Whole-body kinematics during paddling on kayak ergometer in elite able-bodied

athletes  

– a first step to develop a classification for para-kayak athletes

       

Pascal Zakaria

The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences (GIH) Master thesis, advanced level 156: 2013 Master program in Sport science 2012-2013

Supervisor: Anna Bjerkefors & Olga Tarassova Examiner: Karin Söderlund

 

 

 

Helkroppskinematik under paddling på ergometer hos elit-kanotister

– ett första steg i utvecklingen av klassificeringen för para-kanotister

Pascal Zakaria

GYMNASTIK- OCH IDROTTSHÖGSKOLAN Självständigt arbete, avancerad nivå 156: 2013

Masterprogrammet i idrottsvetenskap 2012-2013 Handledare: Anna Bjerkefors & Olga Tarassova

Examinator: Karin Söderlund

 

Acknowledgement

I want to thank my supervisor Anna Bjerkefors, which I am always forever, be grateful for.

Thank you for your patience, guidance and knowledge all the time through the whole project. I

also want to thank Olga Tarassova for her technical support and guidance. Thanks to all

volunteers who made this project possible.

Stockholm January 2014

Pascal Zakaria

 

Abstract Aim

The purpose of the study was to define three dimensional range of motion for all major joints

(wrist, elbow, shoulder, trunk, pelvis, hip, knee, and ankle) in a group of able-bodied elite

canoeists during paddling on a kayak ergometer. An additional purpose was to analyze if the

range of motion changed with increased intensity and if there were any differences between body

sides during paddling on the ergometer.

Method

Ten elite athletes (four women and six men) volunteered for the study (22 ± 3.5 years, 78.3 ±

10.2 kg, 1.79 ± 0.06 m). Three-dimensional kinematic data was recorded using an optoelectronic

system and twelve cameras were placed in a circle around the ergometer. Fifty-four reflective

markers were attached on the subject and 14 body segments were defined in the model used in

the analysis to evaluate range of motion for each joint. Kinematic and force data were collected

during paddling on the kayak ergometer at incremental intensities starting at 50 W (“Low”) and

increased with 50 W until the athlete was not able to hold the predetermined level (“Sub-

maximal”). The participants were asked to maintain each intensity level as stable as possible

during at least 20 kayak cycles, i.e. approximately 60 sec during the lowest intensity level.

Finally, a maximal test was performed (“Maximal”). Mean values of 10 stroke cycles were used

in the statistics.

Result The mean range of motion was for shoulder flexion; 3 – 101°, shoulder abduction; 9–53°,

shoulder inward/outward rotation; 39–51°, elbow flexion; 13–118°, wrist palmar/dorsiflexion;

9–31°, wrist radial/ulnar deviation; 9–22°, trunk flex/extension; 8 –1°, trunk rotation left/right;

24–24, trunk lateral bending right/left; 7 – 8°, hip flexion 85-116°, knee flexion; 7–56° and foot

flexion 64–91°. When intensity increased the range of motion significantly increased in peak

joint angle for shoulder flexion, shoulder inward rotation, trunk- , hip-, knee- and foot flexion. In

general, there were no significant differences observed between left and right side for maximal

and minimal range of motion.

Conclusion

The results from this kinematic study can be used as adequate reference values in the

development for an evidence-based classification system for para-canoeists.  

 

Abstrakt

Syfte Syftet med studien var att undersöka tredimensionell rörelse för samtliga större leder i kroppen

(axel, armbåge, handled, bål, bäcken, höft, knä och fotled) i en grupp elitkanotister under

paddling på en ergometer. Syftet var också att undersöka om det högsta vinkelvärdet i vardera

rörelseriktningen förändrades med ökad intensitet samt om det fanns någon asymmetri mellan

kroppshalvorna i rörelseutslag under paddling på ergometern.

Metod

Tio svenska elitkanotister (fyra kvinnor och sex män) deltog frivilligt i denna studie (22 ± 3.5 år,

78.3 ± 10.2 kg, 1.79 ± 0.06 m). Tredimensionell rörelsekinematik registrerades med hjälp av ett

optoelektroniskt system och tolv kameror placerades i en cirkel runt kajakergometern.

Femtiofyra reflexiva markörer placerades på kroppen och 14 kroppssegment definierades i

modellen och användes i analysen för att utvärdera rörelseomfånget i respektive led. Kinematik

och kraftdata samlades in under paddling på ergometern vid olika intensitetsnivåer med start på

50 W (”Låg”) och ökade med 50 W till dess att idrottaren inte kunde hålla den förutbestämda

nivån (”Sub-maximal”). Varje  forskningsperson  uppmanades  att  bibehålla  varje  

intensitetsnivå  så  precist  som  möjligt  under  minst  20  paddlingscykler,  vilket  var  cirka  60  

sekunder  på  den  lägsta  intensitetsnivån.  Därefter genomfördes ett maximalt test (Maximal).

Medelvärdet av 10 paddelcykler användes i statistiken.

Resultat

Medelvärdet för rörelseomfånget var för skulderflexion; 3 – 101°, skulderabduktion; 9–53°,

skulderinåtrotation/utåtrotation; 39–51°, armbågsflexion; 13–118°, palmar/dorsalflexion i

handleden; 9–31°, radial/ulnar deviation i handleden; 9–22°, bålflexion/extension; 8 –1°,

bålrotation vänster/höger; 24–24, bålböjning höger/vänster; 7 – 8°, höftflexion 85-116°,

knäflexion; 7–56° och plantar/dorsalflexion i foten 64–91°. När intensiteten ökade, ökade

rörelseutslaget signifikant i skulderflexion, skulderinåtrotation, bål-, höft-, knä- och fotflektion.

Generellt fanns det ingen signifikant skillnad mellan sidorna vad gäller rörelseutslag.

Slutsats

Resultaten från denna studie kan användas som adekvata referensvärden i utvecklandet av den

evidensbaserade klassificeringen av para-kanotister.  

 

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Paralympics ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Kayaking ............................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Kinematic and kinetics .......................................................................................................... 3

1.4 Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 4

1.5 Research questions ................................................................................................................ 4

2. Methods....................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Type of method ..................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Selection ................................................................................................................................ 4

2.3 Subjects ................................................................................................................................. 5

2.4 Ethical aspects ....................................................................................................................... 5

2.5 Equipment ............................................................................................................................. 5

2.6 Test procedure ....................................................................................................................... 6

2.7 Reliability and validity ......................................................................................................... 7

2.8 Data processing……………………………………………………………………………..8

2.9 Statistics ................................................................................................................................ 8

3. Result .......................................................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Range of motion .................................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Power .................................................................................................................................. 17

3.3 Stroke rate ........................................................................................................................... 18

4. Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 18

4.1 Range of motion...................................................................................................................18

4.2 Stroke frequency ................................................................................................................. 19

4.3 Subjects ............................................................................................................................... 20

4.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 20

4.5 Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 20

5. References ................................................................................................................................. 21

6. Appendix………………………………………………………………………………………24

 

  1  

1. Introduction

In December 2010, added International Paralympic Committee (IPC) canoeing as a new sport to

the Paralympics in 2016. The International Canoe Federation (ICF) has therefore initiated a

project aimed to evaluate, develop and present a proposal to the IPC relating to a validated and

modified classification system for para-canoiest (athletes with physical impairments). The

classification system used today for canoeist with disability is divided into three groups,

canoeists with full or partly function in the arms, but with reduced function in the trunk and legs

(A), canoeists with function in the arms and trunk, but with reduced function in legs (TA) and

finally canoeists with function in the arms and trunk, and partial function in the legs (LTA). The

new proposal will contain of an improved assessment criteria for eligibility and clear definition

between the three classes: A, TA, and LTA.

