UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Oxygen consumption during kayak paddling Gray, Georgina Louise 1992-09-16

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1992_fall_gray_georgina.pdf [ 2.47MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077099.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077099-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077099-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077099-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077099-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077099-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077099-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077099-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077099.ris

Full Text

OXYGEN CONSUMPTION DURING KAYAK PADDLING byGEORGINA LOUISE GRAYA THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF PHYSICAL EDUCATIONinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESSchool of Physical Education and RecreationWe accept this thesis as conforming to the requiredstandard:THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIASeptember 1992© Georgina Louise Gray, 1992In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of  Physical EducationThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate October 2, 1992DE-6 (2/88)ABSTRACTOver a typical 10,000 metre race, flatwater kayak paddlers frequentlyemploy a technique termed "wash riding" in an effort to reduce energyexpenditure. This technique is characterized by the kayak paddler travelling onhis competitor's wake, and at a strategic moment dropping off the wake to sprintahead. Investigations to determine actual energy expenditure during flatwaterkayak paddling during tactical manoeuvers, to date, have been inadequate. Thusthe purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of wash riding on energyexpenditure 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 designedto allow for comparison of minute ventilation (VE), oxygen consumption (V 02)and heart rate (HR) at submaximal velocities (10,000 metre "steady state" racepace). The exercise protocol consisted of a standardized warm-up, followed by a2000 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 NationalChampionship 10,000 metre race winning time. Following the first trial there wasa twenty minute rest period, which was then followed by a second trial involvingthe alternate condition. VE, V02 and HR were measured every 15 s over the full2000 metre distance during both conditions using the Cosmed K2 portabletelemetry system. Measurements recorded between the 500 and 1500 metremark were used for analysis in order to examine the effects of wash riding duringthe steady state aerobic work.A mean value of the eighteen measurements recorded for each variablebetween 500 and 1500 metres, was calculated for each subject. Statisticalanalysis of the mean values for VE, V02 , and HR was performed using theiiHotelling's T2 statistic and revealed signifcant (p < 0.05) differences between theWR 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 intervalscalculated for VE, V02 , and HR revealed that all three dependent variablescontributed to the overall significant difference.There is a considerable saving (11 %) in the energy cost of paddling at astandardized velocity utilizing the WR technique. This finding has implications forthe design of training programs and competitive strategy plans for flatwater kayakracing.111TABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACT ^  iiTABLE OF CONTENTS ^  ivLIST OF TABLES^  vLIST OF FIGURES  viACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ^  viiINTRODUCTION ^  1METHODOLOGY  7SUBJECTS  7EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES ^  7DATA COLLECTION ^  8STATISTICAL ANALYSIS  10RESULTS    11DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS ^ 11SUBJECT COMMENTS^  11VENTILATORY AND HEART RATE RESPONSES ^ 12KAYAK VELOCITY  14RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE COSMED K2 ^ 15DISCUSSION ^  17REFERENCES  22APPENDIX A - REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ^ 26APPENDIX B - DESCRIPTIVE DATA OF SUBJECTS ^ 35APPENDIX C - COSMED K2 VALIDITY STUDY ^ 52APPENDIX D - KAYAK VELOCITY RAW DATA  58LIST OF TABLESTABLE 1^ANTHROPOMETRIC AND KAYAK EQUIPMENT DATA^11TABLE 2 VE, VO2 AND HEART RATE VALUES DURING BOTHEXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS ^12TABLE 3 t - TEST FOR KAYAK VELOCITY DURING THE TWOEXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS^ 15TABLE 4^t - TEST FOR V02 (ml/kg/min) DURING THE TWOEXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS ^15LIST OF FIGURESFIGURE 1 OVERHEAD SCHEMATIC VIEW OF DIVERGENT BOWAND STERN WAVES^  3FIGURE 2 SCHEMATIC VIEW OF WASH RIDING ON A DIVERGENTBOW WAVE    4FIGURE 3 VE DURING BOTH EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS. . .  ^13FIGURE 4 V02 DURING BOTH EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS. .  ^13FIGURE 5 HR DURING BOTH EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS. . ^ 13viACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI 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, whogave so freely of his time and energy to lead the wash riding trials. I would alsolike to thank Dr. Imre Kemescey and Diana Jespersen for their invaluableassistance with the data collection. I extend my sincere appreciation to mycommittee members: Drs. Don McKenzie, Gordon Matheson, Ken Coutts andJack Taunton. I am particularly grateful to Dr. Don McKenzie for his assistanceand guidance throughout my graduate studies. I would like to acknowledge Dr.Walter Boldt for his statistical expertise and assistance. Finally, I would like tothank 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 supportand encouragement of my academic pursuits. I dedicate this work to the memoryof my father, Gilbert Gray, who shared and inspired a love for learning.viiI INTRODUCTIONElite flatwater kayak paddlers compete in three racing classes; K-1 (oneperson), 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 WorldChampionships they also race over 10,000 metres. Performance times ofapproximately 1:40, 3:30 and 42:00 minutes, respectively, have been achievedat the World Championship distances in the men's K-1 class.Flatwater kayak racing is an activity which places exceptionalphysiological demands on the upper limb and trunk musculature (Astrand et al.,1968; Seliger et al., 1969; Vrijens et al., 1975). International calibre flatwaterkayak paddlers have been found to possess high values for upper-body musclestrength, anaerobic capacity and endurance, in addition to high aerobic power(see Appendix A) (Fry et al., 1991; Tesch, 1983; Tesch et al., 1984; Thomson etal., 1978).Elite kayak paddlers have been known to do well at all three distances. In1973 at the World Championships, the Hungarian paddler Csapo won all threedistances (Tesch, 1983). It has been suggested by Fry (1991) that the successof kayak paddlers such as Csapo may be due to the fact that the difference inphysiological requirements for all three distances may be more subtle thanthose for other sports.Energy requirements for the 10,000 metre event are chiefly suppliedthrough aerobic metabolism and this race is considered to be an aerobic event(Shephard, 1987). However, tactical considerations often result in irregular andintermittent boat speeds requiring anaerobic energy sources.Forward