The aim of this study was to compare EMG, 2- D kinematics and stroke force profiles both on-water and on-ergometer in order to assess the accuracy with which the ergometer simulates the biomechanical demands of on-water kayaking. Significant differences in muscle activity patterns, stroke force and kinematic data suggest that the two biomechanical tasks are not perfectly matched. Some differences in muscle activity may be explained by subtle changes in kinematics during the draw phase. This is most likely the case with LD activity, where significantly earlier time to vertical position (p < 0.05, see Table 2) appears to have altered LD recruitment pattern during on- ergometer kayaking. Other more striking differences in muscle activity, such as those observed in AD during the latter stages of the ergometer stroke are most likely explained by the additional external forces associated with the ergometer loading mechanism being applied to the paddle shaft. Increased AD activity manifest itself as a significant second phase of recruitment occurring between 60 and 90% of the stroke cycle, a pattern not evident during on-water kayaking, see Figures 1c and 2c. The most probable explanation for this difference was the ergometer loading mechanism exerting additional forces on the paddle shaft (Figure 3a). In order to maintain constant tension on the pulleys connecting the paddle shaft and ergometer flywheel, an elastic chord exerts a recoil force. A recent analysis of strain gauge data from a stationary position has quantified this force at 20 ± 4N (unpublished data), however, during dynamic movement both the direction and magnitude of this force constantly changed. Trevethick et al. (2007) previously suggested that this recoil force aided in the transition phase of the stroke cycle, resulting in less shoulder muscle activity than would be expected during on-water kayaking. With regards to AD activity, the results of the current study clearly contradict this hypothesis. During the latter stages of the stroke cycle (60 to 90%) the shoulder moves from abduction into forward flexion. As the opposite draw phase concludes, the shoulder is in its most flexed and forward position in order to maximise forward reach for the subsequent stroke (Logan and Holt, 1985). Both kinematic and strain gauge data would suggest that the ergometer is exerting a downward recoil force on the paddle shaft at this point. No such downward force is exerted during the equivalent phase of the on-water stroke. In order to maintain optimal shoulder and arm position during these latter stages of the on-ergometer stroke cycle, the kayaker must resist this downward force via significant increases in AD recruitment, evident at the 70 (p < 0.001), 80 (p < 0.001) and 90% (p < 0.05) intervals. Stroke force profiles recorded during both test conditions highlighted that propulsive forces are generated during the draw phase of the kayak stroke cycle. During this phase, the shoulder is extended and internally rotated, facilitating the pulling motion of the paddle through the water (Logan and Holt, 1985). Since LD is responsible for both shoulder extension and internal rotation, LD is considered a major propulsive muscle involved in the kayak stroke. Previous studies have reported that LD plays a primary role in generating propulsive forces during both kayak (Yoshio et al., 1974; Trevithick et al., 2007) and freestyle swimming stroke cycles (Pink et al., 1991) and the current results are in agreement with this literature. The phase of LD activity in the current study was concurrent with the propulsive forces generated during the draw phase. In addition, time to peak LD activity closely matched time to peak stroke force for both conditions. Peak forces occurred later during the on-water stroke cycle (13.4 ± 0.3 vs. 11.8 ± 1.1 % of cycle) and peak LD activity also occurred later during on-water kayaking (Figure 1b). Moreover, significantly higher mean LD activity recorded in the 20% interval during on-water kayaking (p < 0.001) may explain the greater propulsive forces being generated in the latter stages of the on-water draw phase (15 to 30% of stroke cycle, Figure 1e). It is widely accepted that the maximum absolute acceleration occurs at and around the vertical paddle position (Mann and Kearney, 1980). The kinematic and stroke force data from the current study are in agreement with this literature, since a close relationship between time to peak force and time to vertical paddle position existed during both on-ergometer and on-water trials (Table 2). Significantly earlier time to vertical position observed on-ergometer may be a result of the recoil forces pulling the shaft forward on the opposite side earlier than during the on-water scenario. It is possible that this subtle change in stroke kinematics may have led to both the earlier