This master study is the first part of this ongoing project aiming to evaluate whole-body

kinematics during kayaking in able-bodied elite athletes. The range of motion required for the

able-bodied group will serve as a basis for class division for the para-canoe group. To be eligible

to participate as a para-canoeist on national or international competition level it is required to

have at least 10 points less than the total maximal score. Thus, the reference values defined as

“normal” became crucial when classifying the athletes. For this reason, the whole-body

kinematic analysis will be conducted in a group of elite able-bodied athletes, in order to identify

data that could serve as “reference values” assessed during sport-specific circumstances.

Moreover, in the new protocol for classification the aim is to additionally include tests of

shoulder rotation, wrist deviation and tests of trunk range of motion as these joint angles have

previously been shown to be important parameters during kayaking (McKean & Burkett 2010;

Fleming et al. 2012; Michael et al. 2012).

1.1 Paralympics

The Paralympic game is a major international multi-sport event where athletes with a disability

compete in different sports. Functional barriers are diverse and may include athletes with

  2  

amputations, spinal cord injury (SCI), visual impairment, etc. Paralympics held both winter and

summer games and there are a total of 25 licensed Paralympic Sports (www.paralympic.org).

Because there are so many athletes with different functional abilities, athletes are classified into

different categories. The reason for this is to make it possible for people with similar functional

ability to compete against each other. In recent years, IPC has highlighted the importance of an

evidence based classification system for para-athletes (Tweedy & Vanlandewijck 2011). The

development and evaluation work has begun in areas such as wheelchair sports, running and

Nordic skiing (Altmann, Limbeek, Vanlandewijck & Keijsers 2013; Vanlandewijck, Verellen &

Tweedy 2011; Pernot, Lannem, Geers, Ruijters, Bloemendal & Seelen 2011; Beckman &

Tweedy 2009).

1.2 Kayaking

Kayaking was introduced as an Olympic sport in 1936 with the distances 1 000 and 10 000 m for

able-bodied athletes. In recent years, shorter distances have been included. The shortest distance,

200 m sprint, was introduced for both men and women during the 2012 Olympic Games.

Improvements in materials and design of the kayaks, the introduction of the wing paddle in the

80s and shorter race distances have remarkably decreased the racing time (Michaels, Smith &

Rooney 2009). Other factors affecting the performance are the physical status of the kayaker and

the efficiency of the kayak technique (c.f. review by McDonell, Patria, Hume & Nolte 2013).

During Paralympics 2016, when kayaking for men and women with disabilities will be

introduced, the competitions will be performed at the 200 m sprint distance.

Before kayaking was introduced as a Paralympic sport, open-sea kayaking as a leisure activity

has been shown to be a suitable and appreciated activity for persons with disability (Grigorenko,

Bjerkefors, Rosdahl, Hultling, Alm & Thorstensson  2004). Kayaking is performed in sitting,

which is necessary prerequisite for people with impaired function in the trunk and legs. With

special arrangement to make the kayak suitable, such as special seats, the athletes are able to

perform the paddling movement without losing their balance. When kayaking is performed on

regular basis, improvements in postural stability, functional performance and upper body

  3  

strength have been shown in people with SCI (Bjerkefors, Jansson & Thorstensson 2006;

Bjerkefors & Thorstensson 2006; Bjerkefors, Carpenter & Thorstensson 2007).

1.3 Kinematic and kinetics

The paddling movement is complex with alternating 3D upper-body movement during the pull,

lift and push-phase (McDonell et al. 2013) and it involves most of the upper body musculatures

(Trevithick, Ginn, Halaki & Balnave 2007). The requirements for balance control are also high

due to the complex movement, the interplay between reaction forces in different directions and

the construction of the kayak. In able-bodied athletes the paddling movement have partly been

described, although no study has yet evaluated the whole body range of motion. Previous studies

have described the kinematic and kinetic performance during kayaking and the assessment have

been conducted under different conditions; such as indoor on kayak ergometer (Wassinger,

Myers, Sell, Oyama, Rubenstein & Lephart 2011; Fleming, Donne & Fletcher 2012; Michael et

al. 2009; Michael, Rooney & Smith 2012) or in a pool (Begon, Lacouturem & Colloud 2008), or

outdoor during white–water paddling (i.e. kayaking on whitewater rivers) (Wassinger 2007) or

flat water paddling (Plagenhof 1979; Mann & Kearney 1980; Kendal & Sanders, 1992; Sanders

& Kendal 1992). The biomechanical assessments have been made either in two dimensions (2D)

(Mann & Kearney 1980; Fleming et al. 2012) or in 3D (Wassinger et al. 2011; Fleming et al.

2012; Michael et al. 2009, 2012).

The study by Wassinger (2011) did not primarily analyse the kinematics of the upper body

movement, but investigated where injury can occur during kayaking. They concluded that the

highest prevalence of injury occur when the shoulder joint where in peak flexion in combination

with internal rotation and shoulder adduction when subacromial structures may be mechanically

impinged. The 3D kinematic analysis made by Fleming et al. (2012) revealed that overhead arm

movements accounted for approximately 40 % of the stroke cycle, the elbow angle at stroke

cycle onset was 144° and the maximal elbow angle was 151° during the stroke. The study by

Michael et al. (2012) examined ten elite canoeists during paddling on a kayak ergometer and

they compared and analysed the effect of paddle angle in 3D, paddle force, and timing during the

paddling movement and the mechanical effects between right and left side. The study did not

  4  

include range of motion evaluation but showed differences in mechanical effect (power) and

force between left and right side. All participants were right-handed and significant greater

values were shown on the right side. Recently, investigators have also paid attention to the lower

body movement during kayaking as the push and pull forces on the foot bar contributes to the

power output (Nilsson & Rosdahl 2013).

1.4 Purpose

The purpose of the study is to define the 3D range of motion for all major joints (wrist, elbow,

shoulder, trunk, pelvis, hip, knee and ankle) in a group of elite able-bodied kayakers during

paddling on kayak ergometer.

1.5 Research questions

• Does the range of motion and stroke frequency change with intensity?

• Are there any asymmetries between left and right side in the means of the joint range of

motion during paddling on the ergometer?

2. Methods

2.1 Type of method

This is a quantitative, descriptive study conducted in a laboratory environment and set-up.

2.2 Selection

Elite kayakers, active in Sweden, were informed about the study through email sent by the sports

manager Anna Karlsson at the Swedish Canoe Federation. Athletes that showed the interest in

participating in the study were asked to contact the principal investigator for the project. The

inclusion criteria for the study were that the participants had to be female/male active kayakers

competing on international level, over 17 years old and be in good health. Therefore, an

  5  

additional email with information if they were considered to meet the inclusion criteria selected

was sent to the athletes agreed to participate.