movement of the kayak is impeded by various external factorsincluding; frictional resistance of the water, wave formation, drag and airresistance (Shephard, 1987). The boat travels at the boundary of two media1(air and water) and this boundary is continually shifting on a vertical plane(Marchaj, 1982). The frictional resistance imposed by the water is much greaterthan 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 theresistance the kayak encounters. Resistances offered by environmentalconditions are difficult, if not impossible, to alter. Strictly enforced guidelinesregarding the size, weight and physical dimensions of the kayaks haveprecluded alterations to resistance through vessel design and construction(Shephard, 1987).Although prohibited at the shorter distances, over the 10,000 metredistance, kayak paddlers frequently employ a technique termed "wash-riding"in an effort to reduce energy expenditure. This technique involves paddling onthe wake of a competitor's boat, and at a strategic moment (e.g. to either avoidbeing baulked by the waves of an opponent's boat or to sprint ahead of anopponent) 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 usedfor wash riding (Marchaj, 1982). (Figure 1) Bow waves, which consist of a seriesof short separate waves that travel at an angle of approximately 18-20 degreestangentially to the direction of the motion of the hull, are most commonly usedfor wash riding (FFCK, 1988). (Figure 2)2f/ F\ •I //^1 N.• •• •Figure 1 Overhead Schematic View of Divergent Bow and Stern WavesSternBowDirectionof MotionSternWhen the boat is travelling "on the wash" it is effectively angled forwarddown the crest of the wave, decreasing the size of the wetted area and thereforethe frictional resistance of the kayak (Marchaj, 1982). In addition, the boatreceives impetus from the (water) surface flow, which is acting in the samedirection as the forward movement of the boat (Marchaj, 1982). It is critical forthe kayak paddler to maintain the boat's position on the crest of the wave inorder to maximize the frictional and gravitational advantages afforded by the3Figure 2 Schematic View of Wash Riding on a Divergent Bow Wavewave. Additional acceleration of the forward movement of the kayak is providedby a gravity force component due to the boat's weight (Marchaj 1982).The measurement of oxygen uptake (V02) during maximal andsubmaximal exercise has proven to be the most useful method for determiningenergy expenditure or "work efficiency" because of its accurate reflection of therate of energy metabolism within the body (Astrand et al., 1961, Brooks et al.,1985; Rusko et al., 1978; Whipp et al., 1969). Oxygen uptake measurements4during kayak paddling under field conditions have primarily been made usingthe Douglas bag method to collect and subsequently analyze expired gases(Astrand et al., 1986, Seliger et al., 1969; Tesch, 1983; Tesch et al., 1976). Usedin the field setting during kayak paddling , this method imposes certainlimitations on data collection capabilities. One limitation relates to the paddlerhaving to physically open and close the valve of the Douglas bag at thebeginning and completion of a specified collection period. In order to completethis task, the kayak paddler has to stop paddling, maintain his balance, andturn the valve to the open or closed position. Another limitation is the lack oftemporal precision in measuring ventilatory variables during exerciseperformed 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 measurementswith apparatus such as the Douglas bag, a new telemetric device has beendeveloped. The Cosmed K2 is an integrated telemetric system which measuresand calculates oxygen consumption (V02), minute ventilation (VE) and heartrate (HR) at 15, 30 or 60 second intervals. The telemetric device, which isattached to the athlete's torso by a harness, is lightweight (800 grams) andallows the athlete almost complete freedom of movement.Measurement of the possible energy savings, in terms of oxygenconsumption, while riding wash, has not been determined. The purpose of thisinvestigation was to measure the energy expenditure of elite male flatwaterkayak athletes paddling at a 10,000 metre "steady-state" race pace under wash-riding and non-wash riding conditions. Specifically, the purpose was to5determine whether oxygen consumption, minute ventilation, and heart ratewould be lower during wash riding.6II METHODSSubjectsTen male kayak paddlers, all members or recent past members of theCanadian 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 atraining camp held between a pre-Olympic competition tour in Europe and theBarcelona Olympics.Permission to complete this research was obtained from the University ofBritish Columbia Clinical Screening Committee for Research and Other Studiesinvolving Human Subjects. Written consent was obtained from each subjectafter they were informed of the procedures and possible risks involved in thisstudy. All subjects were able to complete the entire study.Experimental ProceduresBoth trials of the experiment were conducted during a single session atBurnaby Lake, British Columbia. Prior to the start of the test session, ambient airtemperature, barometric pressure and wind velocity were determined. Evidenceof any measurable wind velocity precluded continuance of the test.At the start of the session, age, height, and mass measurements wereobtained and a screening history and physical examination were performed onevery 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 restperiod was provided for the athlete. The second trial used the alternate testcondition. Each subject performed the two trials using his own boat and paddle.7The "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 personused the same boat (Jaguar model) and paddle (Patassi model, right twist) forall trials in order to standardize the test conditions. The "leader" did notparticipate as a subject in the study. During the WR trial, the subjects travelledon a bow wave produced by the leader's boat. The tip of the bow of thesubject's boat, while on the leader's bow wave, was positioned at a distance ofapproximately one metre lateral and two metres behind the front of the cockpitof the leader's boat.The exercise protocol consisted of a standardized warm-up, followed bya 2000 metre work bout ("trial") with the athlete either riding wash or not ridingwash. Since wash riding is a technique used primarily during 10,000 metreraces, the pace to be maintained was set at 3.7 metres/second. This value wasestablished from an extrapolation of the 1991 Canadian Canoe AssociationNational Championship 10,000 metre race winning time.The pace of 3.7 m/sec is equivalent to "split" times of 67.5 seconds forevery 250 metres. The investigators travelled alongside the kayak paddler(s)boat(s), in a motor boat, recording time, and calling out "faster" or "slower" (asrequired) to the the subject (and leader during wash riding trials). Split timesand stroke rates were recorded every 250 metre mark along the course. Splittimes were doubly verified, taken by two individuals (in case of failure of onewatch mid-trial) in the motor boat using hand held Seiko 10 bar 100 lap/splitmemory watches.Data CollectionThe responses of oxygen consumption (V02), minute ventilation (VE),and heart rate (HR) were measured using the Cosmed K2 portable telemetry8system. Manufacturer recommendations regarding operation and