable scale. The
participant stood on the scale with weight evenly distributed between her feet. Weight
was measured to the nearest 0.1 kilogram (kg).

Sitting Height

Sitting height was measured as the distance from the sitting surface to the top of
the head. The participant was seated on a ﬂat bench with hands resting on the thighs and
eyes looking straight ahead. Sitting height was measured to the nearest 0.1 cm with the
lower two sections of the ﬁeld anthropometer.

Arm Span

Arm span is a measure of the length of the upper extremities plus the span of the
shoulders. It was measured with a non-stretchable tape. The participant was standing
with her back against a wall and arms held out laterally with palms facing forward. The
tape measure was taped on the wall and placed at approximately shoulder level. The
measurement was taken from middle ﬁnger of the right hand to the middle ﬁnger of the

left hand to the nearest 0.1 cm (Martin, et al., 1988).

31

Skeletal Breadths

Skeletal breadths provide a measure of robustness of the skeleton. Four skeletal
breadths were measured using the upper end of the portable anthropometer to the nearest
0.1 cm. Bicristal (hip) breadth was measured as the distance across the iliac crests with
the caliper held at a 45 degree angle. Biacromial (shoulder) breadth was measured as the
distance across the right and left acromial processes of the scapulae. Biacromial and
bicristal measures were performed from the rear of the participant. Bicondylar (knee)
breadth was taken across the condyles of the right femur with the participant sitting and
the right knee ﬂexed at 90 degrees. The caliper was held at an angle downward.
Biepicondylar (elbow) breadth was taken across the epicondyles of the humerus with the
participant standing and the right arm ﬂexed at 90 degrees. The upper end of the ﬁeld
anthropometer was used and was held at a slight angle. All skeletal breadths were
measured to the nearest 0.1 cm.
Limb Circumferences

Four limb circumferences were measured with a ﬂexible, non-stretchable tape to
the nearest 0.1 cm. The measuring tape was in contact with, but did not indent the skin.
For relaxed arm circumference, the participant was standing with the arms at the sides.
The midpoint between the acromial and olecrenon processes was marked. Flexed arm
circumference was taken at the same level with the participant maximally ﬂexing the
biceps i.e., “make a muscle”. Thigh circumference was measured at the point midway
between the inguinal crease and the proximal border of the patella. Calf circumference
was measured at the maximum circumference of the calf with the participant standing

with the body weight evenly distributed between the feet.

32

Skinfolds
Eight skinfold thicknesses (triceps, biceps, subscapular, thigh, medial calf, lateral

calf, suprailiac, abdominal) were measured to the nearest 0.5mm using a Lange skinfold
caliper. All Skinfolds were taken using a double fold of skin and underlying soft tissue
raised with the thumb and index ﬁnger about 1 cm above the chosen measurement site.
The triceps skinfold was taken on the back of the arm over the triceps muscle at the level
marked for arm circumference. The biceps skinfold was taken on the anterior aspect of
the arm at the same level as the triceps skinfold. The arm was hanging in a relaxed
manner at the side for measurement of the triceps and biceps Skinfolds. The subscapular
skinfold was taken just below the inferior angle of the scapula following the natural
contour lines of the skin. The thigh skinfold was taken on the anterior thigh at the
midpoint level previously marked for thigh circumference. The medial and lateral calf
Skinfolds were taken at the same level as calf circumference on the medial and lateral
aspects of the calf, respectively. The suprailiac skinfold was taken at a point just above
the iliac crest in the midaxillary line. The abdominal skinfold was taken 3 cm lateral and
1 cm inferior to the umbilicus. All Skinfolds were measured three times and the average
of the three measures used in the analysis.

Flexibility

Flexibility was measured with a sit and reach box. The apparatus was placed

against the wall. The participant sat on the ﬂoor with the legs straight, shoes off, and feet
placed ﬂat against the box. Instructions to the participants emphasized that the goal of
the test is to reach or stretch as far as possible while pushing the measuring device

without letting the knees come off the ﬂoor (Adams, 1994). The participant extended her

33

arms with palms down and bent and pushed the device. Three trials were performed and
recorded to the nearest cm; the furthest distance used in the analysis.
Vertical Jump
Vertical jump was used as a measure of leg power. Standing reach was measured
prior to the jumps. The jump was performed from a still position with no step, but the
participant was permitted to use her arms in a pumping action (Adams, 1994).
Instructions were given to each participant and a demonstration jump was performed to
ensure the participants understood the technique. Each participant jumped three times,
with a brief rest between jumps. The best jump (distance between the reaching height
and height of the jump) of the three trials was used for analysis. Vertical jump was
measured to the nearest inch.
Derived Measures
Several additional variables were derived: (a) estimated leg length is equal to
height minus sitting height; (b) sitting height to height ratio is equal to sitting height
divided by height and multiplied by 100; (c) sum of trunk Skinfolds (subscapular,
abdominal, suprailiac); (d) sum of extremity Skinfolds (triceps, biceps, mid-thigh, medial
calf, lateral calf); and (6) arm span to height ratio is equal to arm span divided by height.
Leg (subischial) Length. Leg length was estimated as height minus sitting height.
Sitting Height/Height Ratio. The ratio provides an indication of the relative
contribution of the upper segment (trunk, neck, head) to stature (Malina, 1995). It was

calculated as sitting height divided by height and multiplied by 100.

34

Arm Span to Height Ratio. Arm span to height ratio provides an indication of the
relative length of the arms to height (Martin et al., 1988; Babington & Stager, 2000). It
was calculated as arm span divided by height.

Trunk Subcutaneous Adiposity. Trunk subcutaneous adiposity was estimated as
the sum of three trunk Skinfolds — subscapular, suprailiac, and abdominal.

Extremity Subcutaneous Adiposity. Extremity subcutaneous adiposity was
estimated as the sum of the ﬁve extremity Skinfolds — triceps, biceps, mid-thigh, medial
calf, and lateral calf.

Limb Muscle Mass. Estimated arm muscle circumference was derived from
relaxed arm circumference and in conjunction with triceps and biceps Skinfolds as
follows:

0 Estimated arm muscle circumference (cm) = [Ca — 1t/2(St + Sb)]
where C8 = arm circumference, St = triceps skinfold and Sb = biceps skinfold (Malina,
1995).

Estimated calf muscle circumference was derived from calf circumference and the medial
and lateral calf Skinfolds as follows:

0 Estimated calf muscle circumference (cm) = Cc - 1r/2(Sm + S. )
where Cc = calf circumference, Sm = medial calf skinfold and S. = lateral calf skinfold
(Malina, 1995).

Body Composition. Estimates of body composition included percent body fat, fat
mass (FM), and fat-free mass (FFM) estimates. Fat-free mass was estimated using the
formula of Warner, Fornetti, Jallo and Pivarnik (2004). Their model (shown below) has

been shown to be a valid indicator of body composition in collegiate female athletes.

35

{FF M (kg) = 8.57 + (0.808*weight) — (0.181 *abdominal skinfold) — (0.222*thigh

skinfold)}.

This equation was validated versus fat-free mass measured by dual energy x-ray
absorptiometry. The predictive ability was high (r2 = 0.97) and the standard error of the
estimate was 1.1 kg (Warner et al., 2004). Fat mass was estimated by subtraction (body
weight — fat-free mass) and percent fat was estimated as fat mass divided by body mass
multiplied by 100.

Leg power. Leg power was estimated from body mass and the best vertical jump
using the protocol of Adams (1994):

Leg power = 2.21 * (weight) * \ldistance jumped.

Somatotype

Somatotype was estimated with the Heath Carter Anthropometric protocol using
algorithms provided by Heath and Carter (1990).

Endomorphy = -0.7182 + 0.1451(x) — 0.00068(x2) + 0.0000014(x3)
where x is the sum of triceps, subscapular and suprailiac Skinfolds multiplied by
170.18/height (cm);

Mesomorphy = [(0.858*biepicondylar breadth) + (0.601 *bicondylar breadth) +
(0.188*corrected arm circumference) + (0.161 *corrected calf circumference)] -
(height*0.131)+ 4.50;
where the corrected arm circumference is ﬂexed arm circumference (cm) minus the
triceps skinfold (cm) and the corrected calf circumference (cm) is the calf circumference
minus the medial calf skinfold (cm).

Ectomorphy = HWR*0.732 - 28.58

36

where HWR is the height (cm) divided by the cube root of the weight (kg). If the HWR
is less than 40.75 but more than 38.25m then the following will be used for calculating
ectomorphy = HWR*0.463 — 17.63, and if the HWR is equal to or less than 38.25, a
rating of 0.1 will be given. The somatotype of the individual is deﬁned by the three
components in the following order: endomorphy (ﬁrst), mesomorphy (second) and
endomorphy (third).
Rowing Performance

A 2K all out row for time (seconds) was performed on a rowing ergometer

(Concept II; Morrisville, VT). The 2K test was performed during a regular practice
session designated by the coach during the normal training routine of each team. Total
time (seconds) was used for the performance measure. Rowers performed a warm-up, as
designated by the coach, prior to the test. Total time in minutes and seconds was
retrieved from the computer on the ergometer and reported to the coach. Each 2K rowing
ergometer test was performed during practice sessions and administered by the coaching
staff. Either the coach or the athlete reported the 2K times to the investigator at the
respective testing sessions performed at each school. Two K times were then converted
from minutes and seconds into seconds for use in the regression analysis. The 2K time
used in the study were derived from tests performed during the months of March or April
2004. A timed 2K is performed in every rowing program, and is considered one of the
best predictors of success by coaches. It is also highly correlated with performance on

the water (Secher, 1983).

37

Data Collection Procedures

Testing Schedule

The testing schedule was set up by the coach and the investigator. Rowers signed
up for speciﬁc time slots. Testing took place in the ergometer room of the respective
schools, or in the Human Energy Research Lab at Michigan State University. Testing
sessions lasted approximately 30 minutes. Two athletes were scheduled during each 30
minute session.
Testing Procedures

When rowers arrived at the designated area, they initially read and signed the
informed consent forms. Then, the details of the study were explained to them.
Background information was then solicited via interview. Anthropometric dimensions
were taken in the following order: height, body mass, sitting height, arm span, skeletal
breadths, limb circumferences, and Skinfolds. The sit and reach was then performed
followed by the vertical jump. As noted earlier, the 2K rowing ergometer performance
was performed during regular practice time as designated by the coach. Warm-up and
cool-down for the 2K task was performed according to the protocols set by the respective
coaching staffs.
Personnel

All physical characteristics and questionnaires were administered by the
investigator. The investigator had previous experience in anthropometry which included
working with athletes in various sports. A single assistant was used with one of the
university teams. The assistant recorded the data as the investigator performed each

measurement.

