UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Oxygen consumption during kayak paddling 1992

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
ubc_1992_fall_gray_georgina.pdf
ubc_1992_fall_gray_georgina.pdf [ 2.47MB ]
ubc_1992_fall_gray_georgina.pdf
Metadata
JSON: 1.0077099.json
JSON-LD: 1.0077099+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0077099.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0077099+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0077099+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0077099+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0077099.ris

Full Text

OXYGEN CONSUMPTION DURING KAYAK PADDLING by GEORGINA LOUISE GRAY A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School of Physical Education and Recreation We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard: THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1992 © Georgina Louise Gray, 1992 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. (Signature) Department of  Physical Education The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date October 2, 1992 DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT Over a typical 10,000 metre race, flatwater kayak paddlers frequently employ a technique termed "wash riding" in an effort to reduce energy expenditure. This technique is characterized by the kayak paddler travelling on his competitor's wake, and at a strategic moment dropping off the wake to sprint ahead. Investigations to determine actual energy expenditure during flatwater kayak paddling during tactical manoeuvers, to date, have been inadequate. Thus the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of wash riding on energy expenditure in 10 elite male flatwater kayak athletes (age=25 ± 6.5 yrs., height.= 183.6 ± 4.4 cm, mass=83.9 ± 6.1 kg) while kayak paddling under "wash riding" (WR) and "non-wash riding" (NWR) conditions. The exercise test was designed to allow for comparison of minute ventilation (VE), oxygen consumption (V 02) and heart rate (HR) at submaximal velocities (10,000 metre "steady state" race pace). The exercise protocol consisted of a standardized warm-up, followed by a 2000 metre trial of either WR or NWR. The pace to be maintained (3.7 m/sec), was based on an extrapolation of the 1991 Canadian Canoe Association National Championship 10,000 metre race winning time. Following the first trial there was a twenty minute rest period, which was then followed by a second trial involving the alternate condition. VE, V02 and HR were measured every 15 s over the full 2000 metre distance during both conditions using the Cosmed K2 portable telemetry system. Measurements recorded between the 500 and 1500 metre mark were used for analysis in order to examine the effects of wash riding during the steady state aerobic work. A mean value of the eighteen measurements recorded for each variable between 500 and 1500 metres, was calculated for each subject. Statistical analysis of the mean values for VE, V02 , and HR was performed using the ii Hotelling's T2 statistic and revealed signifcant (p < 0.05) differences between the WR and NWR trials. Mean values for VE (L•min -1 ) were (WR) 113 ± 16.5 and (NWR) 126.3 + 15.7; V02 (L•min -1 )= (WR) 3.22 ± 0.32 and (NWR) 3.63 ± 0.3 ; and HR (bpm) = (WR) 167 + 9.9 and (NWR) 174 + 8.0 . Confidence intervals calculated for VE, V02 , and HR revealed that all three dependent variables contributed to the overall significant difference. There is a considerable saving (11 %) in the energy cost of paddling at a standardized velocity utilizing the WR technique. This finding has implications for the design of training programs and competitive strategy plans for flatwater kayak racing. 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT^  ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ^  iv LIST OF TABLES^  v LIST OF FIGURES  vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS^  vii INTRODUCTION^  1 METHODOLOGY  7 SUBJECTS  7 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES^  7 DATA COLLECTION^  8 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS  10 RESULTS    11 DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS^ 11 SUBJECT COMMENTS^  11 VENTILATORY AND HEART RATE RESPONSES^ 12 KAYAK VELOCITY  14 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE COSMED K2^ 15 DISCUSSION^  17 REFERENCES  22 APPENDIX A - REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE^ 26 APPENDIX B - DESCRIPTIVE DATA OF SUBJECTS^ 35 APPENDIX C - COSMED K2 VALIDITY STUDY^ 52 APPENDIX D - KAYAK VELOCITY RAW DATA  58 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1^ANTHROPOMETRIC AND KAYAK EQUIPMENT DATA^11 TABLE 2 VE, VO2 AND HEART RATE VALUES DURING BOTH EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS ^12 TABLE 3 t - TEST FOR KAYAK VELOCITY DURING THE TWO EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS^ 15 TABLE 4^t - TEST FOR V02 (ml/kg/min) DURING THE TWO EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS ^15 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 OVERHEAD SCHEMATIC VIEW OF DIVERGENT BOW AND STERN WAVES^  3 FIGURE 2 SCHEMATIC VIEW OF WASH RIDING ON A DIVERGENT BOW AVE    4 FIGURE 3 VE DURING BOTH EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS. . .  ̂ 13 FIGURE 4 V02 DURING BOTH EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS. .  ̂ 13 FIGURE 5 HR DURING BOTH EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS. . ^ 13 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to sincerely thank the subjects who participated in this study. In particular, I would like to express my deep gratitude to Greg Redman, who gave so freely of his time and energy to lead the wash riding trials. I would also like to thank Dr. Imre Kemescey and Diana Jespersen for their invaluable assistance with the data collection. I extend my sincere appreciation to my committee members: Drs. Don McKenzie, Gordon Matheson, Ken Coutts and Jack Taunton. I am particularly grateful to Dr. Don McKenzie for his assistance and guidance throughout my graduate studies. I would like to acknowledge Dr. Walter Boldt for his statistical expertise and assistance. Finally, I would like to thank my sister, Susan Gray, for her assistance with the drawing of the Figures. I am very grateful to my family and close friends for their ongoing support and encouragement of my academic pursuits. I dedicate this work to the memory of my father, Gilbert Gray, who shared and inspired a love for learning. vii I INTRODUCTION Elite flatwater kayak paddlers compete in three racing classes; K-1 (one person), K-2 (two persons) and K-4 (four persons). At the Olympic Games, paddlers race over distances of 500 and 1000 metres, while at the World Championships they also race over 10,000 metres. Performance times of approximately 1:40, 3:30 and 42:00 minutes, respectively, have been achieved at the World Championship distances in the men's K-1 class. Flatwater kayak racing is an activity which places exceptional physiological demands on the upper limb and trunk musculature (Astrand et al., 1968; Seliger et al., 1969; Vrijens et al., 1975). International calibre flatwater kayak paddlers have been found to possess high values for upper-body muscle strength, anaerobic capacity and endurance, in addition to high aerobic power (see Appendix A) (Fry et al., 1991; Tesch, 1983; Tesch et al., 1984; Thomson et al., 1978). Elite kayak paddlers have been known to do well at all three distances. In 1973 at the World Championships, the Hungarian paddler Csapo won all three distances (Tesch, 1983). It has been suggested by Fry (1991) that the success of kayak paddlers such as Csapo may be due to the fact that the difference in physiological requirements for all three distances may be more subtle than those for other sports. Energy requirements for the 10,000 metre event are chiefly supplied through aerobic metabolism and this race is considered to be an aerobic event (Shephard, 1987). However, tactical considerations often result in irregular and intermittent boat speeds requiring anaerobic energy sources. Forward movement of the kayak is impeded by various external factors including; frictional resistance of the water, wave formation, drag and air resistance (Shephard, 1987). The boat travels at the boundary of two media 1 (air and water) and this boundary is continually shifting on a vertical plane (Marchaj, 1982). The frictional resistance imposed by the water is much greater than that of the air, as the density of water is approximately 835 times that of air (Marchaj, 1982). It is possible that energy expenditure could be altered by changing the resistance the kayak encounters. Resistances offered by environmental conditions are difficult, if not impossible, to alter. Strictly enforced guidelines regarding the size, weight and physical dimensions of the kayaks have precluded alterations to resistance through vessel design and construction (Shephard, 1987). Although prohibited at the shorter distances, over the 10,000 metre distance, kayak paddlers frequently employ a technique termed "wash-riding" in an effort to reduce energy expenditure. This technique involves paddling on the wake of a competitor's boat, and at a strategic moment (e.g. to either avoid being baulked by the waves of an opponent's boat or to sprint ahead of an opponent) the paddler moves off of the wake. The bow and stern of the kayak are responsible for two systems of wave- making, appropriately named bow waves and stern waves, which can be used for wash riding (Marchaj, 1982). (Figure 1) Bow waves, which consist of a series of short separate waves that travel at an angle of approximately 18-20 degrees tangentially to the direction of the motion of the hull, are most commonly used for wash riding (FFCK, 1988). (Figure 2) 2 f/ F\ • I / /^1 N.