peak forces and the significantly earlier peak LD activity observed during the on-ergometer draw phase; see Figure 1e and 1b, respectively. During the draw phase of the stroke cycle TB was also highly active. Prior to and directly at the onset of the draw phase, concentric contraction of TB ensure that maximal forward arm reach is attained (Logan and Holt, 1985). As the draw phase progresses however, the elbow joint is flexed (Baker et al., 1999; Tokuhara et al., 1987). Since TB is an elbow extensor, it may seem counter-intuitive to observe TB activity here, but progressive elbow flexion during the draw phase is actively resisted through an eccentric action of TB. Tokuhara et al., 1987 reported that skilled kayakers do not recruit their elbow flexors during simulated arm pulling movements, even though elbow flexion occurs during the movement. In a multi-articular movement, the resultant propulsive force is limited by the weakest joint force within a multi-joint system (Kumamoto and Takagi, 1980). Since forces generated via shoulder extension exceed forces capable of being generated via elbow flexion, the optimal strategy for force development during the draw phase is one where forces are generated via shoulder extension and transmitted to the paddle via the elbow joint. Thus inhibition of elbow flexor recruitment and increased elbow extensor recruitment produce greater propulsive forces during the draw phase of the kayak stroke (Tokuhara et al., 1987). In addition to the initial draw phase, TB was also active during the opposite draw phase, although significant differences in the level of activity were observed between exercise conditions, see Figure 2a. In order to effectively perform the opposite draw phase, the recovery arm acts as a support and aids in the forceful entry and pull of the opposite paddle through the water. Trevithick et al., 2007 reported that both Upper Trapezius and Supraspinatus were also active during the opposite draw phase of the kayak stroke cycle. The current results suggest that TB activity is also necessary to support the opposite draw phase, however, the reason why this phase of TB activity was significantly greater during on-water kayaking remains to be fully elucidated. It is possible that once again, recoil forces acting on the shaft are forcing kayakers to alter their muscle recruitment patterns. Differences in force profiles suggest that the ergometer is applying additional loads to the kayak shaft during this phase (50 to 70% of the stroke cycle). In order to maintain optimal joint position, it is possible that increased elbow flexion (via reduced TB activity) provides resistance to the recoil forces pulling the shaft forward earlier than required. Regardless of the exact mechanism, it is worth noting that the two best kayakers (based on personal best times) both showed markedly greater TB activity during the opposite draw phase compared with other members of the group, both on-water and on-ergometer. This suggests that enhanced recruitment of TB during this phase of the stroke cycle may improve stroke biomechanics and thereby increase kayak velocity. Logan and Holt, 1985 reported that prior to the onset of the stroke cycle, the thoracic vertebrae are rotated anteriorly and the knee and hip joints are at their maximal degree of flexion. These joint articulations are made in an effort to maximally rotate the trunk and shoulders in the anterior direction, optimising the forward reach necessary for paddle entry. At the onset of the draw phase, the knee extensors are recruited in order to forcefully extend the knee joint from the maximal flexed position (Logan and Holt, 1985). This action aids in pelvic rotation and horizontal hip adduction, both of which enhance the rotational component that is desired in the trunk (Logan and Holt, 1985). Activity in VL was observed during the draw phase of the stroke cycle both on-ergometer and on- water (Figures 1d and 2d), in agreement with previous investigations evauating the role of VL in aiding body segment rotation (Logan and Holt, 1985; Mann and Kearney, 1980). While mean iEMG activity in VL in the current study was lower than activity observed in upper body musculature (Table 2), the role of contralateral knee extension and flexion in enhancing pelvic and trunk rotation should not be underestimated. This point is highlighted by the fact that almost all elite kayakers have a strap on their footrest to enhance contralateral leg movements (Logan and Holt, 1985; Sanders and Baker, 1998). Differences in the rate of force development in the initial stages of the draw phase were observed between the two exercise conditions. RFD50 was significantly greater during the on-water draw phase (1833 ± 119 N.s-1 vs. 1165 ± 116 N.s-1, p < 0.01). This difference is highlighted by a change in the slope of the ergometer