38

Measurement Variability and Reliability

The primary investigator collected all of the anthropometric data. The weighing
scale and anthrOpometric equipment (anthropometer, skinfold calipers, tape measure)
were checked and calibrated on the day testing took place. Intra-observer error
measurement variation (Table 3) was estimated for height, weight, and sitting height.
Every tenth participant was measured twice in each of these measures. Replicates were
taken on the same day. Technical error of measurement was calculated according to the
following formula:

0, = \lSdz/ZN
where d is equal to the difference between replicate measurements and N is the number
of participants (Malina, 1995). To estimate within day reliability, intercorrelations (via
repeated measures ANOVA) were performed for measures which were taken two or three
times. Table 3.3 shows the resultant values.

Data Analyses

The respective analysis for each question was conducted using the SPSS (Version
11.5) statistical software. The following are the research questions and each statistical
technique that corresponds to the question. Statistical concerns in a study of this scope
include determination of power and mutlicollinearity. Small sample sizes and many
dependent variables contribute to a lack of power. With low statistical power, it may be
difﬁcult to determine a regression model that can truly predict the outcome variable.
Prior to testing, statistical power was determined. Many physical characteristics have
high correlations to each other and provide similar information concerning body

morphology. Multicollinearity was not a major issue in the analysis as only two

39

relationships among all dependent variables were greater than r = 0.80. Speciﬁcally, the
correlation between height and leg length was 0.85, and leg power and fat-free mass was

0.80.

Research Question 1: Physical Characteristics

What are the physical characteristics of female collegiate rowers?
Research Question 2: Novice and Varsity

Among female collegiate Big Ten rowers, do varsity athletes differ from novice
athletes in physical characteristics, body proportions, somatotype, body composition,
relative muscularity, ﬂexibility, leg power, and 2K rowing ergometer performance?
Research Question 3: Collegiate Rowing Experience

Among female collegiate Big Ten rowers, do athletes with 0, 1, 2, or 3 years of
collegiate rowing experience differ in physical characteristics, body proportions,
somatotype, body composition, relative muscularity, ﬂexibility, leg power, and 2K
rowing ergometer performance?
Analysis for Research Question 1

Descriptive statistics were calculated for the entire group and separately for level
(varsity and novice) and years of experience (0, 1, 2, or 3 years). Descriptive statistics
included means and standard deviations.
Analyses for Research Question 2 and 3

Differences between levels of the independent variables were determined using a
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). An overall MANOVA was performed
due to the relationships that exist between the various physical characteristics. A

MANOVA (P < 0.05) with Wilks’s lambda as the test statistics was used to determine

40

differences between novice and varsity rowers and to determine differences among years
experience of the rowers. If the MANOVA values were signiﬁcant, a Bonferoni adjusted
alpha level was used. Comparisons were made using Hotelling’s T2 with a Bonferroni
adjusted alpha level to determine which components contributed to the signiﬁcant
differences. This technique was used to determine where the differences between the
groups existed and to control for family wise error rates.
Research Question 4: 2K Performance

What is the estimated contribution of physical characteristics, body proportions,
body composition, somatotype, relative muscularity, ﬂexibility, and leg power of female
collegiate rowers to 2K rowing ergometer performance?
Analyses for Research Question 4

Pearson product moment correlations were performed using physical
characteristics and 2K time and between each of the physical characteristics. To
maximize performance prediction, only those variables that resulted in a signiﬁcant
relationship with 2K time (r > 0.20) but a low relationship with each other (r < 0.50) were
included in the regression model. Next, a stepwise regression equation was used to

determine 2K time from physical characteristics.

41

Table 1

Attributes of Collegiate Female Rowers

 

 

 

Novice Varsity Total
(N= 34) (N= 56) (N= 90)
Collegiate
experience (yrs)
0 34 5 39
1 0 25 25
2 0 15 15
3 0 11 11
University
Team A 12 20 32
Team B 6 15 21
Team C 16 21 37

 

42

Figure 1

Previous Sports Participation of Female Collegiate Rowers

 

 

other
skiing/skating
gym/diving
cheerleading
voHeybaH
ﬁeld events
water polo
cross country
swimming
ﬁeld hockey
track

softball
tennis

golf

soccer
basketball
lacrosse

_ rowing

 

I l I I

1 0 1 5 20 25
trequencles of athletes particlpatlng

T

30

 

43

 

Table 2

Technical Error of Measurement for Height, Weight, and Sitting Height

 

Technical Error of Measurement

 

 

 

 

Height 0.46 cm
Weight 0.00 kg
Sitting Height 0.49 cm
Table 3
Within Day Correlations for Intra-tester Reliability
Variables Correlation
Skeletal Breadths (cm)
Biacromial 0.87
Biepicondylar 0.85
Bicristal 0.93
Bicondylar 0.83
Circumferences (cm)
Triceps 0.99
Flexed arm 0.99
Thigh 0.99
Calf 0.98
Skinfolds (mm)
Triceps 0.97
Subscapular 0.96
Biceps 0.95
Abdominal 0.97
Suprailiac 0.97
Thigh 0.95
Medial calf 0.97
Lateral calf 0.95

 

44

CHAPTER 4

Results

Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) for the physical
characteristics of female collegiate rowers are presented. Novice and varsity rowers
differed signiﬁcantly only in years of experience prior to and including rowing in college,
the vertical jump, and 2K rowing ergometer time. Only height and 2K rowing ergometer
time differed signiﬁcantly among rowers by years of experience. Further analysis
revealed year 2 rowers were shorter versus year 3 and year 3 rowers were faster versus
year 0 rowers. Physical characteristics that predicted performance included fat-free mass,
experience in college rowing, experience prior to college rowing and height.

Research Question 1: Physical Characteristics

Descriptive statistics for the sample are summarized in Tables 4 and 5. Data are
reported by level (novice, varsity), and years of experience (0-3 years). All measures
were normally distributed as shown by the skewness statistic and histogram plots.

Research Question 2: Novice and Varsity

Results of the MANOVAs (P < 0.05) comparing rowers by level are summarized
in Table 4. The results indicate signiﬁcant differences between varsity and novice rowers
(Wilks’ A = 0.41 , with a Bonferoni adjusted alpha level, P < 0.05) in years of experience
prior to college (EXP), vertical jump (VJ) and 2K time (2K). Varsity rowers have
signiﬁcantly more years of rowing experience prior to entering college by almost 0.5
years. Varsity rowers have a signiﬁcantly higher vertical jump, but; interestingly, leg
power does not differ signiﬁcantly by level. Varsity rowers are also signiﬁcantly faster

in 2K time by almost 25 seconds. Although not signiﬁcant, skinfold thicknesses are

45

slightly less in varsity rowers. The remaining variables showed similarities between
novice and varsity rowers as shown in Table 4.

Descriptive statistics for Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotypes of novice and
varsity rowers and years of college rowing experience are presented in Tables 4 and 5.
The MANOVA (Wilks’ A = 0.89) signiﬁcant differences (P < 0.05) between novice and
varsity rowers. Post-hoc comparisons indicated that only endomorphy was signiﬁcantly
different (P = 0.03) between novice and varsity rowers.
Research Question 3: Collegiate Rowing Experience

Results of the MANOVAs comparing rowers by years of experience prior to the
2003-2004 season are summarized in Tables 4.3. A ﬁrst year rower is classiﬁed as 0
years, a second year rower was classiﬁed as 1 year, a third year rower was classiﬁed as 2
years and a fourth year rower was classiﬁed as 3 years experience. Height (HT) and 2K
time (2K) differ signiﬁcantly among rowers by years of rowing experience (Wilks’ A =
0.14, with a Bonferonni adjusted alpha level, P < 0.05). Two kilometer time decreases
with years of experience, but only when comparing year 0 with year 3 rowers. Height
differs signiﬁcantly only between rowers in year 2 (shortest) compared to rowers in year
3; the other pairwise comparisons for height are not signiﬁcant. The other dimensions,
ratios and derived variables do not differ among years of rowing experience. In contrast,
somatotype does not differ signiﬁcantly among rowers by years of experience (Wilks’ A
= 0.83, P = 0.07) and no further analyses were conducted.
Research Question 4: 2K Performance

Results of the stepwise regression to predict 2K time from physical

characteristics are summarized in Table 7. Model development began by performing

46

Pearson Product Moment Correlations among 2K time and each physical characteristic
(Appendix D). To maximize performance prediction, only those variables that resulted in
a signiﬁcant relationship with 2K time (r > 0.20) but a low-moderate relationship (r <
0.50) with each other were included in the regression model. While (r > 0.20) does not
insure that a high correlation exists, it was important to obtain variables which ﬁt all
criteria, a signiﬁcant relationship with 2K time, a low relationship with other variables
and a representation of different constructs. The following variables have a signiﬁcant
relationships with 2K time: years experience prior to rowing, years experience in
college, age, age at menarche, height, weight, sitting height, leg length, arm span,
biacromial breadth, biepicondylar breadth, bicristal breadth, biepicondylar breadth,
triceps circumference, ﬂexed arm circumference, thigh circumference, fat-free mass, fat
mass, leg power, arm muscle circumference, arm muscle area, calf muscle circumference,
calf muscle area. All variables showed an inverse relationship with 2K time, meaning
rowers with larger dimensions had lower 2K times.

Allowing for sample size (N = 90), nine variables were entered into the regression
model. Variables entered into the regression model included those that had a low
relationship with each other (r < 0.50) and, variables that represented different constructs,
i.e., body size, body proportions, body composition, rowing experience, and performance
measures. Correlations of the variables entered into the regression model are located in
Table 6. It is not clear from the literature on rowers to identify variables from each
construct that are signiﬁcantly related to 2K and not highly related to each other. At least
one variable from each construct was retained for the regression model: years of

experience rowing prior to entering college (EXP), years of experience in college rowing

47

(EXC), age of menarche (AOM), HT, leg length (LL), biacromial breadth (BIAC), leg
power (LP), fat-free mass (FF M), and thigh circumference (THIGH). F at-free mass,
EXC, HT, and EXP all entered the ﬁnal model and together explained 57% of the
variance (r = 0.75, r2 = 0.57). The following is the regression equation:

= -0.35(FFM) + (~0.33)(EXC) + (-0.31)(HT) + (-0.25)(EXP).