• •• • Figure 1 Overhead Schematic View of Divergent Bow and Stern Waves Stern Bow Direction of Motion Stern When the boat is travelling "on the wash" it is effectively angled forward down the crest of the wave, decreasing the size of the wetted area and therefore the frictional resistance of the kayak (Marchaj, 1982). In addition, the boat receives impetus from the (water) surface flow, which is acting in the same direction as the forward movement of the boat (Marchaj, 1982). It is critical for the kayak paddler to maintain the boat's position on the crest of the wave in order to maximize the frictional and gravitational advantages afforded by the 3 Figure 2 Schematic View of Wash Riding on a Divergent Bow Wave wave. Additional acceleration of the forward movement of the kayak is provided by a gravity force component due to the boat's weight (Marchaj 1982). The measurement of oxygen uptake (V02) during maximal and submaximal exercise has proven to be the most useful method for determining energy expenditure or "work efficiency" because of its accurate reflection of the rate of energy metabolism within the body (Astrand et al., 1961, Brooks et al., 1985; Rusko et al., 1978; Whipp et al., 1969). Oxygen uptake measurements 4 during kayak paddling under field conditions have primarily been made using the Douglas bag method to collect and subsequently analyze expired gases (Astrand et al., 1986, Seliger et al., 1969; Tesch, 1983; Tesch et al., 1976). Used in the field setting during kayak paddling , this method imposes certain limitations on data collection capabilities. One limitation relates to the paddler having to physically open and close the valve of the Douglas bag at the beginning and completion of a specified collection period. In order to complete this task, the kayak paddler has to stop paddling, maintain his balance, and turn the valve to the open or closed position. Another limitation is the lack of temporal precision in measuring ventilatory variables during exercise performed over several minutes (Mathews et al., 1992). A single Douglas bag, used as the collection reservoir for exhaled gases throughout the exercise bout, provides only an average for the entire collection period, rather than precise (breath by breath), measurement of oxygen consumption (Astrand et al., 1986; Fox et al., 1981; Hagberg, 1981; Mathews et al., 1992). To alleviate the problems encountered in obtaining field measurements with apparatus such as the Douglas bag, a new telemetric device has been developed. The Cosmed K2 is an integrated telemetric system which measures and calculates oxygen consumption (V02), minute ventilation (VE) and heart rate (HR) at 15, 30 or 60 second intervals. The telemetric device, which is attached to the athlete's torso by a harness, is lightweight (800 grams) and allows the athlete almost complete freedom of movement. Measurement of the possible energy savings, in terms of oxygen consumption, while riding wash, has not been determined. The purpose of this investigation was to measure the energy expenditure of elite male flatwater kayak athletes paddling at a 10,000 metre "steady-state" race pace under wash- riding and non-wash riding conditions. Specifically, the purpose was to 5 determine whether oxygen consumption, minute ventilation, and heart rate would be lower during wash riding. 6 II METHODS Subjects Ten male kayak paddlers, all members or recent past members of the Canadian Kayak team, (including four members of the 1992 Olympic team) volunteered for the study (mean; age=25 ± 6.5 yrs.; height=183.5 ± 4.4 cm.; mass= 83.9 ± 6.1 kg) . Testing took place in the spring at the beginning of a training camp held between a pre-Olympic competition tour in Europe and the Barcelona Olympics. Permission to complete this research was obtained from the University of British Columbia Clinical Screening Committee for Research and Other Studies involving Human Subjects. Written consent was obtained from each subject after they were informed of the procedures and possible risks involved in this study. All subjects were able to complete the entire study. Experimental Procedures Both trials of the experiment were conducted during a single session at Burnaby Lake, British Columbia. Prior to the start of the test session, ambient air temperature, barometric pressure and wind velocity were determined. Evidence of any measurable wind velocity precluded continuance of the test. At the start of the session, age, height, and mass measurements were obtained and a screening history and physical examination were performed on every subject by the Canadian Kayak team physician (Dr. D.C. McKenzie). Athletes were randomly assigned to one of two test conditions of "wash riding" (WR) or "non-wash riding" (NWR). Following the first trial, a twenty minute rest period was provided for the athlete. The second trial used the alternate test condition. Each subject performed the two trials using his own boat and paddle. 7 The "leader" for the wash-riding trials was a single person (age=19 ; height=187.0 cm; mass=82.1 kg) used for all wash-riding trials. This person used the same boat (Jaguar model) and paddle (Patassi model, right twist) for all trials in order to standardize the test conditions. The "leader" did not participate as a subject in the study. During the WR trial, the subjects travelled on a bow wave produced by the leader's boat. The tip of the bow of the subject's boat, while on the leader's bow wave, was positioned at a distance of approximately one metre lateral and two metres behind the front of the cockpit of the leader's boat. The exercise protocol consisted of a standardized warm-up, followed by a 2000 metre work bout ("trial") with the athlete either riding wash or not riding wash. Since wash riding is a technique used primarily during 10,000 metre races, the pace to be maintained was set at 3.7 metres/second. This value was established from an extrapolation of the 1991 Canadian Canoe Association National Championship 10,000 metre race winning time. The pace of 3.7 m/sec is equivalent to "split" times of 67.5 seconds for every 250 metres. The investigators travelled alongside the kayak paddler(s) boat(s), in a motor boat, recording time, and calling out "faster" or "slower" (as required) to the the subject (and leader during wash riding trials). Split times and stroke rates were recorded every 250 metre mark along the course. Split times were doubly verified, taken by two individuals (in case of failure of one watch mid-trial) in the motor boat using hand held Seiko 10 bar 100 lap/split memory watches. Data Collection The responses of oxygen consumption (V02), minute ventilation (VE), and heart rate (HR) were measured using the Cosmed K2 portable telemetry 8 system. Manufacturer recommendations regarding operation and calibration of the unit were accurately followed. The subjects were outfitted with the portable unit which consists of a transmitter, a battery, a face-mask/turbine flow meter assemby and a belt ECG monitor. The transmitter contains the electronic circuits, the expiratory gas sampling pump, the dynamic microchamber, the oxygen analyzer, the heart rate monitor and the radio transmitter. The transmitter and battery were connected to a harness (worn by the subject) by way of two Velcro retaining plates located next to the subject's chest and back. The face-mask/turbine unit worn by the subject was attached to the head by way of an elastic harness. The face-mask was attached to the photoelectric turbine. The sampling capillary tube was inserted into the turbine housing and then, along with the wire from the turbine, connected to the transmitter. The transmitter sent air flow data measured by the turbine, expired oxygen concentration measured by the 02 electrode, and HR obtained from the ECG, to the receiver unit. The receiver unit was kept within 600 metres (the maximum range of the system) at all times during the trials. An assistant to the investigator carried the receiver unit in the motor boat which followed alongside the kayak paddlers. Continuous 15 second samples of VE, V02, and HR were recorded over the full 2000 metres. Only the samples recorded between the 500 and 1500 metre mark were used for analysis in order to examine the effects of wash riding during steady state aerobic work. VE, V02 and HR data were provided by the receiver every 15 seconds, in both LED and paper form. This information was later down-loaded to a portable computer in the laboratory for subsequent data analysis. 