calibration ofthe unit were accurately followed.The subjects were outfitted with the portable unit which consists of atransmitter, a battery, a face-mask/turbine flow meter assemby and a belt ECGmonitor. The transmitter contains the electronic circuits, the expiratory gassampling pump, the dynamic microchamber, the oxygen analyzer, the heart ratemonitor and the radio transmitter. The transmitter and battery were connected toa harness (worn by the subject) by way of two Velcro retaining plates locatednext to the subject's chest and back.The face-mask/turbine unit worn by the subject was attached to the headby way of an elastic harness. The face-mask was attached to the photoelectricturbine. The sampling capillary tube was inserted into the turbine housing andthen, along with the wire from the turbine, connected to the transmitter. Thetransmitter sent air flow data measured by the turbine, expired oxygenconcentration measured by the 02 electrode, and HR obtained from the ECG, tothe receiver unit. The receiver unit was kept within 600 metres (the maximumrange of the system) at all times during the trials. An assistant to the investigatorcarried the receiver unit in the motor boat which followed alongside the kayakpaddlers.Continuous 15 second samples of VE, V02, and HR were recorded overthe full 2000 metres. Only the samples recorded between the 500 and 1500metre mark were used for analysis in order to examine the effects of wash ridingduring steady state aerobic work. VE, V02 and HR data were provided by thereceiver every 15 seconds, in both LED and paper form. This information waslater down-loaded to a portable computer in the laboratory for subsequent dataanalysis.9Recalibration of the Cosmed K2 was completed at the end of each trialand the rechargeable battery was replaced as required. One trial was restartedafter battery failure occurred during the first 500 meters of his non-wash ridingtrial. The athlete was allowed a ten minute rest and the trial was begun againwith a newly charged battery.Statistical AnalysisThe statistical analysis used to investigate the effect of "wash-riding" onVE, V02 and HR was the Hotelling's T 2 statistic performed using BMDP:3Dstatistical software (UCLA, 1988) with the level of significance set a priori atp < 0.05. The mean value of the eighteen 15-second samples collected via theCosmed K2 telemetry unit between the 500 and 1500 metre mark of the 2000metre trial distance were calculated for VE, V02, and HR for each subject underboth conditions. Hotelling's T2 statistic for dependent samples was used tocompare means of VE, V02, and HR between wash-riding and non-wash-riding conditions. This analysis was followed by calculation of confidenceintervals.Mean velocity was determined for each subject, for both wash riding andnon-wash riding trials, based on time recorded over distance. Group means andstandard deviations were calculated and differences between means wereanalyzed by use of a paired t- test.10Table 1. Anthropometric and Kayak Equipment DataAge(yrs)Ht(cm)Mass(kg)21 185 79.523 186.5 89.922 190 86.237 188 8724 182 90.520 178 7922 178 7224 187 86.222 183 8738 178 77.325.0 183.6 83.9SubjectMARJCR3DILJSKIMKPJRCSMEANSD^6.5^4.5^6.1I ModelPatassiPatassiPatassiShawPatassiPatassiSwissPatassiPatassiPatassiTwist^IRightLeftRightLeftLeftLeftRightLeftLeftLeftKayak PaddleI^Model^ICleaverVanDusenVanDusenJaguarVanDusenJaguarKirton TigerCleaver XCleaver XOrionSyrangiIll RESULTSDescription of Experimental SubjectsAnthropometric and kayaking equipment data is provided in Table 1.A summary of the mean values, as well as each subject's raw data, ofventilatory and heart rate responses during the two experimental conditions isfound in Appendix B.Subject CommentsAll subjects reported that the K2 equipment did not interfere with theirkayak paddling. Many of the subjects complained of discomfort on the bridge ofthe nose secondary to the airtight application of the face mask.Some of the more experienced kayak paddlers found the wash ridingtrial difficult. They felt that the pace was too slow to "comfortably" ride the wash.11Table 2.^VE, V02 and Heart Rate Values during bothexperimental conditions (Mean ±. SD)Wash-Riding Non-Wash-Riding X Diff.^%,6.VE(I/min.) 113 ± 16.5 126.3 ± 15.7 -12.9± 16.7^9.8V02(1/min.) 3.22 ±^0.32 3.63 ±^0.3 -0.41 ±^0.4^11.0HR(bpm) 167 ±^9.9 175 ±^8.0 -8.0^±^3.0^4.8Two 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" thanthe non-wash riding trial.Ventilatory and Heart Rate ResponsesThe group means and mean differences for VE, V02 and HR during bothexperimental conditions are shown in Table 2. Figures 3, 4 and 5 present themean 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 wasfound to decrease. (Figure 3) V02 also increased (0.22 and 0.24 I/min) for twosubjects (KP and JR, respectively) while the others showed a decrease. (Figure4) All subjects demonstrated a decrease in HR during the wash riding trial.(Figure 5)12185180175170165160155150145Figure 3 VE During Both Experimental Conditions160.0150.0140.0""E  130.0Z. 120.0u.1 110.0100.090.0080.00— - -MA- -RJC- -x- - pG- - +- - DI- LJ- S--SK- IM- KP-A -JR-0- -CS WASH RIDE^ NON WASH RIDEFigure 4 V02 During Both Experimental Conditions5.55.04.5= 4.0E 3.5oe'l 3.02.52.01.500— - - MA- - RJCx -DI -^  LJ- a - SK- - -- IM— -- KP- JR- A - CS- 0 - PG............  WASH RIDE^NON WASH RIDEFigure 5 HR During Both Experimental Conditions- RJC- FG--x- - DI- +- LJ- - SK-411-- - KP—4,-- JR--A- CSWASH RIDE^ NON WASH RIDE13The dependent sample Hotelling's T2 statistic revealed a value of184.45; an associated F value of 47.83, with degrees of freedom 3 and 7, andp-value of 0.000. With p < 0.05, it is possible to reject the null hypothesis andstate that there is a significant difference in VE, V02, and heart rate betweenwash riding and non-wash riding trials.Confidence intervals were calculated as a post hoc test of themultivariate process (Huck, 1974). For VE, the mean difference of measureswas -12.9 with a 95% confidence interval of -24.77 5 [tD i 5 -0.93. The meandifference 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 thatall three dependent variables contributed to the overall significant difference(Huck, 1974).Kayak VelocityIndividual mean velocities of the kayak during the two trials can be foundin Appendix D. Maintaining consistent kayak velocity during the two trials wassometimes difficult for the kayak paddlers. Overall, the athletes tended to travelfaster during the wash riding trial, with a mean velocity of 3.84 ± 0.05 m/seccompared to 3.75 ± 0.07 m/sec during the non-wash riding trial. Differencesbetween means were analyzed by use of a paired t- test . (Table 3)14Table 3.