48

Table 4

Performance Measures, Physical Characteristics, Body Proportions, Somatotypes,

Body Composition, and Relative Muscularity of Novice and Varsity Female Collegiate

 

 

 

 

 

Rowers

Novice Varsity

Rowers Rowers Partial
Variable (N=34) (N=56) Fratio p (1)2
Age
Age (yrs) 19.2 i 0.8 20.8 i 1.1 50.40 .00 .378
Age at menarche (yrs) 13.3 i 1.4 13.2 i 1.2 0.11 .74 .001
Rowing Experience
Pre-collegiate (yrs) 0.7 i 0.0 3 i 0.0 4.22 .04 .048
Collegiate (yrs) 0.0 i 0 0 6 i 0.9 101.89 .00 .551
Performance Measures
2K rowing ergometer time 474.0 i174 449.1 i 23.7 25.76 .00 .237
(sec)
Sit-and-reach ﬂexibility (cm) 38.4 i 7.1 38.8 7: 7.7 .03 .86 .000
Verticaljump (in) 13.9 i 2.8 15.1 i 2.4 4.27 .04 .049
Leg power (kpm/min) 97.1 i 15.8 102.3 : 14.7 1.91 .17 .023
Physical Characteristics
Weight (kg) 74.2 1: 8.3 74.9 i 8.6 .05 .82 .056
Height (cm) 172.8 : 5.4 173.0 3: 5.8 .04 .84 .055
Sitting height (cm) 90.8 i 3.3 90.9 i 2.9 .07 .80 .058
Ann span (cm) 174.0 : 10.7 172.1 : 8.9 1.37 .25 1.371
Leg length — estimated (cm) 82.0 i 4.0 82.0 i 4.2 .01 .93 .008
Biacromial breadth (cm) 31.3 i 1.7 31.5 i 2.0 .03 .86 .000
Biepicondylar breadth (cm) 6.3 i 0.6 6.4 i 0.6 .00 .95 .000
Bicristal breadth (cm) 28.0 i 1.7 28.1 i 1.8 .00 .97 .000
Bicondylar breadth (cm) 8.8 i 0.9 8.9 f: 0.6 1.89 .17 .022

 

49

Table 4, continued

 

 

 

 

Novice Varsity

Rowers Rowers Partial
Variable (n=34) (n=56) Fratio p a2
Relaxed arm circumference 30.9 i 2.6 31.1 i 2.5 .08 .79 .001
(cm)
Flexed arm circumference 31.4 i 2.3 31.8 i 2.1 .53 .47 .006
(cm)
Thigh circumference (cm) 57.8 i 3.6 58.0 i 3.6 .01 .92 .000
Calf circumference (cm) 38.3 i 2.0 38.4 i 2.4 .36 .55 .004
Triceps skinfold (mm) 22.2 i 4.3 20.7 i 4.3 2.18 .14 .026
Subscapular skinfold (mm) 19.4 i 5.9 17.4 i 4.5 2.22 .14 .026
Biceps skinfold (mm) 13.1 i 4.1 12.0 i 4.3 .97 .33 .012
Abdominal skinfold (mm) 27.2 i 6.8 25.7 i 6.2 .77 .38 .009
Suprailiac skinfold (mm) 22.6 i 6.4 19.9 i 6.7 3.13 .08 .036
Thigh skinfold (mm) 29.1 _‘t 6.1 27.7 i 4.7 .82 .37 .010
Medial calf skinfold (mm) 19.3 i 5.1 18.7 i 4.8 .00 .95 .000
Lateral calf skinfold (mm) 19.0 i 4.4 18.7 i 4.8 .01 .95 .000
Body Proportions
Sitting height to height ratio 52.5 i 1.4 52.6 j: 1.3 .00 .96 .003
(W
Arm span to height ratio 1.0 i 0 0 1.0 i 0.0 .21 1.63 .244
Somatotype
Endomorphy 6.0 i 5.5 i 4.77 .03 .051
Mesomorphy 3.9 i 4.1 i 1.12 .29 .013
Ectomorphy 1.7 i 1.6 _ .06 .81 .001
Body Composition
Fat free mass (m) 57.1 i 5.6 58.3 i 6.1 .38 .54 .005
Fat mass (m) 17.1 i 3.4 16.6 i 3.1 .28 .60 .003
Percent body fat 22.8 i 2.8 22.1 1: 2.2 1.29 .26 .015
Sum of trunk Skinfolds (mm) 68.9 _‘t 18.2 63.4 i 15.7 2.25 .14 .026
Sum of extremity Skinfolds 102.2 : 19.5 98.6 i 19.3 .68 .41 .008

(turn)

 

50

Table 4, continued

 

 

 

Novice Varsity
Rowers Rowers Partial
Variable (N=34) (N=56) Fratio p (1)2
Relative Muscularity
Arm muscle circumference - 25.4 i 1.8 25.9 i 1.9 1.61 .21 .019
corrected (cm)
Calf muscle circumference - 32.3 1: 1.9 32.6 i 2.3 .48 .49 .006

corrected (cm)

51

 

 

 

 

 

m8. 9.. 8. no w. 3 no H 3. ed H 3 be H 2 30268553805

25. m. E. n. H a: f H EH 2 H 2H 3 H :3. Eeeeeefseém

as. 5 mm. 2 + ee 2 H 3 ed H 3 E H S 252685.e_.€e8_ae_m

woo. 3. mm. 3 H m: _.N H EM 3 H 3m 2 H 2m 33582235985

So. 2. n: 2 H 3.” 3. H B; be H as a... H a: Eeeeaeﬁeeaeswﬁ

as. on 2. E H 3: S H 3: 2: H 2: I: H E: @353 52

So. 8. 3H am H 98 2 H new Hm H 25 X H 3a @3292 mesa

E. 8. e2 3 H 3: 3 H S: 2 H 2: 3 H ea: 2.35%:

So. me. _e. S. H 2: S: H on S H e: M: H m: Erase?

mocmtogoﬁmcu 28555

So. am. w? a: m 32 _a. H 32 ed H 32 _.2 H aea Eéeecaaoa was

N3. 8. EH 2 + a: Z H 62 mm H a: E H w: Aecaeareee;

8o. 3. we. 3. H 3:. 3 H can be H 2: E H 3: Eebzéec ﬁeaeerem

42. 8. 2e as: H 95. SH 23. eeNH was. a.o~H gee Abbebefeeeewb waged:

3:582 coca—Eofom

m N _ o Eb seae=eu

o.o H 3 o.o H 3 3 H ad o.o H I Aebsswezeeéa

oocotoaxm wagom

go. be. :. 3 H a: an H 4.2 3 H n: 2 H m: 95205552... ewe.

bob. 8. $2... 2 H ZN so H Em be H mom 3 H S: Ebb?

we

as a ass a 2 is $16 Ammuzv 335 user;
Etna 35.896 cocotoaxm oucotoaxm oocotoaxm

23> m 88> N 33> _ Em»; C

 

mozmwxemxm MEioﬁS Emmi m. ES .N .~ 6 5:: Essex 233299
395KB 5233sz SSSBQ has .SSSQEQD boom .weQbSeEom. .HSCSQPQ boom .mSExmBQEﬁU ESSQK 633.3»: mozcztobem

m 2me

52

 

 

 

 

Re. m. E. In H 32 SH H 23 ”.2 H ”.8 S: H ~82 25:23:? 52.23% gem
as. 2.. S. 2: m 3e e2 H 98 ”.2 H OS 2: H 23 2.5 585% €256 saw
_S. 3. 3. mm + 92 mm H 0.: E H 7R 2 H am 3:83:85
to. on. we. o.m H 9.2 mm H no.2 m.m H 03 NM H o.: AEEV mmmE «an
as. E. 9.. mm H 2e 3 H Em ea H m? 3 H at. Eéaee 8.: E
328930 Ncom
mmo. mm. 3. o._ H M: wd H v; 0d H 5; ad H n; 4390895
”8. mm. :._ 2 H as 3 H we 2 H 3, o._ H 3 EeeEeaz
cvo. mm. mm; 5o H mm _._ H m.m _._ H ow N._ H ow EacoEovcm
3%
H8. me. 8. 2 H o._ o o H 3 S H 3 3 H 3 bus Ewe; 9 5% 5%
boo. Ha. :. 2 H mm 3 H be 2 H 3m I H ed Haveeeawae exams; wsem
mcoanocﬂuom
mmo. cm. 3. N6 H w.o_ oh H od— QM H Q: Ye H _.o_ AEEV EoEimtmoELB—wi—
GS. 54. we. 9m H mom ob H 0.3 0% H 92 oh H No— AEEV 285%.me 3:32
m8. 8. ”2 an H 3m 3. H EN 3 H aem 3 H Nam Eaveéesaewé
N8. mm. :1 ca H N: 3 H a: 3 H SN 3 H NR Eevzeﬁaeszeaem
NS. ow. 3.. M: H N8 3 H new 3 H EN 3 H EN Eevzeﬁﬂeeeeeﬁ.
NS. 3. mm. 3. H a: E H we 3 H _d an H of Eaveéeiaaaeem
35. mm. N: 3 H 3: 3 H be. _e H a: E H NE Eevaeceamasaeasem
Nvo. mm. 0: Wm H o._m we H odm m6 H VON :4 H VNN AEEV 38:63 33th
mg. 3. NE 3 H com 2 H 33 _.N H 3m 3. H 2: Eeaeeeeeeeéau
m8. 8. 8. 3 H new Z H ES 3 H Sm. e.m H a? Aeavbbeeeeeea ﬁg
:5. ca. 2. an H 3m 2 H 3m 3 H a: 2 H a: Aegeaeeeeeea ea 8be
moo. we. 8. E H Em 3 H 2m 2 H 0.; e.m H in Eaveaeeeeeea ea Beam
Ne a 2:: a 2 Is a _ ”2V 3.36 835 e_ee:e>
_Etmm cocotoaxm oocotoaxm oucotoaxm oocotoaxm
33> m 33> N 83> _ E3> o

 

332.223 .m 23%

53

 

wmo.

AEoV 388.50

 

 

em. m3 3 H cam Wm H ”.2 OH H 3H OH H OHM - 853288 b.0253
AEoV 3628...
OS. E. X. 3 H OS 8 H _em 3 H a2 2 H e2 - 855535 282: .E<
5:333: 3:23—
Ne a. 2:: k 2 TE G 16 STE amnzv 033:3
Etna oocotoaxm oocotoaxm cocotoaxm 33:3me
33> m 33> N 33> _ 33> o

 

hmzttzeu .m 2an

54

co.—

mod

and

nod

cod

36

Ed

26

Ed

N2-
E23?
:3:

owd

wmd

amd

mmd

mmd

2.0

mod

£6.
3:.
33¢ «an

co.—

nmd

$6

36

omd

NNd

5.0-

ovd-
330a
we:

.38: vﬁ £326: 323..“ m 2 3:83:00 35336 33.2 a ”3:33: 3m 3:235:23 :< ..

nmd

co.—

mmd

omd

Ed

.90.

v0.0

«3.
5235

.2th35

cod

9:

wwd

omd

no.0

_o.o

3.0-
Ewan.
we;

56

mmd

:6

32¢

36

co.—

mmd

mod

No.0-

_md-

EMS:

mod

mmd

N_.o

cmd

wmd

00.—

5.0.

mod-

vmd-

32333:.
ow<

vod-

m_.o

mmd

.06.

no.0

cod

36.

co.—

no.0

_vd-
wEBS
3230

who

mod

56.

vod

36

85.

mod-

no.0

co;

_ 0o-
wEBE
325

ovd-

vmd-

3.0-

_md-

vmd-

_vd-

_md-

co.—

383E033
xm

AEUV
E336
£3:
AEEV
39:

out E“—
3529:
3309
we;

Ea
2635
35835
2.3
5&3.

we;

Es
EwBI
A33
3:832:
ow<

A33
wEBE
33:00
A33
wEBE
SE
Auomv
33Eow3

xm

333 2233ng% 22 S 335 .3383; 38 35C SBEQM‘Q mﬁﬁox Mm? Eczﬁmtob

.0 2an

55

Table 7

Regression Analysis of Prediction of 2K Performance Using Physical Characteristics

 

R R square SEE

 

Fat-free mass 0.56 0.31 20.7
Experience in college 0.66 0.44 18.8
Height 0.50 0.49 17.8

Years prior experience 0.75 0.57 16.8

 

56

CHAPTER 5

Discussion

The purposes of this study were to: (a) describe the physical characteristics of
female collegiate rowers; (b) determine differences between rowers by level (novice and
varsity); (c) determine differences among rowers by years of rowing experience; and (d)
predict performance from physical characteristics.