9 Recalibration of the Cosmed K2 was completed at the end of each trial and the rechargeable battery was replaced as required. One trial was restarted after battery failure occurred during the first 500 meters of his non-wash riding trial. The athlete was allowed a ten minute rest and the trial was begun again with a newly charged battery. Statistical Analysis The statistical analysis used to investigate the effect of "wash-riding" on VE, V02 and HR was the Hotelling's T 2 statistic performed using BMDP:3D statistical software (UCLA, 1988) with the level of significance set a priori at p < 0.05. The mean value of the eighteen 15-second samples collected via the Cosmed K2 telemetry unit between the 500 and 1500 metre mark of the 2000 metre trial distance were calculated for VE, V02, and HR for each subject under both conditions. Hotelling's T2 statistic for dependent samples was used to compare means of VE, V02, and HR between wash-riding and non-wash- riding conditions. This analysis was followed by calculation of confidence intervals. Mean velocity was determined for each subject, for both wash riding and non-wash riding trials, based on time recorded over distance. Group means and standard deviations were calculated and differences between means were analyzed by use of a paired t- test. 10 Table 1. Anthropometric and Kayak Equipment Data Age (yrs) Ht (cm) Mass (kg) 21 185 79.5 23 186.5 89.9 22 190 86.2 37 188 87 24 182 90.5 20 178 79 22 178 72 24 187 86.2 22 183 87 38 178 77.3 25.0 183.6 83.9 Subject MA RJC R3 DI LJ SK IM KP JR CS MEAN SD^6.5^4.5^6.1 I Model Patassi Patassi Patassi Shaw Patassi Patassi Swiss Patassi Patassi Patassi Twist^I Right Left Right Left Left Left Right Left Left Left Kayak Paddle I^Model^I Cleaver VanDusen VanDusen Jaguar VanDusen Jaguar Kirton Tiger Cleaver X Cleaver X Orion Syrangi Ill RESULTS Description of Experimental Subjects Anthropometric and kayaking equipment data is provided in Table 1. A summary of the mean values, as well as each subject's raw data, of ventilatory and heart rate responses during the two experimental conditions is found in Appendix B. Subject Comments All subjects reported that the K2 equipment did not interfere with their kayak paddling. Many of the subjects complained of discomfort on the bridge of the nose secondary to the airtight application of the face mask. Some of the more experienced kayak paddlers found the wash riding trial difficult. They felt that the pace was too slow to "comfortably" ride the wash. 11 Table 2.^VE, V02 and Heart Rate Values during both experimental conditions (Mean ±. SD) Wash-Riding Non-Wash-Riding X Diff.^%,6. VE(I/min.) 113 ± 16.5 126.3 ± 15.7 -12.9± 16.7^9.8 V02(1/min.) 3.22 ±^0.32 3.63 ±^0.3 -0.41 ±^0.4^11.0 HR(bpm) 167 ±^9.9 175 ±^8.0 -8.0^±^3.0^4.8 Two reported that they had to work harder (and, at times, effectively decelerate) to stay on the wash compared to during the non-wash riding trial. The kayak paddlers who benefited most, in terms of energy savings, were the same ones who reported that the wash riding trial was "easier" than the non-wash riding trial. Ventilatory and Heart Rate Responses The group means and mean differences for VE, V02 and HR during both experimental conditions are shown in Table 2. Figures 3, 4 and 5 present the mean VE, V02 and HR, respectively, during wash riding and non-wash riding. Two subjects (SK and JR) showed an increase (2.0 and 17.3 I/min, respectively) in VE during wash riding compared to the rest of the subjects whose VE was found to decrease. (Figure 3) V02 also increased (0.22 and 0.24 I/min) for two subjects (KP and JR, respectively) while the others showed a decrease. (Figure 4) All subjects demonstrated a decrease in HR during the wash riding trial. (Figure 5) 12 185 180 175 170 165 160 155 150 145 Figure 3 VE During Both Experimental Conditions 160.0 150.0 140.0 ""E • 130.0 Z. 120.0 u.1 • 110.0 100.0 90.00 80.00 — - -MA - -RJC - -x- - pG - - +- - DI - LJ - S--SK - IM - KP -A -JR -0- -CS  WASH RIDE ^ NON WASH RIDE Figure 4 V02 During Both Experimental Conditions 5.5 5.0 4.5 = 4.0 E • 3.5 oe'l 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.500 — - - MA - - RJC x -DI • -^• LJ - a - SK - -•-- IM —•-- KP - JR - A - CS - 0 - PG ... ...... ... • • WASH RIDE^NON WASH RIDE Figure 5 HR During Both Experimental Conditions - RJC - FG --x- - DI - +- LJ - - SK -411- - - KP —4,-- JR --A- CS WASH RIDE^ NON WASH RIDE 13 The dependent sample Hotelling's T2 statistic revealed a value of 184.45; an associated F value of 47.83, with degrees of freedom 3 and 7, and p-value of 0.000. With p < 0.05, it is possible to reject the null hypothesis and state that there is a significant difference in VE, V02, and heart rate between wash riding and non-wash riding trials. Confidence intervals were calculated as a post hoc test of the multivariate process (Huck, 1974). For VE, the mean difference of measures was -12.9 with a 95% confidence interval of -24.77 5 [tD i 5 -0.93. The mean difference for V02 was -0.41 with a 95% confidence interval of -.681 II,D2 -.129 and for HR a mean difference of -8 with a 95% confidence interval of -0.97 [tD3 -6.1. The confidence intervals for VE, V02, and HR indicate that all three dependent variables contributed to the overall significant difference (Huck, 1974). Kayak Velocity Individual mean velocities of the kayak during the two trials can be found in Appendix D. Maintaining consistent kayak velocity during the two trials was sometimes difficult for the kayak paddlers. Overall, the athletes tended to travel faster during the wash riding trial, with a mean velocity of 3.84 ± 0.05 m/sec compared to 3.75 ± 0.07 m/sec during the non-wash riding trial. Differences between means were analyzed by use of a paired t- test . (Table 3) 14 Table 3.^t -Test for Kayak Velocity (m/sec) during the Two Experimental Conditions. Condition^X^SD^t Wash Riding ^ 3.84^0.05 5.079* Non-Wash^3.75^0.07 Riding *significant at p < 0.05 "Economy" is defined as the submaximal oxygen consumption per unit body mass (V02 calculated in ml/kg/min -1 ) required to perform a given task (Cavanagh et al., 1985). A t- test revealed that there was a significant difference in economy between WR and NWR trials (Table 4). Table 4.^t -Test for V02 (ml/kg/min) during the Two Experimental Conditions. Condition^X^SD^t Wash Riding ^ 38.46^2.59 -3.31 8* Non-Wash^43.64^4.68 Riding *significant at p < 0.05 Reliability and Validity of the Cosmed K2 The reliability and/or validity of the Cosmed K2 system have been analyzed by both the Allan McGavin Sports Medicine Centre Exercise Physiology Division and the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) Sports Science Division. 15 In the Allan McGavin laboratory, the Cosmed K2 was found to be a valid instrument in comparison to the Medical Graphics 2001 system, for measuring V02, VE, and HR responses. (Appendix C). Validity correlation coefficients of 0.95, 0.96 and 0.97 were found for VE, V02, and HR, respectively. A study conducted in the USOC Sports Science Division laboratory, demonstrated that the Cosmed K2 was both a valid and reliable instrument when compared to the Douglas bag method (Lucia, 1992). 