^t -Test for Kayak Velocity (m/sec)during the Two Experimental Conditions.Condition^X^SD^tWash Riding^3.84^0.055.079*Non-Wash^3.75^0.07Riding*significant at p < 0.05"Economy" is defined as the submaximal oxygen consumption per unitbody 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 significantdifference 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^tWash Riding^38.46^2.59-3.31 8*Non-Wash^43.64^4.68Riding*significant at p < 0.05Reliability and Validity of the Cosmed K2The reliability and/or validity of the Cosmed K2 system have beenanalyzed by both the Allan McGavin Sports Medicine Centre ExercisePhysiology Division and the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) SportsScience Division.15In the Allan McGavin laboratory, the Cosmed K2 was found to be a validinstrument in comparison to the Medical Graphics 2001 system, for measuringV02, VE, and HR responses. (Appendix C). Validity correlation coefficients of0.95, 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 instrumentwhen compared to the Douglas bag method (Lucia, 1992).16IV DISCUSSIONThis is the first study to examine the physiologic response to wash ridingin elite flatwater kayak paddlers. In the present study, highly trained kayakpaddlers were studied during on-water, steady state kayak paddling toinvestigate the influence of wash riding on energy expenditure. The exercisetest was designed to allow for comparison of VE, V02 and HR at identicalsubmaximal velocities during wash riding and non-wash riding conditions. Theresults showed that there was a signifcant decrease in energy consumptionduring wash riding when compared to non-wash riding, as indicated by adecrease 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 reductionin respiratory frequency rather than a change in tidal volume. This decrease inVE indicates a reduction in the stimulus to breathe indicating that there is lessneed for ventilation to supply the muscle oxygen needs. This finding issupported by the V02 data which demonstrates a parallel decrease (11.0%) inV02 during the WR trial. Thus, during WR the athletes are working at a lowerpercentage of their VO2max • The velocity actually increased (2.5%) in the WRtrial, yet overall, the oxygen demand remained decreased. Therefore the energycost of WR, based on the V02 data, indicates (and perhaps evenunderestimates) a significant savings. The advantages of working at a lowerpercentage of VO2max include; decreasing the demands on the oxygentransport 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/orgreater velocity at a lower physiological cost.17In contrast to the overall mean decrease in VE and V02 during WR, onesubject demonstrated an increase in both variables, and two other subjectsdemonstrated an increase in one of either VE or V02. All subjects experienceda decrease in HR. It is difficult to explain definitively why there would be anincrease in one or both of VE and V02 with a concomitant decrease in HR.Overall, the WR trial was more economical, as indicated by comparisonof the mean values of V02 (calculated in ml/kg/min) which were significantlylower when compared to the NWR trial values. Examination of the individualdata reveals WR was less economical for the two subjects whose V02 waselevated compared to the NWR trial.It is interesting to note, that while the kayak velocity increasedsignificantly during the WR trial, the stroke rate (paddle revolutions per minute)of the paddlers did not significantly increase. This indicates that there was likelya change in the stroke mechanics employed by the paddlers (e.g. the actualpulling phase of the stroke may have been shorter). Verification of any changesin the stroke mechanics is not possible as the trials were not recorded on videotape.Few studies have examined actual energy expenditure during activitieswhich, like kayak paddling, require tactical manouevers and/or varying rates ofspeed. McCole et al. (1990), examined the effects of drafting during cycling onenergy expenditure (V02) in 28 male competitive cyclists at speeds similar tothose encountered in competitive events (32-40 km/h). They examined draftingsingle as well as multiple riders, drafting vehicles, and altering theaerodynamics 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 anaerodynamic bicycle lowered V02 by 7%.18In the present study, the mean VE for five of the subjects who werepreviously tested in the laboratory on the kayak ergometer during a maximalexercise test (four minutes, maximum intensity) was 181.8 I/min, compared to106.82 and 123.74 I/min (WR and NWR, respectively), indicating that both trialswere performed at a submaximal level (McKenzie, unpublished data). Thisfinding is supported by measurements obtained on V02 for the same fivesubjects who performed the same tests; 5.26 I/min compared to 3.28 and 3.58l/min for the WR and NWR trials, respectively. Thus, 10,000 metre, steady-statekayak racing represents a submaximal work. The difference between WR andNWR, expressed as a percentage of VO2max in these subjects is 6% which maybe sufficient to influence performance outcome. However, the comparison ofVO2max data collected in the laboratory to data collected in a field situation maynot be valid.Heart rate was the one variable that consistently, and significantly,reduced ( 4.8%) during WR when compared to NWR. Once again, this reflectsthe reduced metabolic demand during the WR trial. For four of the athletesexamined in this study, as well as previously under maximal conditions in thelaboratory, the HR values for WR and NWR, expressed as a percentage ofmaximum were 10% and 5% lower, respectively (McKenzie, unpublished data).The significant difference in kayak velocity between the two trials isunfortunate but should not adversely affect the results of the study. The fact thatthere 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 greatersupport to the use of wash riding as an energy saving technique.The K2 apparatus worn by the athletes during this study did not interferewith the athletes' ability to kayak paddle and the integrated telemetric systemprovided fifteen second interval measures of VE, V02, and HR. Both of these19factors suggest that the K2 is an easier and more effective device for measuringventilatory and heart rate variables in the field setting, compared with theDouglas bag method.The athletes who showed the greatest reduction in V02 during the washriding trial, in terms of the ventilatory and heart rate responses, were the sameathletes who are considered to be the most proficient at wash riding (personalcommunication, Canadian National Kayak Coach). Wash riding is an acquiredskill and as such requires instruction and practice (FFCK, 1988). The degree towhich a coach and/or athlete incorporates wash riding into a training program ishighly 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 thetop 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/ormanoeuver to stay on the wash which effectively negated any advantage theymight gain. Two of the athletes who described difficulties riding the wash werethe same athletes who had higher VE and/or V02 values during the wash ridingtrial.In summary, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects ofwash riding on energy expenditure in 10 elite male flatwater kayak paddlerswhile kayak paddling under WR and NWR conditions. The results showed thatthere is a considerable savings (11 %) in the energy cost of paddling at astandardized velocity utilizing the WR technique. This finding has implications20for the design of training programs and competitive strategy plans for flatwaterkayak racing.21REFERENCE LISTAsmussen E., Hemmingsen I.: Determination of maximum workingcapacity 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 typesof muscular activity. J Appl Physiol (1961) 16(6):977-981.Bergh U., Kanstrup I-L., Ekblom B.: Maximal oxygen uptake during exercisewith 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. ConductCritique and Utilization. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1987.Cavanagh P.R., Kram R.: The efficiency of human movement - a statement ofthe problem. Med Sci Sports Exerc (1985) 17(3): 304-308.Cermak J., Kuta I., Parizkova J.: Some predispositions for top performancein speed canoeing and their changes during the whole year trainingprogram. J Sports Med (1975) 15: 243-251.Dal Monte A., Leonardi L.M.: Functional evaluation of kayak paddlers frombiomechanical and physiological viewpoints. In: Biomechanics VB, Edby 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, 1981.22Federation Francais de Canoe/Kayak (FFCK): Canoe/Kayak. 1988.Fry R.W., Morton A.R.: Physiological and kinanthropometric attributes of eliteflatwater 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.: Enzymeactivity and fiber composition in skeletal muscle of untrained and trainedmen. 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: GranadaPublishing, 1982.Matthews J.I., Bush B.A., Morales F.M.: Microprocessor Exercise PhysiologySystems 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.: EnergyExpenditure During Bicyling. J Appl Physiol (1990) 68(2):748-753.23Rusko 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 expenditureduring 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 threephases of the yearly training cycle. Masters thesis. University ofWestern 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 ApplSport Sci (1983) 8(2):87-91.Tesch P.A., Karlsson J.: Muscle metabolite accumulation followingmaximal exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol (1984) 52:243-246.Tesch P.A., Lindeberg S.: Blood lactate accumulation during arm exercisein world class kayak paddlers and strength trained athletes. Eur J ApplPhysiol (1984) 52: 441-445.Tesch P., Piehl K., Wilson G., Karlsson J.: Physiological investigations ofSwedish elite canoe competitors. Med Sci Sports (1976) 8:214-218.Thomson J.M., Scrutton E.W.: Physiologic adaptation to long-term upper-bodywork. Can J Appl Spt Sci (1978) 3:103-108.24Vrijens J., Hoekstra P., Bouckaert J., Van Uytvanck P.: Effects of training onmaximal working capacity and haemodynamic response during arm andleg-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):644-648.25APPENDIX AReview of Literature26Review of LiteraturePhysiologic Profile of the elite male kayak paddlerThe physiology of elite flatwater kayak paddlers has been studied byseveral investigators over the last few decades, in both the laboratory and fieldsettings. (Dal Monte et al., 1976; Fry et al., 1991; Logan et al., 1985; Seliger etal., 1969; Shepard, 1987; Telford, 1980; Tesch, 1983; Tesch et al., 1984; Teschet al., 1984; Tesch et at 1976; Thomson et al., 1978; Vrijens et al., 1975). Thefollowing will provide a summary of the physiologic attributes of elite male kayakpaddlers described, to date.Height and Body MassTable 1 provides a summary of the mean height and body mass values ofelite 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 skinfoldmeasurements in kayak paddlers, bodybuilders, water-skiers and non-athletes.Body fat percentage in the paddlers was predicted to be 6% (± 2) which wassignificantly lower than that found in the non-athletes (9% ± 3) but higher thanthat observed in the bodybuilders (4% ±1). In another study reported one yearlater, 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 signifcantlylower percentage of body fat (4.3 ± 1.5) than all groups and that kayak paddlerswere 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 tocalculate adipose composition of kayak paddlers. He found that higher levels ofbody fat were associated with increasingly poorer performances at longer racedistances.27TABLE 1. Height and Body Mass Values of Kayakers.Reference Height (cm) Mass (kg)Cermak (1975) 179 75.5Dal Monte & Leonardi (1976) 180 79.7Fry (1991) 179 81Seliger (1968) 178 76.2Tesch (1983) 185 80Tesch & Karlsson (1984) 183 75Tesch & Lindeberg (1984) 186.2 82.4Tesch, Piehl et al (1976) - 78Thomson (1978) 75.3Vrijens (1974) 178.7 77.6Aerobic performance testsInvestigations of the aerobic performance of elite kayakers have beenconducted in both the laboratory and field settings. Several investigators havechosen both the traditional "total body" methods of evaluation (treadmill orbicycle ergometry) as well as sport-specific performance tests (kayak ergometryand/or actual on-water paddling). (Table 2)An important determinant of the maximal oxygen uptake is the mass ofmuscle 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 hasbeen shown to result in a higher level of oxygen uptake when compared toexercise 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 kayakpaddling, work primarily involves the muscles of the back, shoulders, and arms,therefore, it is not surprising that kayak paddlers have been shown todemonstrate lower oxygen consumption during paddling compared withtreadmill 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; Teschet al., 1984; Tesch et al., 1984; Tesch et al 1976), the V02 attained during thearm exercise tests were between 78% and 88% of V02 attained during thetreadmill 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^ARMSReference^Test^VO2^VE^HR^VO2^VE^HR^% LegDal Monte & Leonardi (1976) Kayak erg. 3.36 144.2 187Fry (1991) Kayak erg. 4.78 124.9 178.8McKenzie (1991) Kayak erg. 5.13 182 186.5Tesch (1983) Treadmill 5.36 195Mech. brakederg.4.3 190Tesch & Karlsson (1984) Treadmill 53Mech. brakederg.4.5Tesch & Lindeberg (1984) Treadmill 5.4Tesch, Piehl et al (1976) Treadmill 5.4Mech. brakederg.4.6Thomson (1978) Treadmill 4.6 173 186Kayak erg. 3.4 129 176Vrijens (1974) Bicycle erg. 4.42 128 183Kayak erg. 3.91 115 181N/AN/AN/A80%85%N/A85%74%88%Vrijens et al. (1975), looked specifically at the maximal oxygen uptakeand circulatory adaptations to training with arms versus legs by comparingathletes who primarily train with their arms (paddlers) and a control group (non-paddlers). Five elite Belgian paddlers were compared to a control group of ninephysical education students (4 team sport participants, 3 runners and 2swimmers). Both groups performed two maximal work tests (progressiveresistance tests), one on a bicycle ergometer and the other on an armergometer. Oxygen consumption was determined utilizing the Douglas bagmethod and heart rate was recorded continuously with a telemetric device.29In the group of paddlers, maximal oxygen uptake and workload during the armexercise resulted in 88% and 80% of the scores obtained in the leg exercise. Inthe control group, the differences were 81% and 65%. Vrijens concluded thatthe data illustrate the importance of measuring total muscle mass involved inthe work, and that the difference in results (between groups) could be explainedby changes in regional blood flow and adaptation of size and fiber compositionof muscle groups in response to training.Many investigators agree that specificity of testing is required in order toproperly 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 simulatepaddling 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 uptakevalue of 5.13 1/min in a group of four elite male Canadian kayak paddlers testedon a kayak air braked ergometer, paddling at a simulated 1000 metre racepace. Fry (1991 ) reported an oxygen uptake value of 4.78 1/min. in seven elitemale Australian kayak paddlers, also using the air braked ergometer. All of thefield studies to date (Table 3) have been completed utilizing the Douglas bagmethod of expired gas collection to evaluate oxygen consumption while kayakpaddling (Seliger et al., 1969; Tesch, 1983; Tesch et al., 1984; Tesch et al,1976).Seliger (1969), investigated energy expenditure in thirteen highperformance Czechoslovakian paddlers, kayaking over 500 metres at a speedof 4.16 m/second. The oxygen consumption averaged 2.9 1/min, VE 111.4 l/minand maximum HR 176 beats per minute. In comparing the speeds attained inthe "experimental" race with those of an actual race Seliger found that theformer amounted to 90% of the latter. He concluded that when evaluating theresults of this study, the fact that the subjects were not putting up an actualracing performance during the experimental race, must be taken intoconsideration.In two of Tesch's studies, paddlers were evaluated for oxygenconsumption while kayak paddling on the water. Tesch et al. (1976), tested thesubjects under simulated racing conditions at the three international distances.The 500 metre distance was completed in two minutes with a V02 of 4.030TABLE 3. Values of V02 (L min -1 ), VE (L min-1 ) and HR (bpm) recorded duringpaddling.ReferenceSeliger (1968)Tesch (1983)Tesch & Karlsson(1984)Tesch, Piehl et al(1976)Test^V02^VE^HR500 m.