Participants were members of three female collegiate rowing teams within the Big
Ten Conference. The teams were selected based on proximity to the investigator, size of
the team, and willingness to participate in the study. All coaches acknowledged that the
rowers, at the time of the study, were in the beginning to middle of racing season; it was,
therefore, assumed they had similar training volumes and frequencies. Rowers from two
of the schools were similar in physical characteristics and 2K times, while rowers from
the third school were the smaller and had slower 2K times
Characteristics of Rowers

Selected physical characteristics of the Olympic rowers, elite junior sweep and
sculling rowers, and collegiate rowers are summarized in Table 8. Compared to Olympic
level rowers of almost 30 years ago (Hebbelinck et al., 1980) and current elite level
junior rowers (Bourgois et al., 2001), female collegiate rowers had similar heights,
lengths, and thigh and calf girths. Skeletal breadths were also similar, with the exception
of the biacromial breadth. Allowing for the similar biacromial breadths among the elite
rowers, the data for the present sample may reﬂect a measurement bias that should be
noted in making comparisons. In contrast to linear, girth and breadth measurements,

female collegiate rowers were heavier, had larger Skinfolds, and larger arm

57

circumferences. In other words, while collegiate female rowers were similar in body size
and narrower across the shoulders, they also had relatively more weight for height and
more fat mass compared to elite level rowers. The sample of collegiate female rowers
had an average of 1 year of experience in rowing prior to entering college.
Corresponding information on experience was not reported for the elite junior and senior
level rowers.

Somatotypes of collegiate rowers were predominately endomorphic and slightly
mesomorphic (5.7 — 4.0 — 1.6). Elite level senior and junior rowers were endomorphic
and mesomorphic (3.1 — 3.9 — 2.8, 3.4 — 3.7 — 2.6, respectively). The primary differences
between collegiate rowers and the elite rowers are in endomorphy and ectomorphy.
Collegiate rowers are, on average, more endomorphic and less ectomorphic. This
corresponds with the heavier weights, larger Skinfolds and larger girths of the collegiate
females rowers compared to the more elite Olympic and junior rowers.

Differences in weight, Skinfolds and girths of the collegiate rowers compared to
the elite rowers may be a result of sampling variation. The Olympic and junior rowers
are probably more select samples and also include both scull and sweep rowers. Sweep
and sculling rowers were not clearly differentiated in the sample of senior rowers. The
junior level rowers were differentiated into sweep (N = 108) and sculling (N = 111). The
former were signiﬁcantly taller and heavier, and had greater fat-free mass than the latter
(Bourgois et al., 2001). Sweep rowers may be taller and heavier because sweep boats are
typically heavier compared to sculling boats. As a result, sweep boats may require larger
individuals due to the force needed to move the heavier boat through the water (Secher,

1990; Shephard, 1998). The collegiate rowing sample includes only sweep rowing.

58

Mean ages at menarche were similar between the Olympic and collegiate rowers,
13.7 years and 13.3 years respectively. The junior level rowers had a slightly younger
mean age at menarche, 12.8 years (Claessens et al., 2003). The mean age of menarche
for American White females, based on the status quo method, is 12.6 years (Malina et al.,
2004). Mean recalled age at menarche for White college women surveyed between 1987
and 1984 was 12.9 years (Malina et al., 2004), while mean recalled age at menarche for
White collegiate athletes in seven sports surveyed between 1985 and 1994 was 13.9 years
(Malina et al., 1997). The mean age at menarche of the sample of collegiate rowers falls
midway between collegiate athletes and students.

In the present study, novice and varsity rowers differed only in years of
experience prior to entering college, vertical jump and 2K time. On the other hand,
among more elite rowers, top-ranked rowers or ﬁnalists differed signiﬁcantly in many
physical characteristics compared to non-ranked or non-ﬁnalists (Bourgois et al., 2000;
Bourgois et al., 2001; Claessens et al., 2002).

Varsity rowers had signiﬁcantly more years of experience rowing prior to
entering college versus the novice. Although the deﬁnition of novice is a rower in her
ﬁrst year of collegiate rowing, it is legal for a coach to place a freshman athlete with prior
experience on the varsity level. This was done in a few (5) cases in this study. Thus, this
removed some of the experience level from the novice class and created a somewhat
artiﬁcial group effect.

To explore the “early varsity status” effect further, the rowers with no collegiate
experience who were moved up to varsity by the coach were retained with the novices for

additional analysis. As expected, the novice group improved in 2K time and vertical

59

jump, but not signiﬁcantly. However, years experience prior to entering collegiate
rowing is no longer signiﬁcantly different between the groups. New descriptive statistics
are revealed in Table 9. The addition of the ﬁve members from varsity back to novice
added a total of 18 years of experience to the novice levels and thus resulted in no
difference between the two levels in rowing experience prior to entering college.

Two performance indicators, vertical jump and 2K time, were signiﬁcantly better
in varsity than in novice rowers. The differences may reﬂect the inﬂuence of more
training and experience in the varsity rowers, although the study design does not permit
such a conclusion. Nevertheless, training is associated with improved 2K times in
collegiate rowers. For example, 2.5K rowing ergometer time and vertical jump improved
in 28 novice and experienced female rowers after a 9 week off season training program
(Kramer, Morrow & Leger, 1993), and 2K rowing ergometer time improved after a 12
week fall training program in 10 Division I University male rowers (Womack et al.,
1996). Among the female rowers, time improved in both the novice and experienced
rowers, but the latter still rowed faster, even after training (Kramer et al., 1993).

Years of experience may have an additional part in the better 2K times observed
in varsity rowers. More years of experience may translate into better technique and in
turn, faster times. Kramer et al. (1993) suggested that the better ergometer times of
experienced rowers may reﬂect the combined inﬂuence of heavier body weights, 3 longer
history of weight training, and a longer history of training on an ergometer. Thus, more
years of rowing experience probably includes more training for the 2K trial and in turn
exerts a positive inﬂuence on 2K tests on a rowing ergometer. Familiarity with the 2K

time trials is thus a factor associated with more experience in rowing. This is implicit in

60

a study of 8 male high school varsity rowers who performed three consecutive 2K time
trials on a rowing ergometer (Schabort, Hawley, Hopkins & Blum, 1999). On average,
times on the third trial were ﬁve seconds faster than those on the ﬁrst trial. The faster
times seen on the third trial were accompanied by lower heart rates, higher mean power,
and more even pacing at each 500M split. Thus, as a rower becomes more familiar with
a 2K test, rowing times may decrease. Further study of the 2K performance over a
collegiate career, including stroke rate analysis, power outputs, and 500M split times may
contribute to a better understanding of the role of years of experience and improved
technique in rowing performance.

In the present study, 2K times improve, on average, as years of college rowing
experience increase. However, the differences in the present sample were signiﬁcant
only between rowers in year 0 and year 3. In other words, the most experienced
collegiate rowers had signiﬁcantly faster times than the least experienced. However, year
1 and year 2 rowers had similar 2K times. Thus, 2K times do not increase signiﬁcantly
until the last year of participation in collegiate rowing suggesting that more years of
training and competition at the varsity level is associated with better performance times.

Although novice and varsity rowers did not differ in physical characteristics,
they did differ in somatotype (Table 4). Novice rowers were signiﬁcantly more
endomorphic than varsity rowers. On the other hand, somatotype did not differ among
collegiate rowers by years of experience. Varsity rowers have been involved in rowing
for at least one season, and therefore may have been exposed to strength training as well
as sport speciﬁc training. Comparisons to Olympic rowers and canoeists are shown in

Table 10. On average, the collegiate sample is more endomorphic compared to the elite

61

level athletes. However, endomorphy may also be a characteristic of rowers in general,
compared to their peers from other sports. When comparisons were made among
Olympic athletes, the rowers showed the highest values in endomorphy compared to the
other athletes (Carter, 1981).

Prediction of Rowing Performance

It was expected that physical characteristics would contribute to the prediction of
rowing performance. Physical characteristics were used to predict performance times in
kayaking, a sport similar to rowing (Oliver & Coetsee, 2002; Von Someran & Palmer,
2003). Kayak performance was predicted in both studies with upper extremity physical
characteristics which including arm span, skeletal breadths, and arm circumferences.
Anthropometric dimensions including height, body mass, Skinfolds, and limb
circumferences provided the best prediction of performance in male rowers (Russell et
al., 1998; Williams, 1977). In the latter study Williams (1977), physical characteristics
predicted performance only among male rowers 19-23 years of age, but not in those
younger or older.

Relationships between physical characteristics and 2K time indicated many
signiﬁcant correlations in the female collegiate rowers (Appendix D, Table 6). A larger
body size and larger lengths, girths and breadths were associated with better 2K times.
However, the correlations ranged from low to moderate. Allowing for sample size, the
number of variables used to predict 2K performance in the collegiate rowers was limited.
The best regression model included four variables that accounted 57% of the variance in
2 K performance. Of these, only two were physical characteristics: estimated fat-free

mass and height; the remaining two were experience in college and experience prior to

62

college. The two variables accounted for the majority of the variance in 2K performance
of female collegiate rowers: fat-free mass (31%) and experience in college rowing (13%).
The results suggest a signiﬁcant role for training in 2K performance. This observation is
consistent with other studies of rowers (Kramer et al., 1993; Womack et al., 1996) in
which performance times on a rowing ergometer improved after a period of training. Fat-
free mass was also a predictor of rowing ergometer performance in other studies
(Cosgrove, Wilson, Watt, & Grant, 1999; Yoshiga & Higuchi, 2003). Nevertheless, it is
important to note that fat-free mass may increase during college as a result of late
adolescent growth (Malina et al., 2003) and this increase in lean tissue may contribute
signiﬁcantly to performance.

It has been suggested that the high correlations between anthropometric
dimensions and ergometer rowing performance may be a result of either training or
genetics (Russell et al., 1998). The interaction between genotype and training is an
additional factor (Bouchard, Malina, & Perusse, 1997). In this study, the highest
correlations between anthropometry and 2K performance were only moderate: height (r =
-0.51), weight (r = -0.50), and fat-free mass (r = -0.56). Weight and fat-free mass can be
altered with training, speciﬁcally a program that includes a signiﬁcant resistance
component.