2.3 Subjects

Ten elite athletes (four women and six men) volunteered for the study (22 ± 3.5 years, 78.3 ±

10.2 kg, 1.79 ± 0.06 m). The frequency of participating in training was on average 6.9 ± 1.7

sessions per week. The total time for exercising per week was on average 15.4 ± 3.9 hours. In

addition to kayaking, exercises such as strength, fitness and running were performed by the

athletes at different levels of intensity. All participants were informed with oral and written

information regarding the study’s purpose and signed their consent form to participate in the

study prior to the testing. Subjects confirmed that they were healthy and had no current illness or

injury that could affect their kayaking performance. Ethical approval for the study was granted

from the Regional Ethical Review Board in Stockholm (ref: 2013/1041-31/3).

2.4 Ethical aspects

Participants were informed (in written form and orally) that the participation for this study was

voluntary, and could be interrupted at any time without giving any reason. All data will be

unidentified by a code and will be kept in a secured place (locked cabinets and password-

protected electronic data) in the principal investigator´s office or laboratory. During all tests

subjects should be healthy with no on-going disease or injury at the time of testing. The risks of

the study are minor. However, participants will be exposed to a physical stress during the testing

that can slightly affect muscles soreness. Participants should not have been training intensively

before the test date as this can create muscle fatigue that affects the participant’s typical range of

motion.

2.5 Equipment

A paddling kayak ergometer was used in the study. The resistances on the ergometer could be

adjusted by regulating the air intake on the flywheel from one (lightest) to ten (heaviest). For this

study the resistance was set at 8 for females and 10 for males, which corresponds to their

exercise intensity. Three-dimensional kinematic data was recorded using an optoelectronic

system (Oqus, Qualisys AB, Sweden) at a sampling frequency of 150 Hz. The set-up included

  6  

twelve cameras placed in a circle with a radius of approximately three meters around the kayak

ergometer. Fifty-four reflective markers with a diameter of 12 mm were attached on the body

and 18 markers were placed on the kayak paddle shaft and on the ergometer (Figure 1).

The same person attached all markers for each subjects and tests. The markers were attached

directly on anatomical landmarks in order to construct whole body model consisting of 14

segments.

Piezoelectric force transducers (Type 9311B, Kistler Instruments AG, Switzerland) were used to

register the force in the paddle shaft at a sampling frequency of 1500 Hz. The transducers were

connected to an amplifier (Type 5073, Kistler Instruments AG, Switzerland) and signals were

A/D converted (Kistler Instruments AG, Switzerland).

2.6 Test procedure

All tests were performed at the Laboratory for Biomechanics and Motor Control at the Swedish

School of Sport and Health Sciences (GIH) in Stockholm, during April to May 2013. Before the

test, subjects were introduced to the test procedure, familiarized with the ergometer and

performed 5 minutes of warm-up. Thereafter the participants were asked to paddle at incremental

intensities (starting from 50 W defined as “Low”) with a 3-minute break between all tests

allowed. The participants were asked to maintain each intensity level as stable as possible during

at least 20 kayak cycles, i.e. approximately 60 sec during the lowest intensity level. After the test

at the lowest intensity was performed, the intensity was then increased with 50 W until the “Sub-

Figure 1. Whole body model consisting of 14 segments.

The markers were attached at the following positions: for the a) hand and arm segments: 8 markers (on each left and right side) were attached on the wrist and hand, forearm, lateral and medial part of the elbow and upper arm, b) trunk segment: 6 markers were placed in a diamond shape, 3 over the spine at C7, T5 and T12 level and one on the left and right acromion, and one marker attached on the centre of the sternum, c) pelvis segment: 4 markers were attached on the left and right spinae iliaca anterior superior (SIAS) and on the left and right spinae iliaca posterior superior (SIPS), d) leg and foot segments: 14 markers were attached on the thigh (femur), lateral and medial part of the knee joint, the lower leg and lateral and medial part of the ankle and foot. In addition; 18 markers were attached along the kayak ergometer, paddle and on the both edges of each force transducer.

 

  7  

maximal” level, i.e. the highest level that the athlete could maintain stable during 20 kayak

cycles. Then the participants were asked to do the maximal test defined as “Maximal”. Subjects

were instructed and verbally encouraged to execute 20 all out maximal cycles after slowly have

increased the intensity during 15 kayak cycles up to maximal intensity. Kinematic and kinetic

data were collected for each test.

2.7 Reliability and validity  The present study uses quantitative measures to define reference values on joint range of motion

in able-bodied elite kayak athletes. No tests of reliability were made in this study and therefore

care was taken to test athletes who had been practicing kayaking for many years. To minimize

the variability within each subject only elite able bodied kayak athletes with long experience of

the paddling movement were recruited. Also, all subjects were competing on international level

and they were all familiar to exercise on high intensities on the kayak ergometer. We did not

expect any differences in joint angular movement between male and females and therefore

athletes from both gender participated. However, differences in power output were expected.

It is known that for valid evaluation of kayak performance, testing should be done in a

sport-specific environment. However, in some cases, a number of environmental factors may

disturb a simultaneous collection of kinematic and kinetic data, for example during on water

paddling. Therefore, in this study, measurements were performed on a kayak ergometer in a

laboratory environment to avoid external interference from weather conditions.

3D motion measurements are always related to some errors caused by this skin

movement artifact during motion as well as system error and marker noise. To minimize the

error markers have been applied to anatomical landmarks (e.g. the lateral/medial elbow

epicondyle or lateral/medial malleolus to minimize the skin movement). To minimize the sensor

noise 12 cameras have been used in this study so all of the markers will be visual during the

capture. The volume where the tests have been performed has also been calibrated frequently

throughout the tests. A low-pass Butterworth filter with a cutoff frequency of 7.0 Hz has also

been used during the data analysis to minimize that the signal was robust and not influenced by

fluctuations in signal.

 

  8  

2.8 Data processing

Analysis and calculations of the kinematics and kinetics were performed in Visual3D software

(version 4, C-Motion, Inc., USA) and in MATLAB (The MathWorks, Inc., USA). Shoulder joint

was defined as a functional joint using the elbow, shoulder and trunk markers. For the shoulder

joint, abduction/adduction and inward/outward rotation were also calculated. Trunk flexion and

extension were defined as trunk rotation about the medio-lateral axis in the global coordinate

system. Trunk rotation (roll) and lateral flexion (pitch) were defined as trunk rotation about the

upward-downward axis and the anterior-posterior axis, respectively. Hip joint was defined as a

functional joint using the markers on pelvis and thigh segments. Total range of motion, maximal

and minimal peak flexion and extension, were calculated for the the wrist, elbow, shoulder,

trunk, hip, knee and ankle joints. Additionally, the total range of motion was also calculated for

the shoulder joints; peak abduction/adduction and inward/outward rotation, and for the trunk;

peak trunk rotation and lateral trunk flexion. Kinematic were also used to calculate stroke cycle

and stroke rate. All marker trajectories were smoothed with a second-order, bi-directional, low-

pass Butterworth filter with a cutoff frequency of 7.0 Hz. For all calculations, only the final 10

stroke cycles for each level were used. All signals were synchronized.