^2.9^111.4^1766 mins. MI* 4.67 1926 mins. MA.* 4.7500 m.**^4.21,000 m.**^4.710,000 m.** 4.5% Leg V02N/A87%88%78%87%83%* M.I.. maximum intensity**Simulated race conditionsI/minute. The average V02 over the 1,000 metres (completed in 4 minutes) was4.7 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 peakoxygen uptake (4.2 I/min) which the authors speculate to be due to the shorterwork time. Oxygen uptake was shown to increase when the athletes performedagainst the wind, which prolonged the work period, compared to races undernormal conditions.In 1983, maximal oxygen uptake and heart rate was recorded by Teschin five Swedish athletes while treadmill running, arm cranking on an air brakedergometer 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 EnduranceAnother critical factor in performance testing is examination of musclestrength and endurance. Isokinetic muscular strength and endurance havebeen found to be greater in elite kayak paddlers when compared to otherathletes (Fry et al., 1991; Tesch, 1983). Tesch (1983) measured shoulderextensor strength and endurance in six elite Swedish kayak paddlers using theCybex II Isokinetic dynamometer and compared them to bodybuilders,waterskiers and non-athletes (fighter pilots). For the assessment of strength, thesubjects were tested for maximal isometric strength at 120 ° and peak torque31during maximal isokinetic shoulder extension (0 - 180 °) performed at 15, 60 and180°/second. No statistically significant differences were noted among thedifferent categories of athletes when comparing the values for isometric strengthand peak torque at the various joint velocities. To study muscle fatigue andpower characteristics, fifty consecutive, maximal voluntary contractions wereperformed at an angular velocity of 180 °/second. The "fatigue index" or muscleendurance 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 kayakpaddlers when compared to the waterskiers. Average peak torque wascalculated from the peak torque values recorded for each of the fifty contractionsand was found to be greatest in kayakers.Fry (1991) compared "selected" kayak paddlers (those who achieved atop four position in the performance of 500, 1000, 10,000 and 42,000 metreraces) (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 todetermine strength, power and muscular endurance during a simulated kayakstroke. lsokinetic peak torque was measured at speeds of 30 °/sec. and120°/second. Strength, power and muscular endurance were all found to besignificantly greater ( p < 0.01) in selected kayakers.Muscle Fibre TypeThe deltoid muscle has frequently been chosen for biopsies as it is oneof the principle muscles used during kayak paddling and is relatively easy tosample (Logan et al., 1985; Tesch et al., 1976). Tesch et al., (1976) examinedmuscle fibre composition of the deltoid muscle in nine former elite Swedishpaddlers. Most paddlers successful at the 500 metre races had a highproportion of fast twitch (FT) fibres (52-59% FT), at the 1000 metres a morevaried composition (26-59% FT) and a relatively low percentage of FT insuccessful 10,000 metre competitors (26 - 52% FT). Tesch did note that oneathlete 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.32Muscle Glycogen ContentThe glycogen content of the deltoid muscle has been examined by Teschet al., (1983) before and after maximal 2 minute and 45 minute poolexperiments (the kayak was in a fixed position in the pool) as well as in regularcompetition before and after a 10,000 metre race. Selective glycogen depletionwas examined following a 10,000 metre race after which subjects demonstratedthat 80% of their slow twitch (ST) fibres and 10% of their fast twitch (FT) fibreswere almost completely emptied or completely emptied of their glycogencontent.Blood Lactate LevelsBlood lactate levels have been found to be slightly lower in paddlers afterarm exercise (kayak ergometry and/or paddling) when compared to treadmillrunning. 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, armcranking and kayak paddling, respectively. It has been suggested that thelower values seen during arm exercise can be attributed mainly to the smallermuscle mass involved and the less well trained state of muscles whencompared to leg exercise (Tesch et al., 1976).Tesch and Lindebergh (1984) examined blood lactate accumulationduring arm exercise comparing elite kayak paddlers to weight/power lifters,bodybuilders and non-athletes. A continuous, progressive intensity, armcranking exercise was performed by all subjects with blood samples takenfollowing the completion of each work load. Blood lactate concentration wasfound to be significantly lower through all power output levels in male kayakpaddlers. Upper-body muscle mass, however, was significantly greater in theweight-lifters and bodybuilders in comparison to the kayak paddlers. Teschsuggests that these results support the concept that peripheral adaptationsassociated 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 lactateconcentrations which were comparable after 500 and 1000 metre races . Bloodlactates after 500 metre races averaged 13.2 ± 1.2 mmol / -1 , after 1000 metreraces 12.9 ± 1.1 mmol / -1 , and after 10,000 metre races 10.2 ± 1.4 mmol / -1 .33SummaryThis review suggests that the successful kayak paddler tends to be alarge individual with a relatively low percentage of body fat, and a high level ofaerobic fitness, upper body muscular strength and endurance.34APPENDIX BDescriptive Data of Subjects35Subject^VEIVVR NWR^A *MA 98.4 145.5 -47.1RJC 123 141 -18.4FG 96 109.1 -13.1DI 91.3 105.4 -14.1LJ 94.7 118.5 -23.8SK 136 134.3 02.0IM 128 142.4 -14.1KP 122 132.2 -10.3JR 122 104.6 17.3CS 124 130.5 -06.9MEAN 113 126.3 -12.9SD 16.5 15.72 16.7Appendix B(i)Summary of VE, V02 and HR During the Two Experimental Conditions (Mean + SD)* WR vs NWR** % WR < NWRV02 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 -7.01.0 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 -4.016.0 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 -4.8012.8 0.32 0.3 00.4 10.6 9.94 8.07 3 1.6236Appendix B(ii)Summary of Individual Subject Data1 A Trial 1 WR - MAVE (I/min)^VO2 (1/min)^HR (bpm)Distance (m)^500^ 97.6^2.98^163^107.6 3.29 164111.2^3.40^16495.6 2.76 16498.6^2.85^163104.3 3.10 16496.3^2.39^16197.3 2.65 1641000^ 99.4^2.79^16493.9 2.79 16292.4^2.90^16398.1 2.92 16494.7^2.89^16490.4 2.69 168101.3^2.93^1671500^ 96.6 2.87 165MEAN^ 