In summary, the present study considered the physical characteristics of female
collegiate rowers relative to experience in the sport and to 2K ergometer rowing
performance. Differences in physical characteristics between novice (less experience)
and varsity (more experience) rowers were small. Physical characteristics, experience

and 2K rowing ergometer performance were related in collegiate female rowers. Fat-free

63

mass, height, and experience in rowing before and during college were signiﬁcant
predictors of 2K erogmeter rowing time.

As with any study, there are several limitations. Of the three schools from the Big
Ten Conference that participated in this study, 2 placed in the top 12 at the 2004 NCAA
championships while the third team failed to qualify. The team that failed to qualify
hired a new coach as of the 2003-2004 season and the rowers were still learning his
techniques and training regimen. One of the teams typically recruits in Canada, and
therefore, had several athletes with prior rowing experience before entering college on
their team. If technique and years of experience are indeed important in the sport of
rowing, this may have inﬂuenced the results.

The design of the present study was cross-sectional. Hence, any inferences about
potential training effects are speculative. There is a need for longitudinal study of
collegiate rowers from the time of entry into a program (i.e., freshman year) through four
years of systematic training in the sport. Such a study would permit a better
understanding of changes in body composition and technique during a collegiate career
and their potential impact on 2K performance.

Allowing for these limitations and perhaps others, results of this study suggest
that experience and in turn training are important in the sport of rowing. Female
collegiate rowers in the present study were tall and heavy with a generally endomorphic
somatotype. Although novice and varsity rowers differed in 2K performance times, there
were no signiﬁcant differences in physical characteristics. For a coach to choose rowers
from the results of this study, they would select an athlete who is tall, lean and

experienced in the sport.

64

Table 8

Comparisons of Physical Characteristics of Olympic Rowers, Junior Sweep

RowersJunior. Sculling Rowers, and Collegiate Varsity Rowers

 

 

Olympic Junior Junior Varsity

Rowers1 Sweep Scullersz' Rowers

(N=51) Rowersz (N= 111) (N=52)

(N = 108)

Age (years) 23.8 1 2.7 20.8 1 1.1
Age of Menarche (yrs) 13. 7 1 1.1 13.2 1 1.3
Height (cm) 174.3 1 4.8 176.3 1 5.4 173.5 1 6.5 172.6 1 5.8
Weight (kg) 67.4 1 5.3 71.6 1 5.6 67.4 1 6.1 74.6 1 8.8
Sitting height (cm) 92.1 1 2.5 91.3 1 2.9 90.3 1 3.0 90.7 1 2.8
Leg length (cm) 85.0 1 3.7 82.8 1 4.5 81.9 1 4.2
Biacromial breadth (cm) 37.4 1 1.5 37.8 1 1.5 37.3 1 1.6 31.4 1 1.9*
Biepicondylar breadth (mm) 6.7 1 0.3 6.7 1 0.3 6.5 1 0.3 6.3 1 0.4
Bicristal breadth (mm) 28.2 1 1.8 29.8 1 1.4 29.0 1 1.8 28.0 1 1.7
Bicondylar breadth (mm) 9.3 1 0.4 9.0 1 0.5
Triceps circumference (cm) 27.6 1 1.5 27.8 1 1.5 27.2 1 1.7 31.1 1 2.5
Thigh circumference (cm) 57.5 1 2.9 59.1 1 2.9 57.8 1 2.9 57.8 1 3.6
Calf circumference (cm) 37.0 1 0.6 38. 5 1 2.5
Triceps skinfold (mm) 14.6 1 4.1 14.5 1 3.2 13.5 1 3.3 20.7 1 4.4
Subscapular skinfold (mm) 9.1 1 2.7 10.5 1 2.7 9.8 1 2.5 17.6 1 4.5
Suprailiac skinfold (mm) 6.6 1 2.6 9.9 1 3.7 8.8 1 3.3 19.9 1 6.7
Thigh skinfold (mm) 21.5 1 5.7 27.9 1 4.7
Media] calf skinfold (cm) 12.8 1 4.3 19.0 1 5.2
Somatotype 3.1—3.9—2.8 5.5-4.1-1.6

 

Data are from lHebbelink et a1, 1980, 2Bourgois et a1, 2001. * Biacromial breadth may

be biased (see discussion).

65

Table 9

Performance of Novice and Varsity by Classiﬁcation

 

 

Old Novice New Novice Old Varsity New Varsity
(N=34) (N=39) (N=56) (N=51)

2K time (sec) 474.1 1 17.4 470.1 1 20.6 449.1 1 23.7 450.5 1 24.6
Vertical Jump (in) 13.9 1 2.8 13.8 1 2.7 15.1 1 2.4 15.3 1 2.4
Pre-collegiate 0.7 1 0.0 0.9 1 1.6 1.3 1 0.0 1.2 1 1.8

experience (yrs)

 

Table 10

Comparisons of Somatotype of Female Collegiate Rowers, Olympic Rowers and Olympic
Canoeists

 

 

Collegiate Collegiate Olympic Olympic
Novice Varsity Rowers“ Canoeist“
(N=34) (N=56) (N=51) (N=8)
Height (cm) 172.8 1 5.4 173.0 1 5.8 174.3 1 4.8 170.7 1 6.9
Weight (kg) 74.2 1 8.3 74.9 1 8.6 67.4 1 5.3 63.0 1 8.0
Endomorphy 6.0 1 1.1 5.5 1 1.1 3.1 1 0.8 2.8 1 0.3
Mesomorphy 3.0 11.1 4.11 1.1 3.9 1 0.9 4.11 0.8
Ectomorphy 1.7 1 0.9 1.6 1 0.9 2.8 1 0.8 2.9 1 0.6

 

* Data are from the Montreal Olympic Games as reported by Carter, 1981 and Hebbelink
et al., 1980.

66

APPENDICES

67

APPENDIX A

UCRIHS Approval

68

MICHIGAN STATE
U N I V E R S I T Y
November 26. 2003

TO: James PIVARNIK
3 1M Sports Circle

RE. IRB# 00-416 CATEGORY: 1-4 EXEMPT

APPROVAL DATE: May 21, 2003
EXPIRATION DATE: April 21, 2004

TITLE: EXERCISE TESTING OF INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETES

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this project 15
complete and I am pleased to adwse that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be
adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore, the

UCRIHS APPROVED THIS PROJECT'S REVISION.

REVISION REQUESTED: September 25, 2003
REVISION APPROVAL DATE: November 25, 2003

This letter notes approval for the changes made in study investigators and target
population.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must reView any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior to
initiation of the change If this is done at the time of renewal, please use the green renewal form
To rewse an approved protocol at any other time during the year. send your written request to the
UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the prOject's IRBtt and title Include in
your request a description of the change and any revised instruments, consent forms or

advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work, notify
UCRIHS promptly. 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involvnng human
subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH human subjects than ex1$ted when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved
ETHICS AND If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at (517) 355-2180 or we email
STANDARDS UCRIHS@msu.edu

University Committee on Sjncerely.
Research lnvolvlng

Human Subiecte 79M” Z
M-cngan State University ‘
202 0105 Halt

Easi Lansmo. 1" Peter VasHenko. PhD

48824 _
UCRIHS Chair
517/355-2180
FAX Sin-4324503
fer mm "-15: EOu/usei.’uctln$
E-Mail ucnnSOmSu ecu

PV rt
Rebecca Battista
CC- 391M Circle

1.15: 5 5' Myriam-action
5:.aioaoornmh' instance

69

APPENDIX B

lnforrned Consent

70

Consent Form
Title: Anthropometric characteristics and performance of female collegiate rowers.

l, , grant my permission to enroll in a study to examine the
variables characteristic to rowing. The entire time required per participant is about 30

minutes total.

 

Physical characteristics including body size, body proportions and body composition are
important in physical performance. As women’s collegiate rowing continues to expand
across the country, learning more information about this newly growing group becomes
vital. The purpose ofthis study is to describe the physical characteristics of female
collegiate rowers and to estimate the contribution ofthese physical characteristics to

rowing performance.

On the test day, the following measures will be obtained: height, weight, sitting height,
shoulder and hip breadth, limb circumferences, and skinfold thicknesses of arm, hip,

thigh, back, and abdomen. A single female investigator will perform all measurements.
Flexibility will be measured using a sit and reach box. Vertical jump will be measured

using a standing anthropometer.

There are always possible unforeseen risks with any study, but in this case, any risk
should be extremely small. The physical measures will be those typically obtained by
coaches and athletic trainers during the normal course ofthe season. Neither the
investigator, nor her faculty sponsor has ever seen any injury occur from any ofthe

measures that will be obtained.

lfthe participant has any medical condition (e.g., injury to leg, injury to back) which
might be a reason not to perform the sit and reach, vertical jump or rowing performance,

the investigator should be informed prior to any testing.

A record ofeach woman’s participation in the study will be kept in a confidential ﬁle at
Michigan State University. Each participant’s privacy will be protected to the maximum
allowable by law. She is free to withdraw from the study at any time and for any reason.
Such withdrawal will notjeopardize her future treatment. There will be no cost for

participating in this study.

My signature below, acknowledges my voluntary participation in this research project.
Such participation does not release the investigators, institutions, sponsor, or granting

agency from their professional and ethical responsibility to me.

Ifthere are any questions regarding this research project, including those regarding
participant‘s rights as human subjects, feel free to contact any ofthe following
individuals: Becki Battista, Project Coordinator (517) 432-7121, James Pivarnik, Ph.D.,
Project Supervisor (517) 353-3520; Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair ofthe University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (5l7) 355-2180.

71

l have read this consent form and received answers in those areas, which were not clear.
I am willing to give consent to participate in this study.