2.9 Statistics

The statistical analyses were carried out in STATISTICA 11.0 (StatSoft, USA). Shapiro-Wilk´s

W test was applied to examine normality in the distribution of the data. Descriptive statistics was

used to present all research variables as mean values and standard deviations (SD). To detect

differences during paddling, maximal and minimal joint angle within range of motion values for

each joint were analysed using a two way analysis of variance (ANOVA), with two within

subject factors: intensity (low, sub-maximal and maximal) and body side (left and right).

Additionally, paired Student T-test was performed to compare the peak values of trunk

flexion/extension joint angle between intensities. Significance level was set at p ≤ 0.05.

  9  

3. Result

3.1 Range of motion

The peak joint angle movement within range of motion for all tested joints is presented for

maximal values in Table 1 and for minimal values in Table 2.

Table 1. Mean values (and standard deviations) of maximal peak range of motion presented as angular displacement

Maximal angular displacement (°) Low Sub-maximal Maximal

Left Right Left Right Left Right Shoulder Flexion 90.0 ± 11.9 91.7 ± 9.7 100.9 ± 10.0 101.3 ± 9.9 99.0 ± 12.8 100.3 ± 12.9

Abduction 52.3 ± 9.0 53.3 ± 7.2 47.8 ± 8.7 44.0 ± 9.2 49.1 ± 7.5 49.1 ± 5.6 Outward rotation 50.5 ± 16.6 53.3 ± 17.6 39.8 ± 15.1 43.6 ± 19.0 28.1 ± 13.8 34.3 ± 19.5

Elbow Flexion 118.0 ± 17.1 112 ± 8.4 113.3 ± 22.9 111.1 ± 11.0 102.6 ± 23.8 106.0 ± 13.7 Wrist Palmar flexion 9.3. ± 10.6 5.1 ± 9.4 8.7 ± 10.4 7.7 ± 6.9 2.4 ± 10.4 3.1 ± 5.5

Radial deviation 3.5 ± 4.9 2.8 ± 7.0 8.4 ± 6.4 7.5 ± 5.4 9.0 ± 7.0 6.9 ± 5.8 Trunk Flexion 4.1 ± 3.0 7.9 ± 2.7 8.3 ± 5.2

Rotation to the left 20.5 ± 3.6 20.9 ± 3.3 23.6 ± 6.1 23.5 ± 5.9 19.9 ± 7.5 22.0 ± 6.6 Lateral bending (right) 5.9 ± 4.5 6.1 ± 4.6 6.0 ± 4.2 6.0 ± 4.2 6.8 ± 4.3 7.4 ± 4.0

Hip Flexion 109.1 ± 3.0 107.3 ± 4.3 116.1 ± 3.1 114.2 ± 3.6 115.1 ± 5.3 112.7 ± 6.6 Knee Flexion 48.1 ± 4.1 45.8 ± 2.3 54.2 ± 4.4 50.4 ± 3.6 55.7 ± 4.0 52.1 ± 2.2 Foot Plantar flexion* 82.0 ± 6.0 80.2 ± 4.9 90.6 ± 7.3 88.3 ± 7.4 91.2 ± 4.9 89.2 ± 7.8

Note: *90 degree flexion indicates when the foot is in neutral position during standing.

Table 2. Mean values (and standard deviations) of minimal peak range of motion presented as angular displacement Minimal angular displacement (°) Low Sub-maximal Maximal

Left Right Left Right Left Right Shoulder Flexion 3.3 ± 13.6 7.5 ± 11.3 11.0 ± 12.4 17.6 ± 9.8 19.4 ± 14.2 21.5 ± 12.0

Abduction 10.0 ± 6.5 9.9 ± 4.0 9.3 ± 6.0 7.9 ± 2.2 13.0 ± 7.2 9.8 ± 3.2 Inward rotation -14.7 ± 11.0 -14.9 ± 20.1 -34.7 ± 14.9 -35.7 ± 22.4 -39.3 ± 14.2 -40.6 ± 21.2

Elbow Flexion 17.8 ± 8.2 20.7 ± 9.2 18.6 ± 7.8 21.4 ± 8.6 12.6 ± 24.5 21.1 ± 9.0 Wrist Dorsal flexion -20.7 ± 7.1 -25.1 ± 10.4 -27.3 ± 7.6 -29.1 ± 12.0 -30.8 ± 8.5 -31.2 ± 10.9

Ulnar deviation -22.1 ± 4.8 -22.1 ± 8.3 -22.4 ± 4.5 -24.5 ± 6.6 -19.1 ± 5.9 -24.2 ± 5.7 Trunk Flexion/extension -0.8 ± 3.3 1.00 ± 4.8 1.8 ± 7.5

Rotation to the right -20.4 ± 3.4 -19.7 ± 4.2 -23.6 ± 6.0 -23.4 ± 6.0 -23.2 ± 7.4 -23.4 ± 7.4 Lateral bending (left) -5.5 ± 3.3 -5.1 ± 3.0 -6.1 ± 2.4 -6.0 ± 2.4 -8.4 ± 3.1 -8.6 ± 3.0

Hip Flexion 89.1 ± 7.8 87.3 ± 9.2 85.3 ± 5.7 82.8 ± 7.2 87.8 ± 7.0 83.8 ± 7.2 Knee Flexion 15.2 ± 10.9 13.7 ± 11.9 7.0 ± 4.8 4.4 ± 6.7 11.4 ± 7.5 5.1 ± 6.9 Foot Plantar flexion 66.9 ± 7.6 65.5 ± 9.0 63.6 ± 5.1 62.3 ± 8.5 63.5 ± 7.1 60.5 ± 7.8

Note: *90 degree flexion indicates when the foot is in neutral position during standing.

In Figure 1 the average values (and standard deviations) from left and right side angular

displacement (y-axis) curves are presented, for shoulder flexion, abduction and rotation (a),

elbow flexion (b), wrist flexion and deviation (c), hip flexion (d), knee flexion (e), foot flexion

(f), and trunk rotation, bending and flexion. The data are presented during kayaking at three

  10  

different intensities; i.e. Low (black line), Sub-maximal (red line) and Maximal (green line).

Data obtained from the left body side is presented in the left column, and data from the right side

is presented in the right column. The data is normalized during stroke cycle (x-axis) and 0 %

represents the beginning of the pull phase on the ipsilateral side, i.e. start of the left pull phase

for the left side, and start of the right pull phase for the right side.100 % present represents the

end of the pull phase on the contralateral side, i.e. end of the right pull phase for the left side, and

end of the left pull phase for the right side.

a.

0 20 40 60 80 1000

20

40

60

80

100

Left shoulder Flexion

Ang

ular

dis

plac

emen

t (de

g)

Normalised kayak stroke 0 - 100 %

Low SubMax Max

0 20 40 60 80 1000

20

40

60

80

100

Right shoulder flexion

Ang

ular

dis

plac

emen

t (de

g)

Normalaised kayak stroke 0 - 100 %

Low SubMax Max

0 20 40 60 80 1000

20

40

60

Left shoulder abduktion

Ang

ular

dis

plac

emen

t (de

g)

(Normalised kayak stroke 0 - 100 %)

Low SubMax Max

0 20 40 60 80 1000

20

40

60

80

100

Ang

ular

dis

plac

emen

t (de

g)

Right shoulder abduction

Normalised kayak stroke 0 - 100 %

Low SubMax Max

  11  

0 20 40 60 80 100-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80Left shoulder rotation

Ang

ular

dis

plac

emen

t (de

g)

Normalised kayak stroke 0 - 100 %

Low SubMax Max

0 20 40 60 80 100-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80Right shoulder rotation

Ang

ular

dis

plac

emen

t (de

g)

Normalised kayak stroke 0 - 100 %

Low SubMax Max

Note: For shoulder rotation, negative values indicate inward rotation.

b.