16 IV DISCUSSION This is the first study to examine the physiologic response to wash riding in elite flatwater kayak paddlers. In the present study, highly trained kayak paddlers were studied during on-water, steady state kayak paddling to investigate the influence of wash riding on energy expenditure. The exercise test was designed to allow for comparison of VE, V02 and HR at identical submaximal velocities during wash riding and non-wash riding conditions. The results showed that there was a signifcant decrease in energy consumption during wash riding when compared to non-wash riding, as indicated by a decrease in VE, V02 and HR. The VE was decreased 9.8 % during the WR trial in comparison to NWR. Examination of the raw data indicates that this decrease was due to a reduction in respiratory frequency rather than a change in tidal volume. This decrease in VE indicates a reduction in the stimulus to breathe indicating that there is less need for ventilation to supply the muscle oxygen needs. This finding is supported by the V02 data which demonstrates a parallel decrease (11.0%) in V02 during the WR trial. Thus, during WR the athletes are working at a lower percentage of their VO2max • The velocity actually increased (2.5%) in the WR trial, yet overall, the oxygen demand remained decreased. Therefore the energy cost of WR, based on the V02 data, indicates (and perhaps even underestimates) a significant savings. The advantages of working at a lower percentage of VO2max include; decreasing the demands on the oxygen transport system, decreasing the depletion of energy sources (e.g. glycogen), and delaying the onset of fatigue (Brooks et al.,1985). In terms of performance, the advantage is reflected in the ability of the athlete to travel at a similar and/or greater velocity at a lower physiological cost. 17 In contrast to the overall mean decrease in VE and V02 during WR, one subject demonstrated an increase in both variables, and two other subjects demonstrated an increase in one of either VE or V02. All subjects experienced a decrease in HR. It is difficult to explain definitively why there would be an increase in one or both of VE and V02 with a concomitant decrease in HR. Overall, the WR trial was more economical, as indicated by comparison of the mean values of V02 (calculated in ml/kg/min) which were significantly lower when compared to the NWR trial values. Examination of the individual data reveals WR was less economical for the two subjects whose V02 was elevated compared to the NWR trial. It is interesting to note, that while the kayak velocity increased significantly during the WR trial, the stroke rate (paddle revolutions per minute) of the paddlers did not significantly increase. This indicates that there was likely a change in the stroke mechanics employed by the paddlers (e.g. the actual pulling phase of the stroke may have been shorter). Verification of any changes in the stroke mechanics is not possible as the trials were not recorded on video tape. Few studies have examined actual energy expenditure during activities which, like kayak paddling, require tactical manouevers and/or varying rates of speed. McCole et al. (1990), examined the effects of drafting during cycling on energy expenditure (V02) in 28 male competitive cyclists at speeds similar to those encountered in competitive events (32-40 km/h). They examined drafting single as well as multiple riders, drafting vehicles, and altering the aerodynamics of the bicycle. Drafting was found to reduce V02 by 18 - 39 %, depending on rider speed, formation, and number of riders being drafted. Drafting a vehicle at 40 km/h resulted in a 62% reduction in V02 and riding an aerodynamic bicycle lowered V02 by 7%. 18 In the present study, the mean VE for five of the subjects who were previously tested in the laboratory on the kayak ergometer during a maximal exercise test (four minutes, maximum intensity) was 181.8 I/min, compared to 106.82 and 123.74 I/min (WR and NWR, respectively), indicating that both trials were performed at a submaximal level (McKenzie, unpublished data). This finding is supported by measurements obtained on V02 for the same five subjects who performed the same tests; 5.26 I/min compared to 3.28 and 3.58 l/min for the WR and NWR trials, respectively. Thus, 10,000 metre, steady-state kayak racing represents a submaximal work. The difference between WR and NWR, expressed as a percentage of VO2max in these subjects is 6% which may be sufficient to influence performance outcome. However, the comparison of VO2max data collected in the laboratory to data collected in a field situation may not be valid. Heart rate was the one variable that consistently, and significantly, reduced ( 4.8%) during WR when compared to NWR. Once again, this reflects the reduced metabolic demand during the WR trial. For four of the athletes examined in this study, as well as previously under maximal conditions in the laboratory, the HR values for WR and NWR, expressed as a percentage of maximum were 10% and 5% lower, respectively (McKenzie, unpublished data). The significant difference in kayak velocity between the two trials is unfortunate but should not adversely affect the results of the study. The fact that there was a significant decrease in VE, V02 and HR during the wash riding trial, in spite of the significantly higher boat speed, should alternatively lend greater support to the use of wash riding as an energy saving technique. The K2 apparatus worn by the athletes during this study did not interfere with the athletes' ability to kayak paddle and the integrated telemetric system provided fifteen second interval measures of VE, V02, and HR. Both of these 19 factors suggest that the K2 is an easier and more effective device for measuring ventilatory and heart rate variables in the field setting, compared with the Douglas bag method. The athletes who showed the greatest reduction in V02 during the wash riding trial, in terms of the ventilatory and heart rate responses, were the same athletes who are considered to be the most proficient at wash riding (personal communication, Canadian National Kayak Coach). Wash riding is an acquired skill and as such requires instruction and practice (FFCK, 1988). The degree to which a coach and/or athlete incorporates wash riding into a training program is highly variable, therefore, it follows that ability might also be highly variable. Other factors affecting wash riding are the weight, technique and speed of the "leader" as well as the weight and experience of the "follower". The more "elite" paddlers (i.e. the athletes who consistently finish in the top five at Canadian Team Trials) tended to describe the wash riding trial as "difficult", complaining that the pace was too slow. In order for them to feel "comfortable" on the wash, they prefer to be travelling at near maximal speeds, otherwise they feel as though they have to work (vs. ride) to stay on the wash. Once they "felt" the wash, they described having to decelerate and/or manoeuver to stay on the wash which effectively negated any advantage they might gain. Two of the athletes who described difficulties riding the wash were the same athletes who had higher VE and/or V02 values during the wash riding trial. In summary, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of wash riding on energy expenditure in 10 elite male flatwater kayak paddlers while kayak paddling under WR and NWR conditions. The results showed that there is a considerable savings (11 %) in the energy cost of paddling at a standardized velocity utilizing the WR technique. This finding has implications 20 for the design of training programs and competitive strategy plans for flatwater kayak racing. 21 REFERENCE LIST Asmussen E., Hemmingsen I.: Determination of maximum working capacity at different ages in work with the legs or with the arms. Scandinav J Clin & Lab Investig (1958) 10:67-71. Astrand P.O., Rodahl K.: Textbook of Work Physiology 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1986. Astrand P.O., Saltin B.: Maximal oxygen uptake and heart rate in various types of muscular activity. J Appl Physiol (1961) 16(6):977-981. Bergh U., Kanstrup I-L., Ekblom B.: Maximal oxygen uptake during exercise with various combinations of arm and leg work. J Appl Physiol (1976) 41(2):191-196. Brooks G.A., Fahey T.D.: Exercise Physiology. Human Bioenergetics and Its Applications. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1985. Burns N., Grove S.K.: The Practice of Nursing Research. Conduct Critique and Utilization. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1987. Cavanagh P.R., Kram R.: The efficiency of human movement - a statement of the problem. Med Sci Sports Exerc (1985) 17(3): 304-308. Cermak J., Kuta I., Parizkova J.: Some predispositions for top performance in speed canoeing and their changes during the whole year training program. J Sports Med (1975) 15: 243-251. Dal Monte A., Leonardi L.M.: Functional evaluation of kayak paddlers from biomechanical and physiological viewpoints. In: Biomechanics VB, Ed by P. Komi. Baltimore:University Park Press, 1976. Fox E.L., Mathews D.K.: The Physiological Basis of Physical Education and Athletics 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders College, 1981. 