98.5^2.89^1641B Trial 2 NWR - MAVE (I/min)^VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm)Distance (m)^500^ 136.0^3.26^170139.7 3.46 172140.4^3.48^171139.6 3.46 174145.1^3.48^1741000^ 139.6 3.23 173144.8^3.23^175143.6 3.44 175151.2^3.75^173147.1 3.52 179147.4^3.53^177148.5 3.44 178147.4^3.53^179143.8 3.45 1791500^ 153.0^3.67^180148.7 3.44 179151.1^3.37^180151.8 3.39 179MEAN^ 145.5^3.45^175.92 A Trial 1 NWR - RJCVE (I/min)^VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm)Distance (m)^500^ 155.8^3.47^168^139.3 3.33 165139.7^3.45^169141.5 3.27 166142.6^3.17^162134.4 3.21 164138.9^3.21^1651000^ 132.3 3.38 168137.8^3.29^173140.0 3.23 175142.0^3.39^177146.3 3.50 177140.4^3.36^176133.1 3.18 1791500^ 149.6^3.45^181MEAN^ 140.9^3.33^1712 B Trial 2 WR - RJCVE (I/min)^VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm)Distance (m)^500^ 131.8^3.48^163130.3 3.22 162128.6^3.18^158118.9 3.14 158125.0^3.40^158122.0 3.12 160122.2^3.02^157121.9 3.01 1591000^ 115.8^3.05^157118.3 3.12 161116.2^3.06^160120.7 3.08 164117.3^3.00^166123.3 3.35 168128.6^3.39^170129.5 3.20 1681500^ 114.9^3.03^169MEAN^ 122.7^3.17^162.23A Trial 1 NWR - PG VE (I/min)^VO2 (1/min)^HR (bpm)Distance (m)^500^ 122.9^4.16^175^115.3 4.00 175116.7^4.34^175113.6 4.22 175110.0^4.18^174104.5 4.06 174103.5^3.93^173106.5 4.05 174102.6^3.90^1741000^ 103.6 3.94 175104.7^3.98^175108.8 4.14 172106.4^3.96^179108.5 4.12 180108.6^4.13^181110.8 4.21 1811500^ 108.8^4.05^181MEAN^ 109.2^4.08^176.13B Trial 2 WR - PG VE (I/min)^VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm)Distance (m)^500^ 105.2^3.48^171107.2 3.54 172101.7^3.53^169101.3 3.52 169102.0^3.54^171103.0 3.49 172103.7^3.60^17299.7 3.46 17289.9^3.27^1721000^ 96.4 3.50 17289.5^3.18^17091.2 3.31 17087.4^3.25^17088.8 3.30 17088.6^3.29^16889.2 3.24 17091.9^3.34^1731500^ 92.5 3.29 173MEAN^ 96.1^3.40^170.94 A Trial 1 WR - DIVE (I/min)^VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm)Distance (m)^500^ 89.8^3.17^93.1 3.2892.8^3.2793.4 3.29^16994.9^3.35 16889.1 3.22^1681000^ 90.5^3.41 16891.5 3.45^17092.2^3.48 17089.8 3.46^16987.0^3.42 16889.9 3.54^16892.6^3.65 16691.6 3.68^1661500^ 90.9^3.58 170MEAN^ 91.3^3.42^168.34 B Trial 2 NWR - DIVE (I/min)^VO2 (1/min)^HR (bpm)Distance (m)^500^ 101.9^3.93^174104.8 3.95 17596.3^3.79^174103.6 4.08 175101.8^4.17^17497.8 3.77 178104.5^3.94^178102.3 4.19 1761000^ 107.0^4.12^178103.2 4.06 179114.5^4.32^179108.5 4.00 179104.8^3.78^177105.3 3.89 177108.4^4.18^176114.0 4.39 1761500^ 112.6^4.25^178MEAN^ 105.4^4.05^176.65A Trial 1 WR - LJVE (I/min)^VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm)Distance (m)^500^ 93.6^3.39^146^94.3 3.42 14791.0^3.30^14692.6 3.36 14591.3^3.31^14898.8 3.42 14891.9^3.26^15198.9 3.50 1511000^ 93.8^3.40^15092.5 3.35 150100.9^3.58^14994.4 3.35 14896.1^3.41^15093.9 3.40 15394.4^3.35^15191.1 3.23 15192.6^3.36^1521500^ 103.6 3.76 149MEAN^ 94.8^3.40^149.25 B Trial 2 NWR - LJVE (I/min)^VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm)Distance (m)^500^ 107.8^3.29^154110.3 3.55 154113.8^3.66^154110.6 3.65 154111.7^3.50^156121.2 3.80 159126.4^3.96^1601000^ 127.7 3.79 160114.0^3.29^161124.3 3.89 162115.4^3.42^161124.3 3.79 162117.5^3.68^165128.4 4.13 1691500^ 125.0^4.02^170MEAN^ 118.6^3.69^160.16 A Trial 1 WR - SKVE (I/min)^VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm)Distance (m)^500^ 134.2^3.19^175^145.4 3.34 175135.4^3.22^174141.2 3.36 175141.8^3.26^174139.5 3.32 174139.1^3.31^1721000^ 131.6 3.13 171130.5^3.10^174132.6 3.15 175128.1^3.05^177137.8 3.39 178136.6^3.36^178136.6 3.36 179132.7^3.16^181136.6 3.25 1811500^ 138.5^3.41^181MEAN^ 136.4^3.26^176.16 B Trial 2 NWR - SKVE (I/min)^VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm)Distance (m)^500^ 124.3^3.87^179126.7 3.95 179135.4^4.00^179131.3 3.77 180133.5^3.83^180135.2 3.88 180130.1^3.84^181128.8 3.91 1811000^ 131.8^4.00^182133.5 3.94 182140.3^4.03^184135.6 4.00 184138.8^3.98^183140.0 4.02 184137.8^4.07^182136.8 4.15 184139.9^4.02^1851500^ 139.3 4.11 185MEAN^ 134.4^3.96^181.97 A Trial 1 WR - IMVE (I/min)^VO2 (1/min)^HR (bpm)Distance (m)^500^ 129.4^2.89^173^134.2 2.99 172132.4^2.84^173128.3 2.76 171131.2^2.82^173127.2 2.73 174127.5^2.74^174^1000^ 124.2 2.67 175122.3^2.63^175132.0 2.94 178124.9^2.68^178126.5 2.82 178121.3^2.71^179132.8 2.85 180132.8^2.85^181^1500^ 125.9 2.81 182MEAN^ 128.3^2.80^1767 B Trial 2 NWR - IMVE (I/min)^VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm)Distance (m)500^ 139.8^3.35^179143.5 3.44 179143.0^3.66^179141.9 3.52 180142.4^3.41^181141.0 3.38 182141.1^3.50^183141.4 3.62 183^1000^ 142.3^3.53^183141.8 3.75 185141.9^3.63^185145.6 3.85 185145.9^3.62^186140.5 3.60 187141.4^3.62^187142.9 3.66 186143.6^3.56^187^1500^ 143.8 3.68 187MEAN^ 142.4^3.58^183.68 A Trial 1 WR - KPVE (I/min)^VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm)Distance (m)^500^ 124.3^3.59^172^124.9 3.60 173117.9^3.40^172128.9 3.72 173125.2^3.71^174122.4 3.73 175124.8^3.81^1751000^ 125.4 3.82 175124.5^3.69^176120.4 3.47 175116.2^3.35^176114.8 3.22 177118.4^3.51^177121.9 3.82 179114.3^3.39^1791500^ 127.2 3.77 178MEAN^ 122.0^3.60^175.48 B Trial 2 NWR - KPVE (1/min)^VO2 (1/min)^HR (bpm)Distance (m)^500^ 139.0^3.55^181131.7 3.36 180138.2^3.53^178132.9 3.29 179124.0^3.27^180128.7 3.29 180134.2^3.54^180123.9 3.27 1801000^ 133.1^3.40^180131.2 3.46 181141.9^3.39^182132.9 3.29 183129.5^3.31^182126.6 3.34 183138.9^3.66^184134.8 3.44 1841500^ 127.1^3.25^184MEAN^ 132.3^3.39^181.29 A Trial 1 WR - JRVE (I/min)^VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm)Distance (m)^500^ 127.0^3.78^150^123.0 3.66 151115.7^3.63^150125.7 3.84 153126.4^3.76^153122.9 3.65 149122.5^3.64^153121.7 3.62 1541000^ 117.4^3.59^151121.6 3.61 150120.2^3.58^154120.8 3.49 155119.8^3.37^156122.0 3.43 1561500^ 123.2^3.46^151MEAN^ 122.0^3.61^152.49 B Trial 2 NWR - JRVE (I/min)^VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm)Distance (m)^500^ 108.7^3.50^156102.3 3.21 159102.5^3.30^15998.8 3.18 166104.1^3.44^152105.1 3.47 151101.9^3.45^164105.6 3.49 163112.4^3.62^1611000^ 110.3 3.55 163105.9^3.24^169110.3 3.37 165106.3^3.42^166104.8 3.29 163101.5^3.27^165102.1 3.20 160104.4^3.36^1631500^ 97.5 3.14 168MEAN^ 104.7^3.36^161.810 A Trial 1 WR - CSVE (I/min)^VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm)Distance (m)^500^ 116.4^2.58^168^117.2 2.50 168119.7^2.55^167119.2 2.64 173112.6^2.59^172127.2 2.92 175127.7^2.93^1771000^ 115.8 2.47 176127.8^2.83^179131.0 2.79 179125.2^2.67^177129.1 2.75 175129.1^2.86^176124.8 2.66 178129.3^3.08^1791500^ 126.6 3.11 181MEAN^ 123.7^2.75^17510 B Trial 2 WR - CSVE (I/min)^VO2 (I/min)^HR (bpm)Distance (m)^500^ 123.0^3.23^175127.5 3.35 174124.6^3.17^177131.1 3.44 178125.6^3.50^179125.0 3.28 178132.3^3.36^179135.1 3.43 1791000^ 128.7^3.27^181125.5 3.29 178138.4^3.52^182135.8 3.68 182133.6^3.51^183129.4 3.18 183127.5^3.35^183135.2 3.55 182134.8^3.76^1841500^ 136.2 3.46 184MEAN^ 130.5^3.41^180.1Appendix B (iii)Split Times (sec) and Stroke Rates (spm)MADistance (m) WR NWR'Splits Strk Rate^I 'Splits Strk Rate250 64.8 90 63.3 84500 62.6 84 66.5 94750 64.7 78 66.4 941000 66.7 67.1 941250 64.9 84 67.1 941500 65.9 88 66.0 941750 65.5 84 67.0 902000 63.7 84 64.0MEAN -Mid 1 km 64.9 83.5 66.6 94RJCDistance (m) WR NWR'Splits Strk Rate^I 'Splits Strk Rate^I250 61.9 96 61.3 90500 60.8 90 62.1 84750 63.5 84 65.6 821000 65.9 84 65.9 821250 63.1 84 64.1 841500 64.1 84 63.2 821750 64.2 84 65.9 902000 64.8 82 65.0 84MEAN - Mid 1 km 63.5 85.2 64.2 82.847PGDistance (m)Split