0 20 40 60 80 1000

20

40

60

80

100

120

140Left elbow flexion

Ang

ular

dis

plac

emen

t (de

g)

Normalised kayak stroke 0 - 100 %

Low SubMax Max

0 20 40 60 80 1000

20

40

60

80

100

120

140Right elbow flexion

Ang

ular

dis

plac

emen

t (de

g)

Normalised kayak stroke 0 - 100 %

Low SubMax Max

c..

0 20 40 60 80 100

-40

-20

0

20Left wrist flexion

Ang

ular

dis

plac

emen

t (de

g)

Normalised kayak stroke 0 - 100 %

Low SubMax Max

0 20 40 60 80 100

-40

-20

0

20Right wrist flexion

Ang

ular

dis

plac

emen

t (de

g)

Normalised kayak stroke 0 - 100 %

Low SubMax Max

Note: For wrist flexion, negative values indicate dorsiflexion.

  12  

0 20 40 60 80 100

-20

0

20Left wrist deviation

Ang

ular

dis

plac

emen

t (de

g)

Normalised kayak stroke 0 -100 %

Low SubMax Max

0 20 40 60 80 100

-20

0

20Righ Wrist deviation

Ang

ular

dis

plac

emen

t (de

g)

Normalised kayak stroke 0 - 100 %

Low SubMax Max

Note: For wrist deviation, negative values indicate ulnar deviation.

d.

0 20 40 60 80 10060

80

100

120

Left hip flexion

Ang

ular

dis

plac

emen

t (de

g)

Normalised kayak stroke 0 - 100 %

Low SubMax Max

0 20 40 60 80 10060

80

100

120

Right hip flexion

Ang

ular

dis

plac

emen

t (de

g)

Normalised kayak stroke 0 - 100 %

Low SubMax Max

e.

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

20

40

60

80 Left knee flexion

Ang

ular

dis

plac

emen

t (de

g)

Normalised kayak stroke 0 - 100 %

Low SubMax Max

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

20

40

60

80Right knee flexion

Ang

ular

dis

plac

emen

t (de

g)

Normalised kayak stroke 0 - 100 %

Low SubMax Max

  13  

f.

0 20 40 60 80 100

60

80

100 Left foot flexion

Y Ax

is T

itle

X Axis Title

Low SubMax Max

0 20 40 60 80 100

60

80

100Right foot flexion

Ang

ular

dis

plac

emen

t (de

g)

Normalised kayak stroke 0 - 100 %

Low SubMax Max

g.

0 20 40 60 80 100-40

-20

0

20

40

Left trunk rotation

Ang

ular

dis

plac

emen

t (de

g)

Normalised kayak stroke 0 - 100 %

Low SubMax Max

0 20 40 60 80 100-40

-20

0

20

40

Right trunk rotation

Ang

ular

dis

plac

emen

t (de

g)

Normalised kayak stroke 0 - 100 %

Low SubMax Max

Note: For left and right trunk rotation, negative values indicate trunk rotation to the right.

0 20 40 60 80 100-20

0

20Left trunk bending

Ang

ular

dis

plac

emen

t (de

g)

Normalised kayak stroke 0 - 100 %

Low SubMax Max

0 20 40 60 80 100-20

0

20Right trunk bending

Ang

ular

dis

plac

emen

t (de

g)

Normalised kayak stroke 0 - 100 %

Low SubMax Max

  14  

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

20Trunkt flexion

Ang

ular

dis

plac

emen

t (de

g)

Normalised kayak stroke 0 - 100 %

Low SubMax Max

Figure 1a-g. The average values (and standard deviations) from left and right side range of motion data a) shoulder flexion, abduction and inward

and outward rotation, b) elbow flexion, c) wrist flexion and deviation, d) hip flexion, e) knee flexion, f) foot plantar flexion, g) trunk rotation,

lateral bending and flexion, are presented during kayaking at three different intensities; i.e. Low (black line), Sub-maximal (red line) and

Maximal (green line).

The mean range of motion was for shoulder flexion; 3 – 101°, shoulder abduction; 9 – 53°,

shoulder inward/outward rotation; 39 – 51°, elbow flexion; 13 – 118°, wrist palmar/dorsiflexion;

9 – 31°, wrist radial/ulnar deviation; 9 – 22°, trunk flex/extension; 8 – 1°, trunk rotation

left/right; 24 – 24, trunk lateral bending right/left; 7 – 8°, hip flexion 85 – 116°, knee flexion; 7

– 56° and foot flexion 64 – 91°. In Figure 2 mean values (and standard deviations) are presented

of peak maximal and minimal range of motion during kayaking. The range of motion is

presented for the left side for shoulder, elbow, wrist, trunk, hip, knee and ankle joint on the left

side. The highest group mean value for each joint was taken independent of intensity.

-­‐80

-­‐60

-­‐40

-­‐20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Shoulder  Flex/Ext

Shoulder  Abd/Add

Shoulder  Rotation  Ext/In

Elbow    Flex/Ext

Wrist  Palm/Dors

Wrist  Deviation  Rad/Uln

Trunk  Flex/Ext Trunk  Rotation  Left/Right

Trunk  Bending Hip  Flexion Knee  Flexion Foot  Flexion

Angular  d

isplacemen

t  (degrees)

Total  range  of  motion  

  15  

Figure 2 Mean values (and standard deviations) are presented of peak maximal and minimal range of motion during kayaking.

Differences between left and right side for peak maximal range of motion

In general, there were no significant differences observed between left and right side for

maximal range of motion data for the shoulder (flexion, abduction and rotation), elbow (flexion),

wrist (flexion and deviation), trunk (lateral bending and rotation), hip (flexion) and foot

(flexion). The only significant difference observed between left and right side was for peak

maximal knee flexion (p = 0.028, F = 7.22).

Differences between intensity for peak maximal range of motion

Shoulder

A significant main effect of intensity (i.e. irrespective of the body side) was found for shoulder

flexion (p < 0.001, F = 14.95) and shoulder rotation (p < 0.001, F = 20.09). For shoulder

abduction, no differences in maximal peak of range of motion were seen between either

intensities or body side. For shoulder flexion, results showed significantly lower peak values at

“Low” intensity compared to “Sub-maximal” (p < 0.001) and “Maximal” intensity (p < 0.001).

Range of motion for shoulder outward rotation decreased with intensity. Peak values at “Low”

intensity were significantly higher than at “Sub-maximal” and “Maximal” (p = 0.017 and p <

0.001, respectively). Significantly higher values at “Sub-maximal” compared to “Maximal”

intensity (p = 0.018) were also found.

Elbow

For elbow flexion, there was a main effect of intensity (p = 0.033, F = 4.24), with decreased

maximal peak observed at “Low” compared to “Maximal” intensity (p = 0.032).

