Table 1. Comparison of measures between Concept 2C and Rowperfect. Data are means (±SD, n = 6).
 |
|||
| Parameters |
Concept 2C
|
Rowperfect
|
Univariate F statistic (P value)
|
|
|||
| Ergometer monitor LCD Rowing Split time (s.500m-1) Strokes rate (strokes·min-1) |
106.8 (1.2) 23.0 (1.7) |
106.5 (1.2) 23.7 (1.3) |
.233 (.64) .769 (.41) |
| Rowing cycle | |||
| Cycle duration (sec) |
2.57 (.04)
|
2.53 (.09)
|
1.09
(.32)
|
| Drive duration (sec) |
1.37 (.24)
|
1.36 (.23)
|
.003
(.96)
|
| Drive phase (% of cycle) |
53.0 (9.7)
|
55.3 (9.5)
|
.161 (.70)
|
|
Latency to handle peak Horizontal ccelerometry (sec) |
.64 (.18) |
.51 (.18) |
1.07 (.33) |
| Heart Rate (beats·min-1) |
162 (7)
|
169 (8)
|
2.002 (.12)
|
| 2-D
video motion analysis Knee |
101.6 (4.5) 118.3 (5.0) |
99.5 (2.7) 115.8 (6.7) |
.980 (.35) .42 (.53) |
| Average Technical Score sEMG activity per cycle |
3.16 (1.83)
|
3.83 (1.61)
|
.728 (.52)
|
| iEMG of RF (mV·sec) |
.081(.019)
|
.060 (.015)
|
4.355 (.06)
|
| iEMG of BF (mV·sec) |
.075 (.030)
|
.072 (.014)
|
.062 (.81)
|
| iEMG of ES (mV·sec) |
.067 (.032)
|
.048 (.019)
|
1.479 (.25)
|
| iEMG of RA (mV·sec) |
.047 (.019)
|
.042 (.022)
|
.235 (.64)
|
|
|||
| There were no significant differences. |