times (sec) and Stroke Rates (spm)WR^ NWR'Splits Strk Rate^I 'Splits Strk Rate^I250 65.5 86 64.2 96500 62.4 86 63.7 92750 65.4 84 65.5 861000 65.6 80 69.3 901250 67.1 86 66.4 901500 64.9 86 64.0 901750 65.7 86 66.0 902000 65.2 86 65.9 90MEAN - Mid 1 km 65.1 84.4 65.8 89.6DIDistance (m) WR NWR'Splits Strk Rate^I 'Splits Strk Rate^I250 67.5 72 66.8 78.0500 64.4 78 65.6 78.0750 68.0 72 66.1 78.01000 64.5 70 67.6 80.01250 67.4 72 64.8 80.01500 67.4 74 68.4 80.01750 64.3 72 63.8 82.02000 66.0 64.7MEAN - Mid 1 km 66.4 73.2 66.5 79.748Split times (sec) and Stroke Rates (spm)LJDistance (m) WR NWR'Splits Strk Rate^I 'Splits Strk Rate250 66.9 88 65.1 84500 64.8 86 69.0 84750 65.1 84 67.5 861000 66.2 84 68.6 861250 66.4 84 68.7 901500 65.1 84 63.7 901750 66.9 84 65.2 902000 63.3 84 64.2 90MEAN - Mid 1 km 65.5 84.4 67.5 88SKDistance (m) WR NWR'Splits Strk Rate^I 'Splits Strk Rate^I250 58.7 96 62.8 92500 60.8 88 64.5 88750 64.2 88 67.6 881000 66.3 91 67.1 881250 66.2 89 66.4 901500 65.4 90 65.3 881750 66.7 86 67.6 922000 66.0 65.8MEAN - Mid 1 km 64.6 89.2 66.2 8949Split Times (sec) and Stroke Rates (spm)IMDistance (m) WR NWR'Splits Strk Rate^I 'Splits Strk Rate^1250 65.3 96 64.8 92500 62.9 90 65.0 96750 66.1 86 65.2 841000 64.9 90 68.0 901250 66.5 86 67.9 881500 63.8 92 67.4 901750 67.3 84 65.9 902000 67.3 82 64.0 96MEAN - Mid 1 km 64.8 88.8 66.7 90.6KPDistance (m) WR NWR'Splits Strk Rate^I 'Splits Strk Rate^I250 62.1 96 62.8 88500 62.1 96 63.1 88750 63.2 96 66.0 941000 66.0 94 68.0 901250 64.5 90 65.3 901500 62.8 96 65.6 901750 62.2 66.4 942000 62.2 96 63.8 90MEAN - Mid 1 km 63.7 94.4 65.6 90.950Split Times (sec) and Stroke Rates (spm)JRDistance (m) WR NWR'Splits Strk Rate^I 'Splits Strk Rate250 65.4 88 63.0 90500 63.1 84 66.3 84750 65.7 84 65.7 781000 66.6 80 67.9 841250 65.2 80 67.5 841500 65.6 66.8 841750 65.3 84 65.9 842000 65.0 82 65.1 84MEAN - Mid 1 km 65.2 82 66.8 83.1CSDistance (m) WR NWR'Splits Strk Rate 'Splits Strk Rate250 64.8 88 67.4 86500 61.3 84 66.9 86750 67.8 86 841000 64.1 87 66.4 841250 67.4 88 70.7 851500 66.0 89 72.7 841750 65.9 91 70.6 852000 68.1 68.9MEAN - Mid 1 km 65.3 86.8 69.2 84.751APPENDIX CCosmed K2 Validity Study52Appendix C (i)Cosmed K2 Validity Study - PrecisIn the Allan McGavin Laboratory, V02, VE and HR responses wererecorded in 10 well trained athletes utulizing the Cosmed K2 and the Medicalgraphics 2001 exercise system during incremental maximal exercise testsperformed on an electronically braked Minhart KEM 3 cycle ergometer. Validitycorrelation 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 exercisetest showed nonsignificant differences between the two machines (Figures 1 and3). For V02, the mean difference of measures was 0.098 with a 95% confidenceinterval of 0.046 51.1. 5 0.149. A difference in HR means between the twosystems was 4.17 with a 95% confidence interval of 2.1565 ix 5 6.184. AlthoughVE measures of the two systems were highly correlated, VE was found to besignificantly higher with the 2001 system at Stages V and VI of the six stageexercise test (Figure 2). The difference in means of the two measurements of VEwas 7.20 with a 95% confidence interval of 4.716 5 IA 5 9.684.53Appendix C (ii)Descriptive Data of the SubjectsSUBJECT AGE HEIGHT( cm )WEIGHT( kg )1 21 178 652 21 170 603 21 175 664 21 172 685 32 164 576 25 172 747 23 166 618 36 170 619 25 167 5510 21 176 69AVG. 24.6 171 63.6SD. ±5.30 ±4.52 ±5.8554Appendix C (iii)Individual Results for V02, VE and HR During Both Experimental Conditonsa. V02 (Vmin) vs. Workload (Watts)TESTV02L/MINSTAGE S^u^b^i^e^c^t^8 MEAN STD1 2 3 4 5 6  7 8,_ 9 102 0 01 I40 W.98 .94 .89 .74 1.07 1.20 1.12 1.14 .99 1.16 1.02 ±.1422 0 01 II80 W1.24 1.24 1.15 1.19 1.45 1.44 1.47 1.45 1.31 1.39 1.334 ± .1222 0 01 III120 W1.60 1.56 1.495 1.58 1.59 1.74 1.81 1.73 1.71 1.68 1.65 ± .0982 0 01 IV160 W2.03 1.90 - 1.90 2.01 1.72 2.12 2.17 2.05 2.12 2.01 2.00 ± 135.2001 V200 W2.47 2.38 2.38 2.41 2.25 2.42 2.62 2.36 2.62 2.47 2.44 ± .1162 0 01 VI240 W2.84 2.79 2.90 2.90 3.10 2.79 2.93 2.70 3.14 2.82 2.89 ± .137K 2 I40 W1.04 .99 .90 .73 1.03 .89 .99 .82 1.02 1.09 .95 ± .114K 2 II80 W1.28 1.30 1.31 1.00 1.20 1.15 1.32 1.24 1.28 1.32 1.23 ± .102K 2 III120 W1.66 - 1.60 1.53 - 1.31 1.58 1.44 1.63 1.51 1.65 1.58 1.55 ± .107K 2 I V160 W2.06 2.04 1.92 1.75 1.94 1.68 1.79 1.87 2.04 1.82 1.89 ± .133'r 1( 2 V200 W2.57 2.47 2.46 2.12 2.62 r^2.14 1.96 2.17 2.60 2.16 2.33 ± .242K 2 V I^'_240 W3.14 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)TESTVEL/MINSTAGE s^U^B^.1^E^C^T^S MEAN STD1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 102001 I40 W28.48 29.88 24.03 20.88 25.20 40.03 3753 31.23 26.30 29.13 2927 35.892001 1180 W34.88 36.43 3133 2930 33.13 40.23 45.80 41.00 32.75 32.60 35.76 3 5.112001 III120 W43.85 46.70 41.03 39.55 43.05 49.03 55.33 51.83 44.13 38.45 45.29 ± 5.432001 IV160 W55.68 59.78 5223 52.83 49.03 64.60 67.45 66.68 55.05 48.80 57.21 t 7.032031 V200 W73.68 85.95 72.05 7530 81.83 8133 83.83 85.40 83.03 60.93 7833 • 3 7.852001 VI240 W93.90 123.20 114.40 11435 12200 11730 104.45 114.68 105.03 100.63 110.99 • t 937K2 140 W29.93 31.63 2625 1838 28.45 28.23 28.85 26.40 26.67 28.93 2739 3 3.51K2 II80 W34.38 41.13 32.95 24.40 33.53 36.95 38.80 35.73 33.05 33.43 34.43 t 4.45K2 111120 W43.45 49.48 41.75 31.28 42.88 45.80 49.00 44.28 41.25 38.20 42.74 t 5.29K2 IV160 W52.68 61.65 54.78 40.10 5.4.13 53.20 53.08 56.68 49.15 4333 51.90 ± 6.25K2 V200 W6530 78.78 7458 51.43 84.85 73.20 6233 68.95 6533 53.13 67.81 ± 10.61K2 VI240 W84.10 10530 10233 74.08 97.80 10153 75.08 94.25 ' 85.28 " 73.88 8938 ± 12.4455c. HR (bpm) vs. Workload (Watts)TESTFIRL/IAINSTAGE S^U^13^J^E^C^T^S MEAN STD1 2 3 4 5  6 7 8 9 1 02001 I40 W137.3 104.0 107.8 96.8 106.0 118.3 124.5 119.3 114.0 116.5 114.5 i 11.62001 I80W136.5 118.8 118.5 120.5 118.5 120.5.^.139.3 135.0 121.3 124.5 125.3 I 8.32001 I120 W153.3 134.0 131.5-140.5 130.0 132.3 146.8 150.5 137.5 138.0 139.4 ± 82-2001 IV160 W169.5 152.0 147.5 162.3 147.0 149.0 162.0 165.3 151.5 156.3 156.2 i 8.02001 V200 W187.0 169.3 168.3 180.7 166.8 165.5 178.0 178.8 166.3 179.3 174.0 ± 7.62001 VI240 W197..5 181.3 188.0 194.0 182.0 178.7 188.5 188.3 175.0 198.0 187.1 ± 7.9K2 I40 W118.5 101.0 111.0 100.8 107.0 94.3 99.0 111.5 100.3 104.3 104.8 ± 72K2 I80W138.8 118.8 126.5 116.5 116.0 107.5 120.5 125.8 112.8 113.8 119.7 t 8.9K2 I120 W154.0 134.3 140.5 133.8 130.0 120.3 142.5 144.0 126.8 125.5 135.2 t 102K2 IV160 W171.5 150.3 159.5 155.8 145.8 136.5 162.8 166.0 142.5 148.0 153.9 I^11.1K2 V200 W189.3 165.5 178.3 178.0 164.8 154.0 179.5 179.8 161.3 170.8 172.1 ± 10.7K2 VI240 W201.5 180.5 192.8 196.3 177.0 170.0 190.0 190.5 173.3 187.5 185.9 I 10.3Appendix C (iv)3  2 -vIIII140 80 120 160 200 240 280WATTSFigure 2 VO2 vs. workload during a 4-minute step incrementaltest on cycle ergometer.140-7  120-c.100• 80 -60-w40-2001K22040 80 120 160 200 240 280WATTS0Figure 3^VE vs. workload during a 4-minute step incrementaltest on cycle ergometer.200-80-160-• 140-• 120-2001K21000^40 80 120 160 200 240 280WATTSFigure 4^HR vs. workload during a 4- minute step incrementaltest on cycle ergometer.57APPENDIX DKayak Velocity -Raw Data58Appendix DKayak Velocity During the Two Experimental ConditionsSubject Wash Riding Non-Wash RidingMA 3.85^3.75RJC 3.93 3.89PG 3.84^3.80DI 3.76 3.76LJ 3.81 3.70SK 3.87^3.77IM 3.85 3.74KP 3.92^3.81JR 3.83 3.74CS 3.82 3.61MEAN 3.85^3.76SD 0.05 0.0759

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0077099/manifest

Comment

Related Items