 

Participant (printed)

 

Participant (signature)

 

Investigator

Becki Battista

39 1M Circle

Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48823
(517)432-3798

Date

UCRIHS APPROVAL FOP.
THIS project EXPIRES:
APR 21 2004

SUBMIT RENEWAL APPLICAT
ONE MONTH PRIOR TO ION
ABOVE DATE TO CONTINUE

72

APPENDIX C

Data Sheet and Questionnaire

73

NAME
DATE
TEAM

BODY SIZE
HEIGHT

WEIGHT
SITTING HEIGHT
ARM SPAN

BREADTH
BIACROMIAL

BIEPICONDYLAR
Bl-ILIAC
BICONDYLAR

CIRCUMFERENCE
TRICEP

FLEXED ARM
THIGH
CALF

SKINFOLD
TRICEPS

SUBSCAPULAR
BICEPS
ABDOMINAL
THIGH

MEDIAL CALF

LATERAL CALF

 

arn/pm

NOVICE VARSITY

cm
kg
cm

CITI

cm
cm
CTTI

cm

CTTI
cm
cm

CITI

mm

mm

mm

mm

74

SUBJECT #

date of birth

cm
cm
cm

cm

cm
cm
cm

CITI

mm

mm

I:

SUBJECT ii :3
SIT AND REACH 1::
[:3

VERTICAL JUMP i
standing reach

Years rowmq prior to college

Years college rowing

PreVious sport

Age of menarche
When was your ﬁrst menstrual cycle'7

Menstrual cycle
How many days has it been Since

your last full cycle'7

75

Bil

APPENDIX D

Correlations of 2K time and Descriptive Variables in Female Collegiate Rowers

76

Appendix D:

Correlations of 2K time and Descriptive Variables in Female Collegiate Rowers

 

 

2K Exp Exp Age Age of Ht Wt Sitting Leg
time Prior Coll. men. height length
2K time (sec) 1.0 -0.31* -0.41* -0.41* -0.24* -0.51* -0.50* -O.38* -O.41*
Experience -0.3 l * 1.0 0.07 -0.02 -0.05 -0.02 0.09 -0.06 0.01
prior (yrs)
Experience -0.4I * 0.07 1.0 084* -0.01 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.07
college (yrs)
Age (yrs) -0.41 * -0.02 084* 1.0 -0.01 0.11 0.12 0.07 0.11
Age Menarche -0.24* -0.05 -0.01 -0.01 1.0 0.25“ 0.21“ 0.06 030*
(MS)
Height (cm) -0.51* -0.02 0.09 0.11 025* 1.0 0.47* 0.70* 085*
Weight (kg) -0.50 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.21* 047* 1.0 0.43“ 032*
Sitting height -0.38 -0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.70“ 0.43" 1.0 0.22*
(cm)
Leg length -0.41* 0.01 0.07 0.11 0.30* 0.85“ 0.32* 0.22* 1.0
(cm)
Sitting 0.15 -0.05 -0.02 -0.05 -0.24 -0.37 -0.04 0.41" -0.80*
height/height
Arm span -0.26* -0.04 -0.01 0.12 0.19 0.61* 0.35* 0.28* 0.63“
(cm)
Ann 0.04 -0.03 -0.07 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.10 -0.16 0.16
span/height
Biacromial -0.24* 0.04 -0.01 0.01 0.12 -O.29* 0.25“ 0.11 0.32
breadth (cm)
Biepicondylar -0.23* 0.14 —0.03 0.08 0.03 0.17 0.35“ 0.27* 0.03
breadth (cm)
Bicristal -0.32* 0.06 -0.06 0.00 0.14 039* 074* 0.30* 0.31“
breadth (cm)
Bicondylar -0.44* 0.11 0.19 0. I 8 0.21* 026* 0.46”“ 0.08 029*
breadth (cm)
Triceps -O.29* 0.14 0.04 0.04 0.15 0.12 0.81“ 0.16 0.04
circumference
(cm)
Flexed arm -0.36* 0.12 0.08 0.09 0.15 0.20 0.81* 0.20 0.12
circumference
(cm)
Thigh -O.32* 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.14 0.18 078* 032* 0.00
circumference
(cm)
Calf -0.21 -0.01 0.14 0.18 0.08 0.07 0.70* 0.10 0.02
circumference
(cm)
Corrected arm -0.40* 0.09 0.15 0.19 0.13 0.16 068* 0.12 0.09
circumference
(cm)
Corrected calf ~0.23* -0. I 3 0.13 0.26“ 0.05 0.03 0.47“ 0.09 -0.03
circumference
(cm)
Triceps -0.02 0.19 -0.I7 -0.26 0.09 0.05 054* 0.06 0.03
skinfold (mm)
Subscapular -0.I4 0. I 3 -0. 12 -0.12 0.13 0.09 0.55“ 0.07 0.07

skinfold (mm)

 

77

Appendix D, continued

 

 

2K Exp Exp Age Age of Ht Wt Sitting Leg

time Prior Coll. men. height length
Suprailiac -0.06 -0.01 -0.11 -0.14 0.11 0.09 058* 0.03 0.07
skinfold (mm)
Thigh skinfold -0.03 022* -0.04 -0.17 0.05 0.01 0.42* 0.19 -O.10
(mm)
Medial calf -0.04 0.11 0.03 -0. I 3 0.05 0.06 051* 0.03 0.06
skinfold (mm)
Lateral calf 0.04 0.20 0.03 -0.05 0.05 0.06 025* 0.01 0.07
skinfold (mm)
Biceps 0.02 0.08 -0. 10 -0.11 0.11 -0.05 0.61 * 0.04 -0.09
skinfold (mm)
Abdominal -0.08 0.04 -0.08 -0.14 0.09 0.07 057* 0.07 0.04
skinfold (mm)
Fat-free mass -0.56* 0.05 0.13 0.20 022* 052* 096* 0.45“ 039*
(mm)
Fat mass -0.29* 0.14 0.00 -0.05 0.16 027* 0.87* 0.32* 0.13
(mm)
Percent fat -0.01 0. I 5 -0.09 -0.21 0.09 -0.00 049* 0.10 -0.08
Flexbility -0.02 0.09 0.06 0.11 0.06 ~0.06 -0.03 0.01 -0.09
(cm)
Verticaljump -0.05 -0.11 025* 0.19 023* 0.09 0.10 -0.04 0.15
(in)
Leg power -0.40 -0.01 022* 022* 031* 0.41* 079* 030* 034*
2 Trunk -0. I 0 0.05 -0. I I -0.14 0.12 0.09 0.62* 0.06 0.08
skinfolds
(mm)
2 Extremity -0.01 -0.20 -0.06 -0.17 0.08 0.03 056* 0.09 -0.02
skinfolds
(mm)
Endomorphy -0.02 0.10 -0.15 -0. 19 0.10 -0.04 058* -0.03 -0.03
Mesomorphy -0.14 0.14 0.09 0.15 0.00 -0.42* 0.48* -0.22* 0.41 *
Ectomorphy 0.04 -0. 13 -0.03 —0.02 0.00 0.41* -0.58 0.20 0.41*

 

78

Appendix D, continued

 

 

Sitting Arm Arm Biac. Biepi. Bicristal Bicond.
height/Ht Span span/Ht breadth breadth breadth breadth
2K time (sec) 0.15 -0.26* 0.43 -024* -0.24* -0.32* 044*
Experience -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 0.04 0.15 0.06 0.11
prior (yrs)
Experience -002 -0.01 -007 -0.01 -0.03 -0.06 0.19
college (yrs)
Age (yrs) -005 0.12 0.07 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.18
Age Menarche -0.24* 0.19 0.05 0.12 0.03 0.14 021*
(W)
Height (cm) -037* 061* 0.03 029* 0.17 0.39 026*
Weight (kg) -004 035* 0.10 025* 035* 074* 046*
Sitting height 041 * 028* -016 0.11 027* 030* 0.08
(cm)
Leg length -080* 063* 0.16 032* 0.03 031* 029*
(cm)
Sitting 1.0 -04 I * -025* -0.22* 0.13 -0.10 -0.22*
height/height
Arm span (cm) -0.41* 1.0 081* 031* 0.03 031* 030*
Ann 025* 081* 1.0 0.18 -009 0.11 0.19
span/height
Biacromial -0.22* 031* 031* 1.0 0.04 -038* 0.16
breadth (cm)
Biepicondylar 0.13 0.03 -009 0.04 1.0 029* -024*
breadth (cm)
Bicristal -0.10 031* 0.11 038* 029* 1.0 024*
breadth (cm)
Bicondylar -0.22 030* 0.19 0.16 -0.24* 024* 1.0
breadth (cm)
Triceps 0.05 0.12 0.06 0.16 034* 060* 031*
circumference
(cm)
Flexed arm 0.02 0.14 0.03 021* 036* 060* 028*
circumference
(cm)
Thigh 0.19 0.06 -006 0.07 036* 048* 030*
circumference
(cm)
Calf 0.04 0.03 -0.01 0.14 028* 046* 027*
circumference
(cm)
Corrected arm 0.03 0.12 0.04 021* 026* 051* 028*
circumference
(cm)
Corrected calf 0.08 0.03 0.01 021* 0.15 032* 0.20
circumference
(cm)
Triceps 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.03 034* 040* 0.19
skinfold (mm)
Subscapular -002 0.12 0.08 0.02 0.10 033* 041*
skinfold (mm)
Biceps skinfold 0.11 0.05 0.10 -002 022* 045* 0.20
(mm)
Abdominal 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.18 041* 0.28
skinfold (mm)

 

79

 

Appendix D, continued

 

 

Sitting Arm span Arm Biac. Biepi. Bicristal Bicond.
height/Ht span/Ht breadth breadth breadth breadth
Suprailiac -007 0.14 0.10 0.02 0.06 038* 041*
skinfold (mm)
Thigh skinfold 023* 007 -009 0.01 027* 026* 0.09
(mm)
Medial calf -004 -0.02 -006 -0.10 0.20 035* 023*
skinfold (mm)
Lateral calf -006 0.04 0.00 -0.05 022* 0.13 0.03
skinfold (mm)
Fat-free mass -009 041* 0.13 028* 032* 073* 046*
(mm)
Fat mass (mm) 0.07 0. I 7 0.02 0.14 035* 062* 037*
Percent fat 0.13 -0.05 -007 -000 025* 033* 0.19
Flexbility (cm) 0.08 0.03 0.09 0.04 —0.12 -007 0.11
Vertical jump -0. 16 -002 -009 0.17 0.05 0.14 -003
(in)
Leg power -0. I 3 0.26 0.02 027* 028* 064* 032*
2 Trunk -0.03 0.11 0.07 0.03 0.12 041* 040*
skinfolds (mm)
2 Extremity 0.07 0.01 -001 -003 030* 038* 0.18
skinfolds (mm)
Endomorphy 0.01 0.04 0.08 -0.02 0.14 036* 037*
Mesomorphy 025* -023* 0.02 0.01 043* 028* 027*
Ectomorphy -025* 0.19 -006 0.01 -025* -041* -022*

 

80

Appendix D, continued

 

 

Triceps F lexed Thigh Calf Triceps Subscap Biceps Abd.
circum. ann circum. circum. skinfold skinfold skinfold skinfold
circum.