22 Federation Francais de Canoe/Kayak (FFCK): Canoe/Kayak. 1988. Fry R.W., Morton A.R.: Physiological and kinanthropometric attributes of elite flatwater kayakists. Med Sci Sports Exerc (1991) 23:1297-1301. Glenberg, A.M.: Learning from Data. An Introduction to Statistical Reasoning. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1988. Gollnick P.D., Armstrong R.B., Saubert C.W., Piehl K., Saltin B.: Enzyme activity and fiber composition in skeletal muscle of untrained and trained men. J Appl Physiol (1972) 33(3):312-319. Hagberg J.M.: Oxygen consumption during exercise and recovery. In: Exercise in Health and Disease, Ed by F.J. Nagle and H.J. Montoye. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1981. Huck S.W., Cormier W.H., Bounds W.G.: Reading Statistics and Research. New York: Harper & Row, 1974. Logan S.M., Holt L.E.: The flatwater kayak stroke. NCSA Journal (1985) 7(5):4-1 1. Lucia A.: Validity and Reliability of the Cosmed K2 Instrument. Masters Thesis. Colorado State University, Faculty of Graduate Studies, 1992. Marchaj C.A.: Sailing Theory and Practice.  2nd ed. London: Granada Publishing, 1982. Matthews J.I., Bush B.A., Morales F.M.: Microprocessor Exercise Physiology Systems vs a Nonautomated System. A Comparison of Data Output. Chest (1987) 92(4):696-703. McCole S.D., Claney K., Conte J-C., Anderson R., Hagberg J.M.: Energy Expenditure During Bicyling. J Appl Physiol (1990) 68(2):748-753. 23 Rusko H., Havu M., Karvinen E.: Aerobic Performance Capacity in Athletes. Europ J Appl Physiol (1978) 38:151-159. Seliger V., Pachlopnikova I., Mann M., Selecka R., Treml J.: Energy expenditure during paddling. Physiologia Bohemoslovaca (1969)18:49-55. Shephard R.J.: Science and medicine of canoeing and kayaking. Sports Med (1987) 4:19-33. Sleeth R.M.: Functional evaluation of elite Canadian canoeists during three phases of the yearly training cycle. Masters thesis. University of Western Ontario, Faculty of Graduate Studies, 1982. Telford R.: Methods of measuring specific performance profiles of cyclists, rowers, and kayak-canoeists. Australian National Coaching Journal (1980) 4(1):5-9. Tesch P.A.: Physiologic characteristics of elite kayak paddlers. Can J of Appl Sport Sci (1983) 8(2):87-91. Tesch P.A., Karlsson J.: Muscle metabolite accumulation following maximal exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol (1984) 52:243-246. Tesch P.A., Lindeberg S.: Blood lactate accumulation during arm exercise in world class kayak paddlers and strength trained athletes. Eur J Appl Physiol (1984) 52: 441-445. Tesch P., Piehl K., Wilson G., Karlsson J.: Physiological investigations of Swedish elite canoe competitors. Med Sci Sports (1976) 8:214-218. Thomson J.M., Scrutton E.W.: Physiologic adaptation to long-term upper-body work. Can J Appl Spt Sci (1978) 3:103-108. 24 Vrijens J., Hoekstra P., Bouckaert J., Van Uytvanck P.: Effects of training on maximal working capacity and haemodynamic response during arm and leg-exercise in a group of paddlers. Eur J Appl Physiol (1975) 34:113- 119. Whipp B.J., Wasserman K.: Efficiency of muscular work. J Appl Physiol (1969) 26(5):644-648. 25 APPENDIX A Review of Literature 26 Review of Literature Physiologic Profile of the elite male kayak paddler The physiology of elite flatwater kayak paddlers has been studied by several investigators over the last few decades, in both the laboratory and field settings. (Dal Monte et al., 1976; Fry et al., 1991; Logan et al., 1985; Seliger et al., 1969; Shepard, 1987; Telford, 1980; Tesch, 1983; Tesch et al., 1984; Tesch et al., 1984; Tesch et at 1976; Thomson et al., 1978; Vrijens et al., 1975). The following will provide a summary of the physiologic attributes of elite male kayak paddlers described, to date. Height and Body Mass Table 1 provides a summary of the mean height and body mass values of elite male kayak paddlers (Cermak et al., 1975; DalMonte et al., 1976; Fry et al., 1991; Seliger et al., 1969; Tesch, 1983; Tesch et al., 1984; Tesch et al., 1984; Tesch et al 1976; Thomson et al., 1978; Vrijens et al., 1975). Fry et al. (1991) found that elite level Australian kayak paddlers (n=7) were significantly taller (179.9 ± 5.04 cm versus 175.21 ± 5.17 cm, p < 0.05)) and heavier (81.05 ± 10.26 kg versus 70.66 + 7.99 kg, p < 0.01) than less successful paddlers (n=31). Tesch (1983) calculated body composition from skeletal and skinfold measurements in kayak paddlers, bodybuilders, water-skiers and non-athletes. Body fat percentage in the paddlers was predicted to be 6% (± 2) which was significantly lower than that found in the non-athletes (9% ± 3) but higher than that observed in the bodybuilders (4% ±1). In another study reported one year later, and using the same measurement technique, Tesch and Lindebergh (1984) compared percent body fat of kayak paddlers with weight/power lifters, bodybuilders and non-athletes. They found that body builders had a signifcantly lower percentage of body fat (4.3 ± 1.5) than all groups and that kayak paddlers were significantly lower (5.4 ± 1.1) than the other two groups (7.2 ± 1.4 and 9.9 ± 3.0, respectively). Fry et al. (1991) took the sum of eight skinfolds measurements to calculate adipose composition of kayak paddlers. He found that higher levels of body fat were associated with increasingly poorer performances at longer race distances. 27 TABLE 1. Height and Body Mass Values of Kayakers. Reference Height (cm) Mass (kg) Cermak (1975) 179 75.5 Dal Monte & Leonardi (1976) 180 79.7 Fry (1991) 179 81 Seliger (1968) 178 76.2 Tesch (1983) 185 80 Tesch & Karlsson (1984) 183 75 Tesch & Lindeberg (1984) 186.2 82.4 Tesch, Piehl et al (1976) - 78 Thomson (1978) 75.3 Vrijens (1974) 178.7 77.6 Aerobic performance tests Investigations of the aerobic performance of elite kayakers have been conducted in both the laboratory and field settings. Several investigators have chosen both the traditional "total body" methods of evaluation (treadmill or bicycle ergometry) as well as sport-specific performance tests (kayak ergometry and/or actual on-water paddling). (Table 2) An important determinant of the maximal oxygen uptake is the mass of muscle employed in performing the task (Astrand et al., 1961; Bergh et al., 1976; Gollnick et al., 1972). It is well known that activity involving the legs has been shown to result in a higher level of oxygen uptake when compared to exercise performed primarily by the arms (Asmussen et al., 1958; Astrand et al., 1986; Bergh et al., 1976; Thomson et al., 1978; Vrijens et al., 1975). In kayak paddling, work primarily involves the muscles of the back, shoulders, and arms, therefore, it is not surprising that kayak paddlers have been shown to demonstrate lower oxygen consumption during paddling compared with treadmill or bicycle ergometer testing. (Fry et al., 1991;Thomson et al., 1978; Vrijens et al., 1975). In experiments conducted by Tesch and colleagues (Tesch, 1983; Tesch et al., 1984; Tesch et al., 1984; Tesch et al 1976), the V02 attained during the arm exercise tests were between 78% and 88% of V02 attained during the treadmill test. TABLE 2. Values of V02(L•min -1 ), VE (L•min -1 ) and HR (bpm) recorded for legs and arms in the laboratory. LEGS^ I I^ ARMS Reference^Test^VO2^VE^HR^VO2^VE^HR^% Leg Dal Monte & Leonardi (1976) Kayak erg. 3.36 144.2 187 Fry (1991) Kayak erg. 4.78 124.9 178.8 McKenzie (1991) Kayak erg. 5.13 182 186.5 Tesch (1983) Treadmill 5.36 195 Mech. braked erg. 4.3 190 Tesch & Karlsson (1984) Treadmill 53 Mech. braked erg. 4.5 Tesch & Lindeberg (1984) Treadmill 5.4 Tesch, Piehl et al (1976) Treadmill 5.4 Mech. braked erg. 4.6 Thomson (1978) Treadmill 4.6 173 186 Kayak erg. 3.4 129 176 Vrijens (1974) Bicycle erg. 4.42 128 183 Kayak erg. 3.91 115 181 N/A N/A N/A 80% 85% N/A 85% 74% 88% Vrijens et al. (1975), looked specifically at the maximal oxygen uptake and circulatory adaptations to training with arms versus legs by comparing athletes who primarily train with their arms (paddlers) and a control group (non- paddlers). Five elite Belgian paddlers were compared to a control group of nine physical education students (4 team sport participants, 3 runners and 2 swimmers). Both groups performed two maximal work tests (progressive resistance tests), one on a bicycle ergometer and the other on an arm ergometer. Oxygen consumption was determined utilizing the Douglas bag method and heart rate was recorded continuously with a telemetric device. 