Randall Foils Versus Big Blades: Comparative Analysis in On-Water Sprint Rowing.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 PHYSIOLOGY International journal of sports physiology and performance Pub Date : 2025-03-11 DOI:10.1123/ijspp.2024-0515
Ricardo Cardoso, Manoel Rios, Filipa Cardoso, Segan Bouicher, J Arturo Abraldes, Beatriz B Gomes, João Paulo Vilas-Boas, Ricardo J Fernandes
{"title":"Randall Foils Versus Big Blades: Comparative Analysis in On-Water Sprint Rowing.","authors":"Ricardo Cardoso, Manoel Rios, Filipa Cardoso, Segan Bouicher, J Arturo Abraldes, Beatriz B Gomes, João Paulo Vilas-Boas, Ricardo J Fernandes","doi":"10.1123/ijspp.2024-0515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We evaluated the technical and energetical impact of using Randall foils versus simple Big blades during a maximum rowing effort in field conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fourteen experienced rowers (12 male and 2 female) 26 (9) versus 25 (9) years of age, 179.8 (4.3) versus 175.0 (2.8) cm in height, and 74.2 (4.8) versus 65.5 (6.2) kg of body mass (for males and females, respectively) performed 2 maximal 500-m on-water bouts (1 each using Randall foils and simple Big blades in a randomized order). Performance and physiological variables were continuously measured along the efforts, with the latter being also recorded during the baseline and recovery periods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Rowing time was shorter using Randall foils when compared with simple Big blades (107.59 [5.53] vs 108.96 [5.44] s), while cycle rate (39.73 [2.56] vs 39.71 [2.24] cycle·min-1), peak oxygen uptake (63.47 [9.96] vs 62.68 [9.65] mL·kg-1·min-1), mean oxygen uptake (4.15 [0.77] vs 4.12 [0.78] L·min-1), respiratory frequency (62.44 [9.22] vs 62.17 [11.22] beats·min-1), peak heart rate (178 [11] vs 180 [9] beats·min-1], peak blood lactate concentration (14.26 [3.52] vs 13.76 [4.02] mmol · L-1), and rating of perceived effort (17 [1.43] vs 17 [1]) were similar in both experimental conditions. Furthermore, it was observed that the aerobic pathway represented ∼50% of the total energy spent in the 500-m sprint independently of the blades used.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Data suggest that the use of Randall foils enhances rowing performance without compromising rowers' mechanical and metabolic functions.</p>","PeriodicalId":14295,"journal":{"name":"International journal of sports physiology and performance","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of sports physiology and performance","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2024-0515","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: We evaluated the technical and energetical impact of using Randall foils versus simple Big blades during a maximum rowing effort in field conditions.

Methods: Fourteen experienced rowers (12 male and 2 female) 26 (9) versus 25 (9) years of age, 179.8 (4.3) versus 175.0 (2.8) cm in height, and 74.2 (4.8) versus 65.5 (6.2) kg of body mass (for males and females, respectively) performed 2 maximal 500-m on-water bouts (1 each using Randall foils and simple Big blades in a randomized order). Performance and physiological variables were continuously measured along the efforts, with the latter being also recorded during the baseline and recovery periods.

Results: Rowing time was shorter using Randall foils when compared with simple Big blades (107.59 [5.53] vs 108.96 [5.44] s), while cycle rate (39.73 [2.56] vs 39.71 [2.24] cycle·min-1), peak oxygen uptake (63.47 [9.96] vs 62.68 [9.65] mL·kg-1·min-1), mean oxygen uptake (4.15 [0.77] vs 4.12 [0.78] L·min-1), respiratory frequency (62.44 [9.22] vs 62.17 [11.22] beats·min-1), peak heart rate (178 [11] vs 180 [9] beats·min-1], peak blood lactate concentration (14.26 [3.52] vs 13.76 [4.02] mmol · L-1), and rating of perceived effort (17 [1.43] vs 17 [1]) were similar in both experimental conditions. Furthermore, it was observed that the aerobic pathway represented ∼50% of the total energy spent in the 500-m sprint independently of the blades used.

Conclusions: Data suggest that the use of Randall foils enhances rowing performance without compromising rowers' mechanical and metabolic functions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
12.10%
发文量
199
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance (IJSPP) focuses on sport physiology and performance and is dedicated to advancing the knowledge of sport and exercise physiologists, sport-performance researchers, and other sport scientists. The journal publishes authoritative peer-reviewed research in sport physiology and related disciplines, with an emphasis on work having direct practical applications in enhancing sport performance in sport physiology and related disciplines. IJSPP publishes 10 issues per year: January, February, March, April, May, July, August, September, October, and November.
期刊最新文献
Comparative Effects of the Free Weights and Smith Machine Squat and Bench Press: The Important Role of Specificity for Strength Adaptations. Hip Adduction and Abduction Strength Reference Values of Gaelic Football and Rugby Union Players: A Cross-Sectional Study. Randall Foils Versus Big Blades: Comparative Analysis in On-Water Sprint Rowing. The Relationships Between Training-Load Models in 3 × 3 Basketball Games. Verbal Feedback Is the Primary Mechanism for Performance-Related Review in Professional English Male Soccer: A Quantitative Exploration.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1