stroke force profile at approximately 5% into the stroke cycle (Figure 1e). A similar finding was reported for initial stroke force development comparing dynamic and stationary rowing ergometry (Benson et al., 2011; Kleshnev and Kleshneva, 1995) and it was proposed that a disparity between handle and footstretcher forces may explain the altered stroke force development on stationary ergometers (Kleshnev and Kleshneva, 1995). In a similar fashion, it is possible that a disparity between initial force development at the shaft and opposing resistive forces at the flywheel may exist. A minor delay in transmission of forces from the shaft to the flywheel via the connecting ropes may impede optimal force development in the first 5% of the stroke cycle. During the on-water scenario, it appears no such delay in force generation occurs. Once the paddle enters the water, propulsive force can be generated effectively though the paddle shaft without any transmission delay. One of the main outcomes of the current study is that the recoil force associated with the ergometer loading mechanism appears to affect activity patterns in TB, LD and most notably in AD. In the case of LD activity, the subtle changes to stroke kinematics (earlier time to vertical position) brought about by this recoil force, are most likely responsible for the altered activity patterns observed on-ergometer. In the case of TB and especially AD activity, it seems more likely that the altered recruitment patterns are as a result of the kayakers working to maintain optimal stroke kinematics. An ongoing study assessing the effect of varying kayak ergometer recoil forces on 3D kinematics and muscle activity patterns suggests that an increase in recoil force results in greater AD activity without any noticable change in 3D kinematics of the upper limb (unpublisded data). Study limitations must be considered before drawing definitive conclusions from the current results. Firstly, the biomechanical data presented only represents one sub-maximal exercise intensity. Kayakers exercised at a sub-maximal workload equivalent to 85% of their VO2peak, an exercise intensity in close proximity to their aerobic-anaerobic threshold as assessed by TLac. Athlete and coach testimony suggests that the majority of ergometer training involves intervals of specific time duration, performed at sub-maximal workloads equivalent to the aerobic-anaerobic threshold. As such, this exercise intensity was chosen as it represented the most relevant intensity from a training perspective. A previous assessment of kayak ergometer task specificity concluded that simulated kayaking did not closely reflect open-water kayaking in the assessment of sub-maximal cardio-respiratory responses to exercise (Mitchell and Swaine, 1998). However, Van Someran et al. (2000) assessed cardiorespiratory variables at maximal exercise intensity and detected no significant differences between on-water and on-ergometer kayaking. The results of the current study are in agreement with Mitchell and Swaine, 1998, however, it remains to be seen if biomechanical differences are also evident during maximal exercise. Previous literature has reported stroke rates of 118 ± 4 (Mann and Kearney, 1980) and 96 ± 5 strokes.min-1 (Sanders and Kendal, 1992) during high intensity kayaking. The target stroke rates used in the current study (81 ± 2 strokes. min-1) were markedly lower. A recent study by Sealey et al., 2011 reported that increasing stroke rate can alter the stroke kinematics in outrigger canoeing. It is possible therefore, that at higher stroke rates, differences between on-ergometer and on-water kayaking are not as significant as those observed in the current study. Further analysis of EMG, stroke force and kinermatic data, across a range of exercise intensities and stroke rates is warranted in order to fully assess biomechanical task specificity of the kayak ergometer. In addition, the current study did not randomise the order of task specificity trials. In considering the group's level of proficiency and the fact that participants were regularly exercising both on-ergometer and on-water as part of their overall training, the authors opinion was that biomechanical data collected from this elite group would not be compromised by a trial familiarisation or training effect. Regardless of this fact, the possibility that non-randomisation played some minor unquantifiabe role in the effects observed cannot be ruled out. Finally, the number of available EMG channels limited our investigation to just four involved muscles. Kayaking is a complex multi-joint movement incorporating recruitment of many different muscles and analysis of recruitment patterns from other shoulder, arm and trunk muscles is warranted in order to provide a more complete assessment of kayak ergometer task specificity. |