29 In the group of paddlers, maximal oxygen uptake and workload during the arm exercise resulted in 88% and 80% of the scores obtained in the leg exercise. In the control group, the differences were 81% and 65%. Vrijens concluded that the data illustrate the importance of measuring total muscle mass involved in the work, and that the difference in results (between groups) could be explained by changes in regional blood flow and adaptation of size and fiber composition of muscle groups in response to training. Many investigators agree that specificity of testing is required in order to properly evaluate the functional capacities of elite athletes (Seliger et al., 1969; Sleeth, 1982; Telford, 1980; Tesch, 1983; Tesch et al., 1976; Vrijens et al., 1975). Several investigators have utilized kayak ergometers in order to simulate paddling for data collection in the laboratory (Dal Monte et al., 1976; Fry et al., 1991; Thomson et al., 1978; Vrijens et al., 1975). McKenzie (unpublished data 1992) observed a mean oxygen uptake value of 5.13 1/min in a group of four elite male Canadian kayak paddlers tested on a kayak air braked ergometer, paddling at a simulated 1000 metre race pace. Fry (1991 ) reported an oxygen uptake value of 4.78 1/min. in seven elite male Australian kayak paddlers, also using the air braked ergometer. All of the field studies to date (Table 3) have been completed utilizing the Douglas bag method of expired gas collection to evaluate oxygen consumption while kayak paddling (Seliger et al., 1969; Tesch, 1983; Tesch et al., 1984; Tesch et al, 1976). Seliger (1969), investigated energy expenditure in thirteen high performance Czechoslovakian paddlers, kayaking over 500 metres at a speed of 4.16 m/second. The oxygen consumption averaged 2.9 1/min, VE 111.4 l/min and maximum HR 176 beats per minute. In comparing the speeds attained in the "experimental" race with those of an actual race Seliger found that the former amounted to 90% of the latter. He concluded that when evaluating the results of this study, the fact that the subjects were not putting up an actual racing performance during the experimental race, must be taken into consideration. In two of Tesch's studies, paddlers were evaluated for oxygen consumption while kayak paddling on the water. Tesch et al. (1976), tested the subjects under simulated racing conditions at the three international distances. The 500 metre distance was completed in two minutes with a V02 of 4.0 30 TABLE 3. Values of V02 (L•min -1 ), VE (L•min -1 ) and HR (bpm) recorded during paddling. Reference Seliger (1968) Tesch (1983) Tesch & Karlsson (1984) Tesch, Piehl et al (1976) Test^V02^VE^HR 500 m.^2.9^111.4^176 6 mins. MI* 4.67 192 6 mins. MA.* 4.7 500 m.**^4.2 1,000 m.** ^ 4.7 10,000 m.** 4.5 % Leg V02 N/A 87% 88% 78% 87% 83% * M.I.. maximum intensity **Simulated race conditions I/minute. The average V02 over the 1,000 metres (completed in 4 minutes) was 4.7 I/min. and over the 10,000 (completed in 45 minutes), 4.5 I/minute. The shorter racing distance of 500 metres resulted in a lower peak oxygen uptake (4.2 I/min) which the authors speculate to be due to the shorter work time. Oxygen uptake was shown to increase when the athletes performed against the wind, which prolonged the work period, compared to races under normal conditions. In 1983, maximal oxygen uptake and heart rate was recorded by Tesch in five Swedish athletes while treadmill running, arm cranking on an air braked ergometer and while paddling on the water at a maximal effort for 6 minutes. The maximal V02 and HR values achieved during the paddling were 4.67 I/min. and 192 bpm, respectively. Muscular Strength and Endurance Another critical factor in performance testing is examination of muscle strength and endurance. Isokinetic muscular strength and endurance have been found to be greater in elite kayak paddlers when compared to other athletes (Fry et al., 1991; Tesch, 1983). Tesch (1983) measured shoulder extensor strength and endurance in six elite Swedish kayak paddlers using the Cybex II Isokinetic dynamometer and compared them to bodybuilders, waterskiers and non-athletes (fighter pilots). For the assessment of strength, the subjects were tested for maximal isometric strength at 120 ° and peak torque 31 during maximal isokinetic shoulder extension (0 - 180 °) performed at 15, 60 and 180°/second. No statistically significant differences were noted among the different categories of athletes when comparing the values for isometric strength and peak torque at the various joint velocities. To study muscle fatigue and power characteristics, fifty consecutive, maximal voluntary contractions were performed at an angular velocity of 180 °/second. The "fatigue index" or muscle endurance was calculated as the peak torque declined from the first to the 48- 50th contraction. The decline in muscle force was significantly less in the kayak paddlers when compared to the waterskiers. Average peak torque was calculated from the peak torque values recorded for each of the fifty contractions and was found to be greatest in kayakers. Fry (1991) compared "selected" kayak paddlers (those who achieved a top four position in the performance of 500, 1000, 10,000 and 42,000 metre races) (n=7) with "non-selected" kayak paddlers (all those below the top four) (n=31) for muscular strength and endurance. The Cybex II was used to determine strength, power and muscular endurance during a simulated kayak stroke. lsokinetic peak torque was measured at speeds of 30 °/sec. and 120°/second. Strength, power and muscular endurance were all found to be significantly greater ( p < 0.01) in selected kayakers. Muscle Fibre Type The deltoid muscle has frequently been chosen for biopsies as it is one of the principle muscles used during kayak paddling and is relatively easy to sample (Logan et al., 1985; Tesch et al., 1976). Tesch et al., (1976) examined muscle fibre composition of the deltoid muscle in nine former elite Swedish paddlers. Most paddlers successful at the 500 metre races had a high proportion of fast twitch (FT) fibres (52-59% FT), at the 1000 metres a more varied composition (26-59% FT) and a relatively low percentage of FT in successful 10,000 metre competitors (26 - 52% FT). Tesch did note that one athlete who was twice the World Champion over the 500 metre sprint distance, but also very successful over the 1,000 and 10,000 metre distances, had 75% FT fibre composition. 32 Muscle Glycogen Content The glycogen content of the deltoid muscle has been examined by Tesch et al., (1983) before and after maximal 2 minute and 45 minute pool experiments (the kayak was in a fixed position in the pool) as well as in regular competition before and after a 10,000 metre race. Selective glycogen depletion was examined following a 10,000 metre race after which subjects demonstrated that 80% of their slow twitch (ST) fibres and 10% of their fast twitch (FT) fibres were almost completely emptied or completely emptied of their glycogen content. Blood Lactate Levels Blood lactate levels have been found to be slightly lower in paddlers after arm exercise (kayak ergometry and/or paddling) when compared to treadmill running. Tesch (1983) reported blood lactate values of 14.2 ± 2.7 mmol•/ -1 , 13.5 ± 3.0 mmol•/ -1 , and 14.0 ± 4.1 mmol•/ -1 following treadmill runnning, arm cranking and kayak paddling, respectively. It has been suggested that the lower values seen during arm exercise can be attributed mainly to the smaller muscle mass involved and the less well trained state of muscles when compared to leg exercise (Tesch et al., 1976). Tesch and Lindebergh (1984) examined blood lactate accumulation during arm exercise comparing elite kayak paddlers to weight/power lifters, bodybuilders and non-athletes. A continuous, progressive intensity, arm cranking exercise was performed by all subjects with blood samples taken following the completion of each work load. Blood lactate concentration was found to be significantly lower through all power output levels in male kayak paddlers. Upper-body muscle mass, however, was significantly greater in the weight-lifters and bodybuilders in comparison to the kayak paddlers. Tesch suggests that these results support the concept that peripheral adaptations associated with endurance training, as opposed to muscle volume per se, results in lower lactate concentrations during progressive arm exercise. In a field study, Tesch et al., (1976) observed peak blood lactate concentrations which were comparable after 500 and 1000 metre races . Blood lactates after 500 metre races averaged 13.2 ± 1.2 mmol•/ -1 , after 1000 metre races 12.9 ± 1.1 mmol•/ -1 , and after 10,000 metre races 10.2 ± 1.4 mmol•/ -1 . 33 Summary This review suggests that the successful kayak paddler tends to be a large individual with a relatively low percentage of body fat, and a high level of aerobic fitness, upper body muscular strength and endurance. 