Real-time feedback on mechanical power output: Facilitating crew rowers’ compliance with prescribed training intensity

Lotte L. Lintmeijer, A. J. Knoek Van Soest, Freek S. Robbers, Mathijs J. Hofmijster, Peter J. Beek

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Purpose: Athletes require feedback in order to comply with prescribed training programs designed to optimize their performance. In rowing, current feedback parameters on intensity are inaccurate. Mechanical power output is a suitable objective measure for training intensity, but due to movement restrictions related to crew rowing, it is uncertain whether crew rowers are able to adjust their intensity based on power-output feedback. The authors examined whether rowers improve compliance with prescribed power-output targets when visual real-time feedback on power output is provided in addition to commonly used feedback. Methods: A total of 16 crew rowers rowed in 3 training sessions. During the first 2 sessions, they received commonly used feedback, followed by a session with additional power-output feedback. Targets were set by their coaches before the experiment. Compliance was operationalized as accuracy (absolute difference between target and delivered power output) and consistency (high- and low-frequency variations in delivered power output). Results: Multilevel analyses indicated that accuracy and low-frequency variations improved by, respectively, 65% (P > .001) and 32% (P = .024) when additional feedback was provided. Conclusion: Compliance with power-output targets improved when crew rowers received additional feedback on power output. Two additional observations were made during the study that highlighted the relevance of power-output feedback for practice: There was a marked discrepancy between the prescribed targets and the actually delivered power output by the rowers, and coaches had difficulties perceiving improvements in rowers’ compliance with power-output targets.

LanguageEnglish
Pages303-309
Number of pages7
JournalInternational Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
Volume14
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2019

Fingerprint

Multilevel Analysis
Athletes
Compliance
Education
Mentoring

Keywords

  • Biomechanics
  • Coaching
  • Energetics
  • Rowing

Cite this

@article{58ed84887f984a1287f703f932d91f4f,
title = "Real-time feedback on mechanical power output: Facilitating crew rowers’ compliance with prescribed training intensity",
abstract = "Purpose: Athletes require feedback in order to comply with prescribed training programs designed to optimize their performance. In rowing, current feedback parameters on intensity are inaccurate. Mechanical power output is a suitable objective measure for training intensity, but due to movement restrictions related to crew rowing, it is uncertain whether crew rowers are able to adjust their intensity based on power-output feedback. The authors examined whether rowers improve compliance with prescribed power-output targets when visual real-time feedback on power output is provided in addition to commonly used feedback. Methods: A total of 16 crew rowers rowed in 3 training sessions. During the first 2 sessions, they received commonly used feedback, followed by a session with additional power-output feedback. Targets were set by their coaches before the experiment. Compliance was operationalized as accuracy (absolute difference between target and delivered power output) and consistency (high- and low-frequency variations in delivered power output). Results: Multilevel analyses indicated that accuracy and low-frequency variations improved by, respectively, 65{\%} (P > .001) and 32{\%} (P = .024) when additional feedback was provided. Conclusion: Compliance with power-output targets improved when crew rowers received additional feedback on power output. Two additional observations were made during the study that highlighted the relevance of power-output feedback for practice: There was a marked discrepancy between the prescribed targets and the actually delivered power output by the rowers, and coaches had difficulties perceiving improvements in rowers’ compliance with power-output targets.",
keywords = "Biomechanics, Coaching, Energetics, Rowing",
author = "Lintmeijer, {Lotte L.} and {Knoek Van Soest}, {A. J.} and Robbers, {Freek S.} and Hofmijster, {Mathijs J.} and Beek, {Peter J.}",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1123/ijspp.2018-0128",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "303--309",
journal = "International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance",
issn = "1555-0265",
publisher = "Human Kinetics Publishers Inc.",
number = "3",

}

Real-time feedback on mechanical power output : Facilitating crew rowers’ compliance with prescribed training intensity. / Lintmeijer, Lotte L.; Knoek Van Soest, A. J.; Robbers, Freek S.; Hofmijster, Mathijs J.; Beek, Peter J.

In: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, Vol. 14, No. 3, 03.2019, p. 303-309.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Real-time feedback on mechanical power output

T2 - International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

AU - Lintmeijer, Lotte L.

AU - Knoek Van Soest, A. J.

AU - Robbers, Freek S.

AU - Hofmijster, Mathijs J.

AU - Beek, Peter J.

PY - 2019/3

Y1 - 2019/3

N2 - Purpose: Athletes require feedback in order to comply with prescribed training programs designed to optimize their performance. In rowing, current feedback parameters on intensity are inaccurate. Mechanical power output is a suitable objective measure for training intensity, but due to movement restrictions related to crew rowing, it is uncertain whether crew rowers are able to adjust their intensity based on power-output feedback. The authors examined whether rowers improve compliance with prescribed power-output targets when visual real-time feedback on power output is provided in addition to commonly used feedback. Methods: A total of 16 crew rowers rowed in 3 training sessions. During the first 2 sessions, they received commonly used feedback, followed by a session with additional power-output feedback. Targets were set by their coaches before the experiment. Compliance was operationalized as accuracy (absolute difference between target and delivered power output) and consistency (high- and low-frequency variations in delivered power output). Results: Multilevel analyses indicated that accuracy and low-frequency variations improved by, respectively, 65% (P > .001) and 32% (P = .024) when additional feedback was provided. Conclusion: Compliance with power-output targets improved when crew rowers received additional feedback on power output. Two additional observations were made during the study that highlighted the relevance of power-output feedback for practice: There was a marked discrepancy between the prescribed targets and the actually delivered power output by the rowers, and coaches had difficulties perceiving improvements in rowers’ compliance with power-output targets.

AB - Purpose: Athletes require feedback in order to comply with prescribed training programs designed to optimize their performance. In rowing, current feedback parameters on intensity are inaccurate. Mechanical power output is a suitable objective measure for training intensity, but due to movement restrictions related to crew rowing, it is uncertain whether crew rowers are able to adjust their intensity based on power-output feedback. The authors examined whether rowers improve compliance with prescribed power-output targets when visual real-time feedback on power output is provided in addition to commonly used feedback. Methods: A total of 16 crew rowers rowed in 3 training sessions. During the first 2 sessions, they received commonly used feedback, followed by a session with additional power-output feedback. Targets were set by their coaches before the experiment. Compliance was operationalized as accuracy (absolute difference between target and delivered power output) and consistency (high- and low-frequency variations in delivered power output). Results: Multilevel analyses indicated that accuracy and low-frequency variations improved by, respectively, 65% (P > .001) and 32% (P = .024) when additional feedback was provided. Conclusion: Compliance with power-output targets improved when crew rowers received additional feedback on power output. Two additional observations were made during the study that highlighted the relevance of power-output feedback for practice: There was a marked discrepancy between the prescribed targets and the actually delivered power output by the rowers, and coaches had difficulties perceiving improvements in rowers’ compliance with power-output targets.

KW - Biomechanics

KW - Coaching

KW - Energetics

KW - Rowing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062172494&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062172494&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1123/ijspp.2018-0128

DO - 10.1123/ijspp.2018-0128

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 303

EP - 309

JO - International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

JF - International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

SN - 1555-0265

IS - 3

ER -