Wrist

No significant differences were seen for palmar flexion. For wrist radial deviation there was a

main effect of intensity (p < 0.001, F = 16.17) and significantly higher (p < 0.001) maximal peak

were shown at “Sub-maximal” and “Maximal” intensity compared to “Low” intensity.

  16  

Trunk

Larger trunk flexion was shown between “Low” and “Sub-maximal” intensity (p = 0.006) and

between “Low” and “Maximal” intensity (p = 0.003). No significant differences between either

intensities or body sides were seen for trunk rotation and trunk lateral bending.

Hip, knee and foot

A significant main effect of intensity were found for hip flexion (p = 0.004, F = 8.10), knee

flexion (p < 0.001, F = 22.59) and foot flexion (p < 0.001, F = 18.96). For hip, knee and foot

flexion maximal peak range of motion increased with intensity, shown between “Low” and

“Sub-maximal” (p = 0.005, p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively), and between “Low” and

“Maximal” intensity (p = 0.018, p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). No differences were

observed between “Sub-maximal” and “Maximal” intensity for lower limb segments.

Differences between left and right side for peak minimal range of motion

In general, there were no significant differences observed between left and right side for minimal

range of motion for shoulder (flexion, abduction and rotation), elbow (flexion), wrist (flexion

and deviation), trunk (lateral bending and rotation), hip (flexion) and foot (flexion) segment. The

only difference between left and right side was observed for minimal peak of knee flexion (p =

0.049, F = 5.40).

Differences between intensity in peak minimal range of motion

Shoulder

For shoulder flexion there was a main effect of intensity (p < 0.001, F =23.65) with a significant

difference between “Low” and “Sub-maximal” (p = 0.003), “Low” and “Maximal” (p < 0.001)

and between “Sub-maximal” and “Maximal” intensity (p = 0.034). A main effect of intensity

were seen for shoulder abduction (p = 0.031, F =4.33), and a minimal peak was lower at “Sub-

maximal” compared to “Maximal intensity” (p = 0.025). For shoulder rotation intensity main

effect was observed (p < 0.001, F =101.45). The internal rotation increased with intensity;

minimal peak was significantly (p < 0.001) higher at both “Sub-maximal and “Maximal”

intensity compared to “Low”.

  17  

Elbow

No significant differences were seen for elbow flexion.

Wrist

For wrist extension/flexion a main effect of intensity (p < 0.001, F value=12.90) was shown. The

wrist flexion increased with intensity and higher minimal peak was seen at “Sub-maximal” (p >

0.013) and “Maximal” intensity (p < 0.001) compared to “Low”. For wrist deviation there were a

significant interaction of intensity and body side (p = 0.022, F = 4.91). At “Maximal” intensity a

higher minimal peak was shown for right wrist compared to left body side (p = 0.005).

Trunk

No significant differences were observed for trunk extension movement and trunk rotation. For

trunk lateral bending there was a main effect of intensity (p = 0.009, F = 6.37). Larger trunk

bending movement during increased intensity was seen from “Low” to “Maximal” (p = 0.009).

Hip, knee and foot

No significant differences were seen for hip movement. For knee flexion there was an interaction

of intensity and body side effect (p = 0.042, F = 3.90). For the left knee, the minimal peak at

“Sub-maximal” intensity were lower than at “Low” (p < 0.001) and at “Maximal” (p = 0.028)

intensities. However, for the right knee peak values at “Low” intensity were the lowest compared

to “Sub-maximal” (p < 0.001) and “Maximal” (p < 0.001) intensity. Differences in minimal peak

flexion between left and right knee were found only at “Maximal” intensity (p = 0.02). A main

effect was seen for foot movement (p = 0.003, F = 8.35) with increased plantar flexion at higher

intensities observed from “Low” to “Sub-maximal” intensity (p = 0.021) and from “Low” to

“Maximal” intensity (p = 0.036).

3.2 Power

The group average maximal power output (W) during the “Maximal test” was 402.4 ± 115.9 W

measured from the flywheel on kayak ergometer. The “Sub-maximal” intensity level for the

group were as followed: 200W (n=2), 250W (n=2), 300W (n=3), 350W (n=2), and 400W (n=1).

  18  

3.3 Stroke frequency

The frequency at the “Low” intensity was 62.03 ± 6.4 strokes per min, 109.32 ± 8.2 for “Sub-

maximal”, and 135.32 ± 25.9 at “Maximal” intensity. The stroke rate increased significantly with

work intensity observed between “Low” and “Sub-maximal” intensity (p < 0.001), “Low” and

“Maximal” intensity (p < 0.001), and ”Sub-maximal” and “Maximal” intensity (p = 0.016).

4. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to analyze three-dimensional movements of all major joints during

paddling on the kayak ergometer in international elite active canoeists. Peak joint angles were

calculated in order to examine the total range of motion. An additional purpose was to analyze if

the range of motion changed with increased intensity and if there were any differences between

body sides during paddling on the ergometer.

4.1 Range of motion

Results showed greater angular movement in shoulder flexion, shoulder inward rotation, wrist

dorsiflexion and radial deviation, trunk flexion, trunk downward bending, hip flexion, knee

flexion and foot dorsiflexion during increased intensity. Simultaneous increases in shoulder,

trunk and hip flexion may allow the paddle shaft to be placed in a more forward position. These

changes in angular range of motion support the findings from previous studies that have reported

correlations between range of motion and performance indicating that the ability to insert the

paddle blade in a far forward position (Brown, Lauder & Dyson 2011) with a shorter backward

movement before the paddle blade leaves the water (Kendal & Sanders 1992) lead to improved

performance.

To optimize performance the paddling movement should be as symmetric as possible. In

general, there were no differences between left and right sides in this group of athletes. To our

knowledge there are no studies explaining the impact of body side differences on paddling

performance in relation to angular range of motion during paddling. However, results from

previous study (Michaels et al. 2012) showed side differences in mechanical efficiency during

kayaking on ergometer. The authors suggested that the larger propulsion work on the right side

was due to the fact that all participants were right handed.

  19  

The range of motion for all joints calculated in this study can be used as accurate

reference values in the development of an evidence-based classification system for para-

kayakers. According to ICF Paracanoe Classification Guidelines, it is assumed that the para-

kayaker should have full range of motion, i.e. 100 % of functional range of motion in all tested

joints. Thus, the scale based on accurate reference values calculated during actual paddling

movement is crucial when classifying the athletes. Moreover, it has previously been shown that

shoulder rotation and trunk/pelvic range of motion are important during kayaking (McKean &

Burkett 2010; Michaels et al. 2012). Therefore, these additional joint angles were calculated in

this study in order to be included in the new evidenced based protocol for classification.

If possible, the evaluation of performance should be done in a sport-specific environment

where the activity is usually performed. In this study, we decided to do the measurements on a

kayak ergometer. From a biomechanical point of view a major difference between paddling on

the ergometer compared to on water paddling is primarily seen in the lateral stability because the

ergometer rests on a solid surface (Bjerkefors, Carpenter & Thorstensson 2007). Another

disparity is that the paddle shaft on the ergometer is attached to the ropes which rotate the

flywheel whereas during on water paddling the kayaker uses a paddle for propulsion and balance

corrections. We can only speculate whether the joint range of motion will differ depending on

testing environment; water vs. kayak ergometer. Trunk movement might be larger, especially in

lateral direction, if the athletes perform the test on an unstable surface such as on water. Or it

could be the opposite; trunk movement may be smaller due to the unstable surface or remain

unchanged as the increased movement forward (trunk and hip flexion) makes it difficult to

simultaneously increase the lateral movement.