2K time (sec) -029* -0.36* 032* -0.21 -002* -0.14 0.02 008
Experience 0.14 0.12 0.10 —001 0.19 0.13 0.08 0.04
prior (yrs)
Experience in 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.14 -0.17 -0. 12 -0.10 -008
college (yrs)
Age (yrs) 0.04 0.09 0.09 0.18 -0.26* -012 01 1 -014
Age Menarche 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.08 0.09 0.13 0.11 0.09
(yrS)
Height (cm) 0.12 0.20 0.18 0.07 0.05 0.09 -005 0.07
Weight (kg) 081* 0.81 * 078* 070* 054* 055* 061* 057*
Sitting height 0.16 0.20 032* 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.07
(cm)
Leg length (cm) 0.04 0.12 0.00 0.02 -003 0.07 -009 0.04
Sitting 0.05 0.02 0.19 0.04 0.12 -002 0.11 0.01
height/height
Arm span (cm) 0.12 0.14 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.12 0.05 0.05
Arm 0.06 0.03 -0.06 -001 0.03 0.08 0.10 0.02
span/height
Biacromial 0.16 021* 0.07 0.14 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.04
breadth (cm)
Biepicondylar 0.34 036* 036* 028* 034* 0.10 022* 0.18
breadth (cm)
Bicristal breadth 0.60 059* 048* 046* 040* 033* 045* 041*
(cm)
Bicondylar 0.31 028* 030* 027* 0.19 041* 0.20 028*
breadth (cm)
Triceps 1.0 094* 070* 056* 064* 049* 067* 060*
circumference
(cm)
Flexed arm 094* 1.0 0.71 * 057* 057* 041* 057* 044*
circumference
(cm)
Thigh 070* 071* 1.0 067* 060* 048* 059* 051*
circumference
(cm)
Calf 055* 057* 067* 1.0 040* 034* 048* 034*
circumference
(cm)
Corrected arm 089* 087* 052* 042* 027* 025* 030* 0.36
circumference
(cm)
Corrected calf 036* 041* 038* 081* ~002 0.10 0.15 0.07
circumference
(cm)
Triceps skinfold 064* 057* 060* 040* 1.0 056* 069* 061*
(mm)
Subscapular 049* 041* 048* 034* 056* 1.0 061* 071*
skinfold (mm)
Biceps skinfold 067* 057* 059* 0.48 069* 061* 1.0 063*
(mm)

 

81

Appendix D, continued

 

 

Triceps F lexed Thigh Calf Triceps Subscap Biceps Abd.
circum. arm circum. circum. skinfold skinfold skinfold skinfold
circum.

Abdominal 060* 044* 0.51 * 034* 061* 0.71 * 063* 1.0
skinfold (mm)
Suprailiac 061* 044* 054* 038* 062* 062* 061* 082*
skinfold (mm)
Thigh skinfold 037* 035* 063* 048* 060* 041* 0.09 038*
(mm)
Medial calf 043* 037* 058* 027* 072* 051* 023* 055*
skinfold (mm)
Lateral calf 0.20 0.20 038* 066* 052* 022* 0.03 026*
skinfold (mm)
Fat-free mass 074* 079* 068* 062* 039* 041* 046* 038*
(mm)
Fat mass (mm) 0.76 0.70 082* 036* 072* 069* 037* 080*
Percent fat 051* 040* 062* -0.02 071* 064* 0.19 0.82
Flexbility (cm) 0.06 0.06 -006 0.26 -021* -016 0.11 -0.23*
Verticaljump 0.08 0.20 0.03 026* -0.08 -010 -003 -005
(in)
Leg power 064* 071* 059* 066* 034* 035* 032* 038*
2 of Trunk 063* 047* 057* 038* 066* 086* 040* 093*
skinfolds (mm)
2 ofExtremity 055* 049* 068* -0.50* 085* 056* 0.18 059*
skinfolds (mm)
Endomorphy 064* 051* 059* 040* 079* 085* 037* 0.83
Mesomorphy 065* 064* 057* 067* 041* 034* 027* 0.34
Ectomorphy -071* -067* -063* -063* -0.54* -0.50* -0.22* 055

 

82

Appendix D, continued

 

 

Supra- Thigh Medial Lateral F at-free Fat Percent 2 Trunk
iliac skinfold calf calf mass mass fat skinfold
skinfold skinfold skinfold

2K time (sec) -006 -003 -0.04 0.04 -056* -0.29* -0.01 010

Experience prior 00] 022* 0.11 0.20 0.05 0.14 0.15 0.05
(1%)

Experience -01 I -004 0.03 0.03 0.13 0.00 -009 -011
college (yrs)

Age (yrs) -0 I4 -017 -013 -005 0.20 -005 021 -0 14
Age Menarche 0.11 0.05 0.05 0.05 022* 0.16 0.09 0.12
(m)

Height (cm) 0.09 0.01 0.06 0.06 053* 027* -000 0.09
Weight (kg) 058* 042* 0.51 * 025* 096* 087* 049* 062*

Sittingheight 0.03 0.19 0.03 0.01 (145* 032* 0.10 0.06
(cm)

Leg length (cm) 0.07 -010 0.06 0.07 039* 0.13 -008 0.08
Sitting -007 0.23 * -0.04 -006 009 0.07 0.13 -003
height/height

Arm span (cm) 0.14 -0.07 -002 0.04 0.41 0.17 -005 0.12
Arm span/height 0.10 -009 -006 0.00 0.13 0.02 —007 0.07
Biacromial 0.02 0.01 -010 -005 0.28 0.14 -000 0.03
breadth (cm)

Biepicondylar 0.06 0.27 0.20 022* 032* 035* 025* 0.12
breadth (cm)

Bicristal breadth 038* 026* 035* 0.13 073* 062* 033* 041*
(cm)

Bicondylar 041* 0.09 023* 0.03 046* 037* 0.19 040*
breadth (cm)

Triceps 061* 037* 043* 0.20 074* 076* 0.51 * 063*
circumference

(cm)

Flexed arm 044* 035* 037* 0.20 079* 070* 040* 047*
circumference

(cm)

Thigh 054* 063* 058* 038* 068* 082* 062* 056*
circumference

(cm)

Calf 035* 038* 048* 0.27 066* 062* 036* 038*
circumference

(cm)

Corrected arm 038* 0.10 035* -005 0.70 052* 0.21 037*
circumference

(cm)

Corrected calf 0.08 -003 -008 -0.29 054* 025* -005 037*
circumference

(cm)

Triceps skinfold 062* 060* 072* 052* 039* 072* 071* 066*
(mm)

Subscapular 070* 041* 051* 022* 041* 069* 064* 086*
skinfold (mm)

Biceps skinfold 061* 051* 065* 036* 048* 073* 0.65 068*
(mm)

 

 

83

Appendix D, continued

 

 

Supra- Thigh Medial Lateral Fat-free Fat Percent 2 trunk
iliac skinfold calf calf mass mass fat skinfold
skinfold skinfold skinfold
Abdominal 082* 038* 055* 026* 038* 080* 082* 094*
skinfold (mm)
Suprailiac I .0 041* 055* 026* 043* 074* 071* 094*
skinfold (mm)
Thigh skinfold 041* 1.0 066* 056* 021* 072* 083* 044*
(mm)
Medial calf 055* 066* 1.0 062* 035* 070* 069* 059*
skinfold (mm)
Lateral calf 026* 056* 062* 1.0 0.13 043* 049* 027*
skinfold (mm)
Fat-free mass 043* 021* 035* 0.13 1.0 071* 025* 045*
(mm)
Fat mass (mm) 074* 072* 070* 043* 071* 1.0 085* 080*
Percent fat 0.71 * 083* 069* 049* 025* 085* 1.0 080*
Flexbility (cm) -005 -0 16 -0.32* -018 0.04 -0.16 -0.24* -016
Vertical jump -014 -016 -012 -0.15 0.16 -003 -012 -011
(in)
Leg power 034* 0.20 030* 0.10 080* 062* 029* 039*
2‘, Trunk 094* 044* 059* 027* 045* 082* 080* 1.0
skinfolds (mm)
2 Extremity 059* 083* 090* 075* 037* 081* 082* 063*
skinfolds (mm)
Endomorphy 091* 0.53 * 065* 036* 040* 079* 080* 095*
Mesomorphy 032* 032* 031* 0.15 043* 049* 035* -036
Ectomorphy -051* -043* -048* -025* -048* -066* -0.55* -0.57*

 

84

Appendix D, continued

 

 

2: Flexibility Vertical Leg Power Arm Calf
Extremity Jump circum. circum.
skinfold
2K time (sec) -001 -002 -005 -040* 040* -023*
Experience prior (yrs) 0.20 0.09 -011 -001 0.09 -013
Experience in college -006 0.06 025* 022* 0.15 0.13
(m)
Age (yrs) -017 0.11 0.19 022* 0.19 026*
Age Menarche (yrs) 0.08 0.06 023* 030* 0.13 0.05
Height (cm) 0.03 -006 0.09 041* 016 0.03
Weight (kg) 056* -003 0.09 079* 068* 047*
Sitting height (cm) 0.09 0.01 -0.04 030* 0.18 0.09
Leg length (cm) -002 -009 0.15 034* -003 0.02
Sitting height/height 0.07 0.08 -016 -013 0.03 0.08
Arm span (cm) 0.01 0.03 -002 026* 0.12 0.03
Arm span/height -001 0.09 -009 0.02 0.04 0.01
Biacromial breadth 003 0.04 0.17 027* 021* 0.21 *
(cm)
Biepicondylar 030* -012 0.05 028* 026* 0.15
breadth (cm)
Bicristal breadth (cm) 038* -0.07 0.14 064* 051* 032*
Bicondylar breadth 0.18 0.1 l -003 032* 028* 0.19
(cm)
Triceps 055* 0.06 0.08 064* 089* 036*
circumference (cm)
Flexed arm 049* 0.06 0.20 059* 086* 041*
circumference (cm)
Thigh circumference 068* -006* 0.03 066* 052* 038*
(cm)
Calf circumference 049* -002 0.26 034* 042* 0.81 *
(cm)
Corrected arm 0.17 021* 0.16 059* 1.0 021*
circumference (cm)
Corrected calf 057* 025* -005 0.16 0.09 025*
circumference (cm)
Triceps skinfold 085* -021 -0.08 034* 027* -002
(mm)
Subscapular skinfold 056* -0.16 -010 035* 025* 0.10
(mm)
Biceps skinfold (mm) 077* -017 -004 -042* 030* 0.15
Abdominal skinfold 059* -0.23* -0.05 038* 036* 0.07
(mm)
Suprailiac skinfold 059* -005 -0. I4 034* 038* 0.08
(mm)
Thigh skinfold (mm) 083* -016 016 0.20 0.10 -003
Medial calf skinfold 090* -032* -0.12 030* 035* -008
(mm)
Lateral calf skinfold 075* -018 -0 14 0.10 -005 -029

(mm)

 

85

Appendix D, continued

 

 

)3 of Flexibility Vertical Leg power Arm Calf

extremity jump circum circum
Fat-free mass (mm) 037* 0.04 0.16 080** 070* 054*
Fat mass (mm) 081* -016 -0.03 062* 052* 025*
Percent fat 082* -024* -012 029* 0.21 -005
Flexbility (cm) -026* 1.0 0.20 0.09 0.21 * 0.16
Vertical jump (in) -014 0.20 1.0 068* 0.16 037*
Leg power 033* 0.09 068* 1.0 059* 057*
Z Trunk skinfolds 063* -0.16 -0.11 039* 037* 0.09
(mm)
2; Extremity 1.0 -0.26* -014 033* 0.17 -007
skinfolds (mm)
Endomorphy 074* -015 -014 035* 033* 0.06
Mesomorphy 040* 0.09 0.13 042* 056* 056*
Ectomorphy -056* -002 -007 -047* -055* -042*

 

86

Appendix D, continued

 

 