34 APPENDIX B Descriptive Data of Subjects 35 Subject^VE IVVR NWR^A * MA 98.4 145.5 -47.1 RJC 123 141 -18.4 FG 96 109.1 -13.1 DI 91.3 105.4 -14.1 LJ 94.7 118.5 -23.8 SK 136 134.3 02.0 IM 128 142.4 -14.1 KP 122 132.2 -10.3 JR 122 104.6 17.3 CS 124 130.5 -06.9 MEAN 113 126.3 -12.9 SD 16.5 15.72 16.7 Appendix B(i) Summary of VE, V02 and HR During the Two Experimental Conditions (Mean + SD) * WR vs NWR ** % WR < NWR V02 HR %A**^I IWR NWR A* %A**^I IWR NWR A * %A** -33.0 2.88 3.45 -0.57 -17.0 164 176 -12 -7.0 -13.0 3.16 3.32 -0.16 -5.0 162 171 -9 -6.0 -12.0 3.39 4.08 -0.69 -17.0 171 176 -5 -3.0 -14.0 3.41 4.05 -0.64 -16.0 168 176 -8 -5.0 -20.0 3.39 3.69 -0.30 -8.0 149 160 -1 1 -7.0 1.0 3.25 3.96 -0.71 -18.0 176 182 - 6 -3.0 -10.0 2.79 3.57 -0.78 -22.0 176 183 - 7 -4.0 -8.0 3.6 3.38 0.22 6.0 175 181 - 6 -4.0 16.0 3.6 3.36 0.24 7.0 152 162 -10 -6.0 -5.0 2.74 3.4 -0.66 -20.0 175 180 - 5 -3.0 -9.8 3.22 3.626 -0.41 -11.0 167 174.7 - 8 -4.80 12.8 0.32 0.3 00.4 10.6 9.94 8.07 3 1.62 36 Appendix B(ii) Summary of Individual Subject Data 1 A Trial 1 WR - MA VE (I/min) ^ VO2 (1/min)^HR (bpm) Distance (m) ^500^ 97.6^2.98^163 ^ 107.6 3.29 164 111.2^3.40^164 95.6 2.76 164 98.6^2.85^163 104.3 3.10 164 96.3^2.39^161 97.3 2.65 164 1000^ 99.4^2.79^164 93.9 2.79 162 92.4^2.90^163 98.1 2.92 164 94.7^2.89^164 90.4 2.69 168 101.3^2.93^167 1500^ 96.6 2.87 165 MEAN^ 98.5^2.89^164 1B Trial 2 NWR - MA VE (I/min) ^ VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm) Distance (m) ^500^ 136.0^3.26^170 139.7 3.46 172 140.4^3.48^171 139.6 3.46 174 145.1^3.48^174 1000^ 139.6 3.23 173 144.8^3.23^175 143.6 3.44 175 151.2^3.75^173 147.1 3.52 179 147.4^3.53^177 148.5 3.44 178 147.4^3.53^179 143.8 3.45 179 1500^ 153.0^3.67^180 148.7 3.44 179 151.1^3.37^180 151.8 3.39 179 MEAN^ 145.5^3.45^175.9 2 A Trial 1 NWR - RJC VE (I/min) ^ VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm) Distance (m) ^500^ 155.8^3.47^168 ^ 139.3 3.33 165 139.7^3.45^169 141.5 3.27 166 142.6^3.17^162 134.4 3.21 164 138.9^3.21^165 1000^ 132.3 3.38 168 137.8^3.29^173 140.0 3.23 175 142.0^3.39^177 146.3 3.50 177 140.4^3.36^176 133.1 3.18 179 1500^ 149.6^3.45^181 MEAN^ 140.9^3.33^171 2 B Trial 2 WR - RJC VE (I/min) ^ VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm) Distance (m) ^500^ 131.8^3.48^163 130.3 3.22 162 128.6^3.18^158 118.9 3.14 158 125.0^3.40^158 122.0 3.12 160 122.2^3.02^157 121.9 3.01 159 1000^ 115.8^3.05^157 118.3 3.12 161 116.2^3.06^160 120.7 3.08 164 117.3^3.00^166 123.3 3.35 168 128.6^3.39^170 129.5 3.20 168 1500^ 114.9^3.03^169 MEAN^ 122.7^3.17^162.2 3A Trial 1 NWR - PG VE (I/min) ^ VO2 (1/min)^HR (bpm) Distance (m) ^500^ 122.9^4.16^175 ^ 115.3 4.00 175 116.7^4.34^175 113.6 4.22 175 110.0^4.18^174 104.5 4.06 174 103.5^3.93^173 106.5 4.05 174 102.6^3.90^174 1000^ 103.6 3.94 175 104.7^3.98^175 108.8 4.14 172 106.4^3.96^179 108.5 4.12 180 108.6^4.13^181 110.8 4.21 181 1500^ 108.8^4.05^181 MEAN^ 109.2^4.08^176.1 3B Trial 2 WR - PG VE (I/min) ^ VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm) Distance (m) ^500^ 105.2^3.48^171 107.2 3.54 172 101.7^3.53^169 101.3 3.52 169 102.0^3.54^171 103.0 3.49 172 103.7^3.60^172 99.7 3.46 172 89.9^3.27^172 1000^ 96.4 3.50 172 89.5^3.18^170 91.2 3.31 170 87.4^3.25^170 88.8 3.30 170 88.6^3.29^168 89.2 3.24 170 91.9^3.34^173 1500^ 92.5 3.29 173 MEAN^ 96.1^3.40^170.9 4 A Trial 1 WR - DI VE (I/min) ^ VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm) Distance (m) ^500^ 89.8^3.17 ^ 93.1 3.28 92.8^3.27 93.4 3.29^169 94.9^3.35 168 89.1 3.22^168 1000^ 90.5^3.41 168 91.5 3.45^170 92.2^3.48 170 89.8 3.46^169 87.0^3.42 168 89.9 3.54^168 92.6^3.65 166 91.6 3.68^166 1500^ 90.9^3.58 170 MEAN^ 91.3^3.42^168.3 4 B Trial 2 NWR - DI VE (I/min) ^ VO2 (1/min)^HR (bpm) Distance (m) ^500^ 101.9^3.93^174 104.8 3.95 175 96.3^3.79^174 103.6 4.08 175 101.8^4.17^174 97.8 3.77 178 104.5^3.94^178 102.3 4.19 176 1000^ 107.0^4.12^178 103.2 4.06 179 114.5^4.32^179 108.5 4.00 179 104.8^3.78^177 105.3 3.89 177 108.4^4.18^176 114.0 4.39 176 1500^ 112.6^4.25^178 MEAN^ 105.4^4.05^176.6 5A Trial 1 WR - LJ VE (I/min) ^ VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm) Distance (m) ^500^ 93.6^3.39^146 ^ 94.3 3.42 147 91.0^3.30^146 92.6 3.36 145 91.3^3.31^148 98.8 3.42 148 91.9^3.26^151 98.9 3.50 151 1000^ 93.8^3.40^150 92.5 3.35 150 100.9^3.58^149 94.4 3.35 148 96.1^3.41^150 93.9 3.40 153 94.4^3.35^151 91.1 3.23 151 92.6^3.36^152 1500^ 103.6 3.76 149 MEAN^ 94.8^3.40^149.2 5 B Trial 2 NWR - LJ VE (I/min) ^ VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm) Distance (m) ^500^ 107.8^3.29 ^ 154 110.3 3.55 154 113.8^3.66 ^ 154 110.6 3.65 154 111.7^3.50 ^ 156 121.2 3.80 159 126.4^3.96 ^ 160 1000^ 127.7 3.79 160 114.0^3.29 ^ 161 124.3 3.89 162 115.4^3.42 ^ 161 124.3 3.79 162 117.5^3.68 ^ 165 128.4 4.13 169 1500^ 125.0^4.02 ^ 170 MEAN^ 118.6^3.69^160.1 6 A Trial 1 WR - SK VE (I/min) ^ VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm) Distance (m) ^500^ 134.2^3.19^175 ^ 145.4 3.34 175 135.4^3.22^174 141.2 3.36 175 141.8^3.26^174 139.5 3.32 174 139.1^3.31^172 1000^ 131.6 3.13 171 130.5^3.10^174 132.6 3.15 175 128.1^3.05^177 137.8 3.39 178 136.6^3.36^178 136.6 3.36 179 132.7^3.16^181 136.6 3.25 181 1500^ 138.5^3.41^181 MEAN^ 136.4^3.26^176.1 6 B Trial 2 NWR - SK VE (I/min) ^ VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm) Distance (m) ^500^ 124.3^3.87^179 126.7 3.95 179 135.4^4.00^179 131.3 3.77 180 133.5^3.83^180 135.2 3.88 180 130.1^3.84^181 128.8 3.91 181 1000^ 131.8^4.00^182 133.5 3.94 182 140.3^4.03^184 135.6 4.00 184 138.8^3.98^183 140.0 4.02 184 137.8^4.07^182 136.8 4.15 184 139.9^4.02^185 1500^ 139.3 4.11 185 MEAN^ 134.4^3.96^181.9 7 A Trial 1 WR - IM VE (I/min) ^ VO2 (1/min)^HR (bpm) Distance (m) ^500^ 129.4^2.89^173 ^ 134.2 2.99 172 132.4^2.84^173 128.3 2.76 171 131.2^2.82^173 127.2 2.73 174 127.5^2.74^174 ^1000^ 124.2 2.67 175 122.3^2.63^175 132.0 2.94 178 124.9^2.68^178 126.5 2.82 178 121.3^2.71^179 132.8 2.85 180 132.8^2.85^181 ^1500^ 125.9 2.81 182 MEAN^ 128.3^2.80^176 7 B Trial 2 NWR - IM VE (I/min) ^ VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm) Distance (m) 500^ 139.8^3.35^179 143.5 3.44 179 143.0^3.66^179 141.9 3.52 180 142.4^3.41^181 141.0 3.38 182 141.1^3.50^183 141.4 3.62 183 ^1000^ 142.3^3.53^183 141.8 3.75 185 141.9^3.63^185 145.6 3.85 185 145.9^3.62^186 140.5 3.60 187 141.4^3.62^187 142.9 3.66 186 143.6^3.56^187 ^1500^ 143.8 3.68 187 MEAN^ 142.4^3.58^183.6 8 A Trial 1 WR - KP VE (I/min) ^ VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm) Distance (m) ^500^ 124.3^3.59^172 ^ 124.9 3.60 173 117.9^3.40^172 128.9 3.72 173 125.2^3.71^174 122.4 3.73 175 124.8^3.81^175 1000^ 125.4 3.82 175 124.5^3.69^176 120.4 3.47 175 116.2^3.35^176 114.8 3.22 177 118.4^3.51^177 121.9 3.82 179 114.3^3.39^179 1500^ 127.2 3.77 178 MEAN^ 122.0^3.60^175.4 8 B Trial 2 NWR - KP VE (1/min) ^ VO2 (1/min)^HR (bpm) Distance (m) ^500^ 139.0^3.55^181 131.7 3.36 180 138.2^3.53^178 132.9 3.29 179 124.0^3.27^180 128.7 3.29 180 134.2^3.54^180 123.9 3.27 180 1000^ 133.1^3.40^180 131.2 3.46 181 141.9^3.39^182 132.9 3.29 183 129.5^3.31^182 126.6 3.34 183 138.9^3.66^184 134.8 3.44 184 1500^ 127.1^3.25^184 MEAN^ 132.3^3.39^181.2 9 A Trial 1 WR - JR VE (I/min) ^ VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm) Distance (m) ^500^ 127.0^3.78^150 ^ 123.0 3.66 151 115.7^3.63^150 125.7 3.84 153 126.4^3.76^153 122.9 3.65 149 122.5^3.64^153 121.7 3.62 154 1000^ 117.4^3.59^151 121.6 3.61 150 120.2^3.58^154 120.8 3.49 155 119.8^3.37^156 122.0 3.43 156 1500^ 123.2^3.46^151 MEAN^ 122.0^3.61^152.4 9 B Trial 2 NWR - JR VE (I/min) ^ VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm) Distance (m) ^500^ 108.7^3.50^156 102.3 3.21 159 102.5^3.30^159 98.8 3.18 166 104.1^3.44^152 105.1 3.47 151 101.9^3.45^164 105.6 3.49 163 112.4^3.62^161 1000^ 110.3 3.55 163 105.9^3.24^169 110.3 3.37 165 106.3^3.42^166 104.8 3.29 163 101.5^3.27^165 102.1 3.20 160 104.4^3.36^163 1500^ 97.5 3.14 168 MEAN^ 104.7^3.36^161.8 10 A Trial 1 WR - CS VE (I/min) ^ VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm) Distance (m) ^500^ 116.4^2.58^168 ^ 117.2 2.50 168 119.7^2.55^167 119.2 2.64 173 112.6^2.59^172 127.2 2.92 175 127.7^2.93^177 1000^ 115.8 2.47 176 127.8^2.83^179 131.0 2.79 179 125.2^2.67^177 129.1 2.75 175 129.1^2.86^176 124.8 2.66 178 129.3^3.08^179 1500^ 126.6 3.11 181 MEAN^ 123.7^2.75^175 10 B Trial 2 WR - CS VE (I/min) ^ VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm) Distance (m) ^500^ 123.0^3.23^175 127.5 3.35 174 124.6^3.17^177 131.1 3.44 178 125.6^3.50^179 125.0 3.28 178 132.3^3.36^179 135.1 3.43 179 1000^ 128.7^3.27^181 125.5 3.29 178 138.4^3.52^182 135.8 3.68 182 133.6^3.51^183 129.4 3.18 183 127.5^3.35^183 135.2 3.55 182 134.8^3.76^184 1500^ 136.2 3.46 184 MEAN^ 130.5^3.41^180.1 Appendix B (iii) Split Times (sec) and Stroke Rates (spm) MA Distance (m) WR NWR 'Splits Strk Rate^I 'Splits Strk Rate 250 64.8 90 63.3 84 500 62.6 84 66.5 94 750 64.7 78 66.4 94 1000 66.7 67.1 94 1250 64.9 84 67.1 94 1500 65.9 88 66.0 94 1750 65.5 84 67.0 90 2000 63.7 84 64.0 MEAN -Mid 1 km 64.9 83.5 66.6 94 RJC Distance (m) WR NWR 'Splits Strk Rate^I 'Splits Strk Rate^I 250 61.9 96 61.3 90 500 60.8 90 62.1 84 750 63.5 84 65.6 82 1000 65.9 84 65.9 82 1250 63.1 84 64.1 84 1500 64.1 84 63.2 82 1750 64.2 84 65.9 90 2000 64.8 82 65.0 84 MEAN - Mid 1 km 63.5 85.2 64.2 82.8 47 PG Distance (m) Split times (sec) and Stroke Rates (spm) WR^ NWR 'Splits Strk Rate^I 'Splits Strk Rate^I 250 65.5 86 64.2 96 500 62.4 86 63.7 92 750 65.4 84 65.5 86 1000 65.6 80 69.3 90 1250 67.1 86 66.4 90 1500 64.9 86 64.0 90 1750 65.7 86 66.0 90 2000 65.2 86 65.9 90 MEAN - Mid 1 km 65.1 84.4 65.8 89.6 DI Distance (m) WR NWR 'Splits Strk Rate^I 'Splits Strk Rate^I 250 67.5 72 66.8 78.0 500 64.4 78 65.6 78.0 750 68.0 72 66.1 78.0 1000 64.5 70 67.6 80.0 1250 67.4 72 64.8 80.0 1500 67.4 74 68.4 80.0 1750 64.3 72 63.8 82.0 2000 66.0 64.7 MEAN - Mid 1 km 66.4 73.2 66.5 79.7 48 Split times (sec) and Stroke Rates (spm) LJ Distance (m) WR NWR 'Splits Strk Rate^I 'Splits Strk Rate 250 66.9 88 65.1 84 500 64.8 86 69.0 84 750 65.1 84 67.5 86 1000 66.2 84 68.6 86 1250 66.4 84 68.7 90 1500 65.1 84 63.7 90 1750 66.9 84 65.2 90 2000 63.3 84 64.2 90 MEAN - Mid 1 km 65.5 84.4 67.5 88 SK Distance (m) WR NWR 'Splits Strk Rate^I 'Splits Strk Rate^I 250 58.7 96 62.8 92 500 60.8 88 64.5 88 750 64.2 88 67.6 88 1000 66.3 91 67.1 88 1250 66.2 89 66.4 90 1500 65.4 90 65.3 88 1750 66.7 86 67.6 92 2000 66.0 65.8 MEAN - Mid 1 km 64.6 89.2 66.2 89 49 Split Times (sec) and Stroke Rates (spm) IM Distance (m) WR NWR 'Splits Strk Rate^I 'Splits Strk Rate^1 250 65.3 96 64.8 92 500 62.9 90 65.0 96 750 66.1 86 65.2 84 1000 64.9 90 68.0 90 1250 66.5 86 67.9 88 1500 63.8 92 67.4 90 1750 67.3 84 65.9 90 2000 67.3 82 64.0 96 MEAN - Mid 1 km 64.8 88.8 66.7 90.6 KP Distance (m) WR NWR 'Splits Strk Rate^I 'Splits Strk Rate^I 250 62.1 96 62.8 88 500 62.1 96 63.1 88 750 63.2 96 66.0 94 1000 66.0 94 68.0 90 1250 64.5 90 65.3 90 1500 62.8 96 65.6 90 1750 62.2 66.4 94 2000 62.2 96 63.8 90 MEAN - Mid 1 km 63.7 94.4 65.6 90.9 50 Split Times (sec) and Stroke Rates (spm) JR Distance (m) WR NWR 'Splits Strk Rate^I 'Splits Strk Rate 250 65.4 88 63.0 90 500 63.1 84 66.3 84 750 65.7 84 65.7 78 1000 66.6 80 67.9 84 1250 65.2 80 67.5 84 1500 65.6 66.8 84 1750 65.3 84 65.9 84 2000 65.0 82 65.1 84 MEAN - Mid 1 km 65.2 82 66.8 83.1 CS Distance (m) WR NWR 'Splits Strk Rate 'Splits Strk Rate 250 64.8 88 67.4 86 500 61.3 84 66.9 86 750 67.8 86 84 1000 64.1 87 66.4 84 1250 67.4 88 70.7 85 1500 66.0 89 72.7 84 1750 65.9 91 70.6 85 2000 68.1 68.9 MEAN - Mid 1 km 65.3 86.8 69.2 84.7 51 APPENDIX C Cosmed K2 Validity Study 52 Appendix C (i) Cosmed K2 Validity Study - Precis In the Allan McGavin Laboratory, V02, VE and HR responses were recorded in 10 well trained athletes utulizing the Cosmed K2 and the Medical graphics 2001 exercise system during incremental maximal exercise tests performed on an electronically braked Minhart KEM 3 cycle ergometer. Validity correlation coefficients of 0.95, 0.96 and 0.97 were found for VE, V02 and HR, respectively. V02 and HR measures attained over all six stages of the exercise test showed nonsignificant differences between the two machines (Figures 1 and 3). For V02, the mean difference of measures was 0.098 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.046 51.1. 5 0.149. A difference in HR means between the two systems was 4.17 with a 95% confidence interval of 2.1565 ix 5 6.184. Although VE measures of the two systems were highly correlated, VE was found to be significantly higher with the 2001 system at Stages V and VI of the six stage exercise test (Figure 2). The difference in means of the two measurements of VE was 7.20 with a 95% confidence interval of 4.716 5 IA 5 9.684. 53 Appendix C (ii) Descriptive Data of the Subjects SUBJECT AGE HEIGHT ( cm ) WEIGHT ( kg ) 1 21 178 65 2 21 170 60 3 21 175 66 4 21 172 68 5 32 164 57 6 25 172 74 7 23 166 61 8 36 170 61 9 25 167 55 10 21 176 69 AVG. 24.6 171 63.6 SD. ±5.30 ±4.52 ±5.85 54 Appendix C (iii) Individual Results for V02, VE and HR During Both Experimental Conditons a. V02 (Vmin) vs. Workload (Watts) TEST V02 L/MIN STAGE S^u^b^i^e^c^t^8 MEAN STD 1 2 3 4 5 6  7 8,_ 9 10 2 0 01 I 40 W .98 .94 .89 .74 1.07 1.20 1.12 1.14 .99 1.16 1.02 ±.142 2 0 01 II 80 W 1.24 1.24 1.15 1.19 1.45 1.44 1.47 1.45 1.31 1.39 1.334 ± .122 2 0 01 III 120 W 1.60 1.56 1.495 1.58 1.59 1.74 1.81 1.73 1.71 1.68 1.65 ± .098 2 0 01 IV 160 W 2.03 1.90 - 1.90 2.01 1.72 2.12 2.17 2.05 2.12 2.01 2.00 ± 135. 2001 V 200 W 2.47 2.38 2.38 2.41 2.25 2.42 2.62 2.36 2.62 2.47 2.44 ± .116 2 0 01 VI 240 W 2.84 2.79 2.90 2.90 3.10 2.79 2.93 2.70 3.14 2.82 2.89 ± .137 K 2 I 40 W 1.04 .99 .90 .73 1.03 .89 .99 .82 1.02 1.09 .95 ± .114 K 2 II 80 W 1.28 1.30 1.31 1.00 1.20 1.15 1.32 1.24 1.28 1.32 1.23 ± .102 K 2 III 120 W 1.66 - 1.60 1.53 - 1.31 1.58 1.44 1.63 1.51 1.65 1.58 1.55 ± .107 K 2 I V 160 W 2.06 2.04 1.92 1.75 1.94 1.68 1.79 1.87 2.04 1.82 1.89 ± .133 'r 1( 2 V 200 W 2.57 2.47 2.46 2.12 2.62 r^2.14 1.96 2.17 2.60 2.16 2.33 ± .242 K 2 V I^' _240 W 3.14 2.93 3.03 2.71 2.90 2.53 2.28 2.71 3.08 2.74 2.80 ± .266^' b. VE (Vmin) vs. Workload (Watts) TEST VE L/MIN STAGE s^U^B^.1^E^C^T^S MEAN STD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2001 I 40 W 28.48 29.88 24.03 20.88 25.20 40.03 3753 31.23 26.30 29.13 2927 35.89 2001 11 80 W 34.88 36.43 3133 2930 33.13 40.23 45.80 41.00 32.75 32.60 35.76 3 5.11 2001 III 120 W 43.85 46.70 41.03 39.55 43.05 49.03 55.33 51.83 44.13 38.45 45.29 ± 5.43 2001 IV 160 W 55.68 59.78 5223 52.83 49.03 64.60 67.45 66.68 55.05 48.80 57.21 t 7.03 2031 V 200 W 73.68 85.95 72.05 7530 81.83 8133 83.83 85.40 83.03 60.93 7833 • 3 7.85 2001 VI 240 W 93.90 123.20 114.40 11435 12200 11730 104.45 114.68 105.03 100.63 110.99 • t 937 K2 1 40 W 29.93 31.63 2625 1838 28.45 28.23 28.85 26.40 26.67 28.93 2739 3 3.51 K2 II 80 W 34.38 41.13 32.95 24.40 33.53 36.95 38.80 35.73 33.05 33.43 34.43 t 4.45 K2 111 120 W 43.45 49.48 41.75 31.28 42.88 45.80 49.00 44.28 41.25 38.20 42.74 t 5.29 K2 IV 160 W 52.68 61.65 54.78 40.10 5.4.13 53.20 53.08 56.68 49.15 4333 51.90 ± 6.25 K2 V 200 W 6530 78.78 7458 51.43 84.85 73.20 6233 68.95 6533 53.13 67.81 ± 10.61 K2 VI 240 W 84.10 10530 10233 74.08 97.80 10153 75.08 94.25 ' 85.28 " 73.88 8938 ± 12.44 55 c. HR (bpm) vs. Workload (Watts) TEST FIR L/IAIN STAGE S^U^13^J^E^C^T^S MEAN STD 1 2 3 4 5  6 7 8 9 1 0 2001 I 40 W 137.3 104.0 107.8 96.8 106.0 118.3 124.5 119.3 114.0 116.5 114.5 i 11.6 2001 I 80W 136.5 118.8 118.5 120.5 118.5 120.5 .^. 139.3 135.0 121.3 124.5 125.3 I 8.3 2001 I 120 W 153.3 134.0 131.5 - 140.5 130.0 132.3 146.8 150.5 137.5 138.0 139.4 ± 82 -2001 IV 160 W 169.5 152.0 147.5 162.3 147.0 149.0 162.0 165.3 151.5 156.3 156.2 i 8.0 2001 V 200 W 187.0 169.3 168.3 180.7 166.8 165.5 178.0 178.8 166.3 179.3 174.0 ± 7.6 2001 VI 240 W 197..5 181.3 188.0 194.0 182.0 178.7 188.5 188.3 175.0 198.0 187.1 ± 7.9 K2 I 40 W 118.5 101.0 111.0 100.8 107.0 94.3 99.0 111.5 100.3 104.3 104.8 ± 72 K2 I 80W 138.8 118.8 126.5 116.5 116.0 107.5 120.5 125.8 112.8 113.8 119.7 t 8.9 K2 I 120 W 154.0 134.3 140.5 133.8 130.0 120.3 142.5 144.0 126.8 125.5 135.2 t 102 K2 IV 160 W 171.5 150.3 159.5 155.8 145.8 136.5 162.8 166.0 142.5 148.0 153.9 I^11.1 K2 V 200 W 189.3 165.5 178.3 178.0 164.8 154.0 179.5 179.8 161.3 170.8 172.1 ± 10.7 K2 VI 240 W 201.5 180.5 192.8 196.3 177.0 170.0 190.0 190.5 173.3 187.5 185.9 I 10.3 Appendix C (iv) 3  • 2 - v IIII1 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 WATTS Figure 2 VO2 vs. workload during a 4-minute step incremental test on cycle ergometer. 140- 7  120-c. 100 • 80 - 60- w 40- 2001 K2 20 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 WATTS 0 Figure 3^VE vs. workload during a 4-minute step incremental test on cycle ergometer. 200- 80- 160- • 140- • 120- 2001 K2 100 0^40 80 120 160 200 240 280 WATTS Figure 4^HR vs. workload during a 4- minute step incremental test on cycle ergometer. 57 APPENDIX D Kayak Velocity -Raw Data 58 Appendix D Kayak Velocity During the Two Experimental Conditions Subject Wash Riding Non-Wash Riding MA 3.85^3.75 RJC 3.93 3.89 PG 3.84^3.80 DI 3.76 3.76 LJ 3.81 3.70 SK 3.87^3.77 IM 3.85 3.74 KP 3.92^3.81 JR 3.83 3.74 CS 3.82 3.61 MEAN 3.85^3.76 SD 0.05 0.07 59

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 9 13
Canada 3 0
United States 2 1
France 1 0
Russia 1 0
Japan 1 0
City Views Downloads
Beijing 8 2
Ottawa 3 0
Unknown 2 9
Ashburn 2 0
Hangzhou 1 0
Tokyo 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items