4.2 Stroke frequency  Shorter race distances, with the shortest distance 200 m sprint, have been introduced during the

Olympics 2012. This sprint distance has also been introduced for para-kayak athletes. When the

distances decrease and become more sprint-like a clear relationship with increased paddle

frequency, ranging from 89 to 141 strokes per min, has been presented in a number of studies

(McDonnell et al. 2013). In this study the stroke frequency ranged from 62 strokes per min

during kayaking at low intensity to 135 strokes per min at maximal intensity, indicating similar

values to those previously reported.

  20  

4.3 Subjects  In this study, all 10 participants were elite canoeists competing at national and international

level. Four women participated and reflect the gender representativeness, with more males

competing compared to women. No gender comparisons were made due the low number of

athletes and we were not expecting to find differences between male/female. However, we know

that power output is greater in men judged by faster racing time (McDonnell et al. 2013) but if

this will affect the range of motion is still not known. The athletes who participated competed at

various distances and the majority of the athletes competed at the short sprint distance which will

be comparable to the para-canoe athletes. The next step in this study will be to compare the

results from this study with the data from a group of para-athletes.

4.4 Conclusion

This study assessed joint angle motion from upper and lower extremities and the trunk in elite

able-bodied kayakers. The ranges of motion for all major joints were calculated and the results

from this study can serve as adequate reference values in the development of an evidence-based

classification system for para-kayakers.

4.5 Limitation

A limitation in this study was that we have not been able to analyze and present the paddle force

recorded during the tests and therefore we are not able to make any further conclusions if there

are any asymmetries in power output between body sides observed in this group.

  21  

5. References  

Altmann V C, Groen B E, J van Limbeek, Vanlandewijck Y C & Keijsers N L W. (2013).

Reliability of the revised wheelchair rugby trunk impairment classification system. Spinal Cord,

vol. 51, s. 913-918.

 Beckman EM & Tweedy SM. (2009). Towards evidence-based classification in Paralympic

athletics: evaluating the validity of activity limitation tests for use in classification of Paralympic

running events. J Sports and Medicine, vol. 43(139), s. 1067-1072 .

Baker J, Rathg D, Sanders R & Kelly B. (2011). A three-dimensional analysis of male and

female elite spring kayak paddlers. Scientific proceedings of the Xv11th International Society of

Biomechanics in sports conference. S. 53-56.

Begon M, Lacouture P & Colloud, F. (2008). 3D kinematic comparison between on-water and on

ergometer kayaking. Conference on biomechanics in sports. vol.14(1), s. 502-5

Bjerkefors A, Jansson A & Thorstensson A. (2006). Shoulder muscle strength in paraplegics

before and after kayak ergometer training. Eur J Appl Physiol; vol. 97(5), s.613-8.

Bjerkefors A & Thorstensson A. (2006). Effects of kayak ergometer training on motor

performance in paraplegics. Int J Sports Med, vol. 27(10), s. 824-9.

Bjerkefors A, Carpenter MG & Thorstensson A. (2007). Dynamic trunk stability is improved in

paraplegics following kayak ergometer training. Scand J Med Scie Sport, vol. 17(6), sid. 672-9.

Brown M, Lauder M & Dyson R. National analysis of sprint kayaking. (2011). Differentiating

between ability levels. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, vol. 11, s. 171-

183.

Fleming, N, Donne, B & Fletcher, D. (2012). Effect of Kayak elastic tension on upper limb

EMG activity and 3d kinematic. Department of Kinesiology, J Sports Science and Medicine, vol.

11, s. 430-437.

  22  

Grigorenko A, Bjerkefors A, Rosdahl H, Hultling C, Alm M & Thorstensson A. (2004). Sitting

balance and effects of kayak training in paraplegics. J. Rehabil Med, vol. 36(3), s. 110-6.

Kendal SJ & Sanders RH. (1992). The technique of elite flatwater kayak using the wing blade.

Int J Sport Biomechanics, vol. 8, s. 233-250.

McDonnel, LK, Patria A. Hume, & Vilker Nolte. (2013). A deterministic model based on

evidence for the associations between kinemativ variables and sprint kayak performance. Sport

Biomechanics, vol.12, s. 205-220.

Mann RV & Kearney JT. (1980). A biomechanical analysis of the Olympic-style flatwater kayak

stroke. Med Sci Sports Exerc, vol. 12(3), s. 183-188.

Michael JS, Smith RM & Rooney KB. (2009). Determinants of kayak paddling performance.

Sports Biomechanics, vol. 8(2), s. 167-179.

Michael JS, Rooney KB & Smith RM. (2012). The dynamics of elite paddling on a kayak

simulator. J Sport Sci, vol. vol. 30(7), s. 661-8.

McKean MR & Burkett B. (2010). The relationship between joint range of motion, muscular

strength, and race time for sub-elite flat water kayakers. J Science and Medicin in Sport, vol. 13,

s. 537-542.

Nilsson JE & Rosdahl HG. (2013). New Devices for Measuring Forces on the Kayak Foot-Bar

and on the Seat During Flat-Water Kayak Paddling. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, vol. 9(2), s.

365-70.

 

Plagenhoef S. (1979). Biomechanical analysis of Olympic flatwater kayaking and canoeing. Res

Q, vol. 50(3), s. 443-59.

  23  

Pernot HFM, Lannem AM, Geers RPJ, Ruijters EFG, Bloemendal M & Seelen HAM. (2011).

Validity of the test-table-test for nordic skiing for classification of paralympic sit-ski sports

participants. International Spinal Cord Scoiety, vol. 49, s. 935-941.

Sanders RH & Kendal SJ. (1992). A description of Olympic flatwater kayak stroke technique: J

of Science in Sport Medicine. S.25-30.

Trevithick BA, Ginn KA, Halaki M & Balnave R. (2007). Shoulder muscle recruitment patterns

during kayak stroke performed on a paddling ergometer. J Electromyigr Kinesiol, vol. 17(1), s.

74-79.

Tweedy SM & Valandvejick YC. (2011). International Paralympic Committee position stand -

background and scientific principles of classification in Paralympic sport. J Sports Med. vol.

45(1), s. 259-269.

Vanlandewijck, YC, Verellen J & Tweedy S. (2011). Towards evidens-based classification in

wheelchair sports: Impact of seating position on weelchair acceleration. J Sports sciences, vol.

29(10), s. 1089-1096.

Wassinger CA, Myers JB, Sell TC, Oyama S, Rubenstein EN & Lephart SM. (2011).

Scapulohumeral kinematic assessment of the forward kayak stroke in experienced whitewater

kayakers. Sports Biomechanics, vol. 10(2), s. 98-109.

Wassinger, CA. (2007). Biomechanical and Physical Characteristics of Whitewater Kayakers

with and without Shoulder Pain. Doctoral Dissertation, vol. 8(1), s. 1-124.