Endomorphy Mesomorphy Ectomorphy
2K time (sec) -002 -0. 14 0.04
Experience prior (yrs) 0.10 0.14 -O.13
Experience in college (yrs) 015 0.09 -003
Age (yrs) -0 19 0.15 -002
Age of Menarche (yrs) 0.10 0.00 0.00
Height (cm) -004 -042* 041*
Weight (kg) 058* -0.48* -058*
Sitting height (cm) -003 -0.22 0.20
Leg length (cm) 003 041* 041*
Sitting height/height 0.01 025* -025
Arm span (cm) 0.04 -023* 0.19
Arm span/height 0.08 0.02 -0.06
Biacromial breadth (cm) -002 0.01 0.01
Biepicondylar breadth (cm) 0.14 028* -025*
Bicristal breadth (cm) 036* 064* -0.41*
Bicondylar breadth (cm) 037* 032* -022*
Triceps circumference (cm) 064* 064* -071 *
Flexed arm circumference (cm) 050* 059* -0.66*
Thigh circumference (cm) 059* 066* -063*
Calf circumference (cm) 040* 034* -063*
Corrected arm circumference (cm) 033* 056* -0.55*
Corrected calf circumference (cm) 0.06 056* -042*
Triceps skinfold (mm) 079* 034* -054*
Subscapular skinfold (mm) 085* 035* 050*
Biceps skinfold (mm) 072* -042* 064*
Abdominal skinfold (mm) 083* 038* -055*
Suprailiac skinfold (mm) 091* 032* ~051*
Thigh skinfold (mm) 053* 032* -0.43*
Medial calf skinfold (mm) 065* 031* -048*
Lateral calf skinfold (mm) 036* 0.15 -024*
F at-free mass (mm) 040* 043* -048*
Fat mass (mm) 079* 049* -066*
Percent fat 080* 035* -055*
Flexbility (cm) -0.15 0.09 -002
Vertical jump (in) -014 0.13 -0.07
Leg power 035* 042* -0.47*
22 of Trunk skinfolds (mm) -0.95 0.36“ -0.57*
E of Extremity skinfolds (mm) 074* 040* -056*
Endomorphy 1.0 045* -065*
Mesomorphy 045* 1.0* -086*
Ectomorphy -065 * -086* 1.0

 

87

REFERENCES

Adams, G. M. (1994). Exercise physiology laboratory manual. Madison,WI: WCB
Brown & Benchmark.

Babington, J. P. & Stager, J. M. (2000). Somatic traits in the selection of potential elite
swimmers. Kinesiology, 2, 39-50.

Berg, K., Latin, R.W., & Coffey, Ch. (1998). Relationship of somatotype and physical
characteristics to distance running performance in middle age runners. Journal of
Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 38, 253-257.

Bloomﬁeld, J., Blanksby, B. A., & Elliot, B. C. (1973). Proﬁles of National level
oarsmen. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 353-351.

Bouchard, C., Malina, R.M., & Perusse, L. (1997). Genetics of ﬁtness and physical
performance. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Bourgois, J ., Claessens, A. L., Janssens, M., Van Renterghem, B., Loos, R., Thomis, M.,
Philippaerts, R., Lefevre, J ., & Vrijens, J. (2001). Anthropometric characteristics
of elite female junior rowers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 195-202.

Bourgois, 1., Claessens, A. L., Vrijens, J ., Philippaerts, R., Van Renterghem, B., Thomis,
M., Janssens, M., Loos, R., & Lefevre, J. (2000). Anthropometric characteristics
of elite male junior rowers. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 34, 213-217.

Bray, C. (2002). [982-2001 NCAA sports sponsorship and participation report.
Indianapolis: NCAA.

Carter, J EL. (1981). Somatotypes of female athletes. Medicine Sport, 15, 85-116.

Carter, J. E. L. (1982). Introduction. Medicine Sport, 16, 1-4.

Carter, J. E. L. (1985). Morphological factors limiting human performance. In D. H.
Clarke & H. M. Eckert (Eds), Limits of human performance: American Academy
of Physical Education Papers. (pp. 106-117). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Carter, J. E. L., & Heath, B. H. (1990). Somatotyping — development and application.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carter, J. E. L., Sleet, D. A., & Climie, J. F. (1982). Summary and applications.
Medicine Sport, 16, 138-149.

88

Claessens, A. L., Bourgois, J ., Beunen, G., Phillippaerts, R., Thomis, M., Lefevre, J .,
Loos, R. J. E., & Vrijens, J. (2003). Age at menarche in relation to
anthropometric characteristics, competition level and boat category in elite junior
rowers. Annals of Human Biology, 30, 148-159.

Claessens, A. L., Bourgois, J ., Pintens, K., Lefevre, J ., Van Renterghem, B., Philippaerts,
R., Loos, R., Janssens, M., & Vrijens, J. (2002). Body composition and
somatotype characteristics of elite female junior rowers in relation to competition
level, rowing style and boat type. Human Biology Budapest, 27, 159-165.

Claessens, A. L., Bourgois, J ., & Vrijens, J. (2001). The relevance of kinanthropometry
to rowing performance: The Hazewinkel Anthropometric Project. Acta
Kinesiologiae Universitatis Tartuensis, 6, 15-21.

Claessens, A. L., Hlatky, S., Lefevre, J ., & Holdhaus, H. (1994). The role of
anthropometric characteristics in modern pentathlon performance in female
athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 12, 391-401.

Claessens, A. L., Lefevre, J ., Beunen, G., & Malina, R. M. (1999). Contribution of

anthropometric characteristics to performance scores in elite female gymnasts.
International Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 39, 355-360.

Cosgrove, M. J ., Wilson, J ., Watt, D., & Grant, S. F. (1999). The relationship between
selected physiological variables of rowers and rowing performance as determined
by a 2000M ergometer test. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17, 845-852.

Cressie, N. A. C., Withers, R. T., & Craig, N. P. (1986). The statistical analysis of
somatotype data. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 29, 197-208.

DeRose, E. H., Crawford, S. M., Kerr, D. A., Ward, R. & Ross, W. D. (1989). Physique
characteristics of Pan American Games lightweight rowers. International Journal
of Sports Medicine, 10, 292-297.

Hagerman, F. C., Addington, W. W., & Gaensler, E. A. (1972). A comparison of
selected physiological variables among outstanding competitive oarsmen.
Journal of Sports Medicine, 12, 12-22.

Hawes, M. R., & Sovak, D. (1994). Morphological prototypes, assessment and change
in elite athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 12, 235-242.

Hebbelinck, M., Ross, W. D., Carter, J. E. L., & Borms, J. (1980). Anthropometric

characteristics of female Olympic rowers. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport
Science, 5, 255-262.

89

Kramer, J. F., Leger, A., Paterson, D. H., & Morrow, A. (1994). Rowing performance
and selected descriptive, ﬁeld and laboratory variables. Canadian Journal of
Applied Physiology, 19, 174-184.

Kramer, J. F., Morrow, A., & Leger, A. (1993). Changes in rowing ergometer, weight
lifting, vertical jump, and isokinetic performance in response to standard and
standard plus plyometric training programs. International Journal of Sports
Medicine, 14, 449-454.

Larsson, L. & Forsberg, A. (1980). Morphological muscle characteristics in rowers.
Canadian Journal of Applied Sports Science, 5, 239-244.

Lohman, T. G., Roche, A. F., & Martorell, R. (1988). Anthropometric standardization
reference manual. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Maestu, J ., Jurimae, J., & Jurimae, T. (2000). Relationships between anthropometric
variables and different rowing ergometer tests in heavy weight and light weight
male rowers. Papers on Anthropology, 125-132.

Malina, R. M. (1995). Anthropometry. In P. J. Maud, & C. Foster (Eds), Physiological
assessment of human fitness. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, (pp. 205-219).

Malina, R. M., Bouchard, C., & Bar-Or, O. (2004). Growth, maturation and physical
activity, 2"d edition. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Malina, R. M., Bouchard, C., Shoup, R. F ., Demirjian, A., & Lariviere, G. (1982).
Growth and maturity status of Montreal Olympic athletes less than 18 years of
age. Medicine Sport, 16, 117-127.

Malina, R.M., Katzmarzyk, P.T., Bonci, C.M., Ryan, R.C., & Wellens, RE. (1997).
Family size and age at menarche in athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 29:99-106.

Olivier, S. C., & Coetsee, M. F. (2002). Tests for predicting endurance kayak
performance. South A frican Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education
and Recreation, 24, 45-53.

Pacy, P. J ., Quevedo, M., Gibson, N. R., Cox, M., Koutedakis, Y., & Millward, J.
(1995). Body composition measurement in elite heavy weight oarswomen: A

comparison of ﬁve methods. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness,
35, 67-74.

Ross, W. D., Ward, R., Leahy, R. M., & Day, J. A. P. (1982). Proportionality of
Montreal athletes. Medicine Sport, 16, 81-106.

90

Russell, A. P., LeRossignol, P. F ., & Sparrow, W. A. (1998). Prediction of elite school
boy 2000M rowing ergometer performance from metabolic, anthropometric and
strength variables. Journal of Sports Sciences, 1 6, 749-754.

Schabort, E. J ., Hawley, J. A., Hopkins, W. G., & Blum, H. (1999). High reliability of
performance of well-trained rowers on a rowing ergometer. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 17, 627-632.

Secher, N. (1990). Rowing. In T. Reilly, N. Secher, P. Shell, & C. Williams (Eds),
Physiology of sports. (pp. 259-286), New York: Chapman & Hall.

Shepard, R. J. (1998). Science and medicine of rowing: A review. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 16, 603-620.

US Rowing. (2002). New to rowing. Retrieved November, 2002 from
http://wmvusrowingorg.

 

van Someren, K., & Palmer, G. S. (2003). Prediction of 200-m sprint kayaking
performance. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, 28, 505-517.

Warner, E. R., F ornetti, W. C., Jallo, J. J ., & Pivarnik, J. M. (2004). A skinfold model to
predict fat free mass in female athletes. Journal of Athletic Training 3 9, 257-260.

Wells, C. L. (1985). The limits of female performance. In D. H. Clarke & H. M. Eckert
(Eds), Limits of human performance: American Academy of Physical Education
papers. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, (pp. 106-117).

Williams, L. R. T. (197 7). The psychobiological model and multiple discriminant
function analysis of high-caliber oarsmen. Medicine and Science in Sport and
Exercise, 9, 178-184.

Williams, L. R. T. (1978). Prediction of high level rowing ability. Journal of Sports
Medicine, 18, 11-17.

Womack, C. J ., Davis, S. E., Wood, C. M., Sauer, K., Alvarez, J ., Weltman, A., & ,
Gaesser, G. A. (1996). Effects of training on physiological correlates of rowing

ergometry performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 10,
234-238.

Yoshiga, C. C., & Higuchi, M. (2003). Rowing performance of female and male rowers.
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, I 3, 317-321.

91

a:

 

   

IV RIES

"11111111111111.1111l