  24  

 

6. Appendix

Hälsodeklaration

Datum: Namn: Födelseår: Vikt: kg Längd: cm Adress: Telefonnummer:

Har Du tidigare haft eller har nu :

JA NEJ VET EJ

- Diabetes? □ □ □

- Högt blodtryck? □ □ □

- Lågt blodtryck eller svimningsattacker? □ □ □

- Hjärtsjukdom? □ □ □

- Epilepsi eller någonsin haft ett anfall / kramper? □ □ □

- Någon sjukdom som involverar hjärnan? □ □ □

- Någon annan neurologisk sjukdom eller skada? □ □ □

- Astma? □ □ □

- Lungsjukdom? □ □ □

- Magsår, mag- eller tarmkatarr? □ □ □

- Leversjukdomar? □ □ □

- Muskelsjukdomar? □ □ □

- Allergi / eksem? □ □ □

SMÄRTOR / BESVÄR / SKADOR

PERSONUPPGIFTER

SJUKDOMAR

  25  

Har Du själv:

JA NEJ

- Ryggbesvär?

□ □

- Ledskador / ledsmärtor?

□ □

- Muskelskador / muskelsmärtor?

□ □

- Huvudvärk (ofta förekommande, långvarig eller migrän)?

□ □

- Bröstsmärta eller obehag i bröstet vid ansträngning?

□ □

- Kraftig ”onormal” andfåddhet vid ansträngning?

□ □

- Känsla av hjärtklappning eller rytmrubbning vid ansträngning?

□ □

- Svimning eller nära svimning vid ansträngning?

□ □

- Yrsel vid ansträngning?

□ □

LÄKEMEDEL

JA NEJ

- Har du fått vaccination nyligen? □ □

- Äter du smärtstillande pga värken? □ □

- Använder du sömnmedel? □ □

- Har du ordinerats mediciner för långtidsbruk? □ □

- Vilket läkemedel? När? ________________________________________

FYSISKA AKTIVITETER Hur ofta tränar du per vecka? Hur många timmar totalt tränar du per vecka? Vilken typ av träningsform Tränar du kombinerat för din idrottsgren? Har du undvikit eller avbrutit träning de senaste dagarna pga. skada eller hälsoskäl?

JA NEJ □ □

Om Ja, ange orsak:

  26  

Vilken nivå tävlar du på? Internationell Nationell Region ÖVRIGT

JA NEJ

- Känner du dig fullt frisk?

□ □

- Är du gravid?

□ □

- Röker du?

□ □

- Snusar du?

□ □

Övrig: Förutsättningar för deltagande i undersökningen samt hälsodeklaration Jag har muntligen informerats om studien och dessutom tagit del av dem skriftliga informationen om försökets genomförande. Jag är medveten om att mitt deltagande är fullt frivilligt och att jag när som helst och utan närmare förklaring kan avbryta mitt deltagande. Jag uppfattar mih om fullt frisk och ser inga medicinska hinder för deltagande i undersökningen. Stockholm den / __________________________ ________________________ Försökspersonens namnteckning Försöksledarens namnteckning

  27  

Information till dig som är intresserad att delta i studien:

Tredimensionell rörelseanalys under paddling på kajakergometer – en första del i evidensbaserad klassificering av parakanotister till Paralympics 2016

Målsättning I december 2010 adderade IPC kanotpaddling som ny gren till Paralympics 2016. The International Canoe Federation (ICF) har därför initierat ett projekt som syftar till utvärdera, utveckla och presentera ett förslag till IPC gällande ett validerat och modifierat klassificeringssystem för parakanotiser. Den första delen avser att definiera rörelseomfånget (vinkelrörelsen i skuldra, armbåge, hand, bål, bäcken, höft, knä och ankelled) under kajakpaddling. Syftet med studien är att i samarbete med ICF, utvärdera och utveckla ett förslag gällande klassificeringen av parakanotister till kommande Paralympics 2016. Förslaget ska innehålla ett evidensbaserat instrument för bedömning av rörelseomfånget för parakanotister. Bedömningsinstrumentet ska utgå från det maximala rörelseutslaget som krävs under paddling hos icke-skadade elitkanotister. Resultaten från studierna ska ligga till grund för en tydlig definition mellan klasserna för parakanotister Efter testernas gång kommer vi att analysera och redogöra resultaten med hjälp av våra frågeställningar:

- Vilket är det totala rörelseomfånget för skuldra, armbåge, handled, bål, höft, knä samt fotled under

paddling och påverkas det totala rörelseomfånget vid ändrad kraftutveckling dvs. vid lång, medel- och

högintensiv paddling?

- Finns det några sidoskillnader mellan höger och vänster sida som kan påverka den totala

effektutvecklingen?

Testerna kommer att genomföras på Gymnastik- och idrottshögskolan i Stockholm. Vi vänder oss till dig som är: Man eller kvinna, tävlar på elit nivå. Vi ser gärna att du är specialiserad på sprint, distansen 200m. Du ska förövrigt vara fullt frisk dvs inte ha någon diagnostiserad hjärt- och lungsjukdom, eller annan åkomma som kan vara av betydelser för forskningsresultaten. Risker för komplikationer Samtliga metoder som vi använder är väl beprövade och risken för komplikationer bedömer vi som mycket små. Du kan när som helst kontakta försöksledarna efter testet.

  28  

Ekonomisk ersättning Ett försökspersonsarvode på 600:- utbetalas efter avslutat test.

Vid  frågor  angående  testtillfälle  eller  uppsatsen  vänligen  ta  kontakt  med  studerande  eller  handledare.

Stockholm den 3 mars 2013 Mastersstudent Handledare Pascal Zakaria Anna Bjerkefors Mail: pascal.zakaria@gmail.com Huvudansvarig forskare Tfn: 0704XXXXXX Gymnastik och Idrottshögskolan

Box 5626 114 86 Stockholm

_____________________________________________________________________________ Till dig som vill medverka i studien! Observera att det är viktigt för dig att veta att du när som helst har möjlighet att avbryta din medverkan i vår undersökning utan att du behöver motivera varför. Dina data från undersökningen kommer att hanteras konfidentiellt. Alla deltagare erhåller en kod som används för protokoll och mätresultat. Ansvariga för undersökningen kommer att kunna härleda koden till enskilda deltagare. I den slutliga sammanställningen kan ingen individuell person identifieras av utomstående personer. Jag har muntligen informerats om studien och jag har tagit del av ovanstående skriftliga information. Jag är medveten om att mitt deltagande är helt frivilligt och att jag när som helst utan närmare förklaring kan avbryta mitt deltagande. Namn:……………………………………………………………………………………. Adress:…………………………………………………………………………………… Telefonnummer:………………………………………………………………………….. E-post:…………………………………………………………………………………….. ________________________________________

Datum

________________________________________

Namnteckning

  29  

Tredimensionell rörelseanalys under paddling på kajakergometer Markörer (totalt = 72, 150 Hz, 12 Pro reflex kameror (Huvud = 2, Arm vänster och högersegment 16 totalt, bål = 8, Ben- och fotsegment höger och vänster totalt 18, Paddel totalt 9, Kajakergometer totalt 3) Head Head_Left Head_Right

Trunk C7 T5 Th12 Sternum L_Acromion R_Acromion L_IliacChrest (ref) R_IliacChrest (ref) Arm Left L_Upperarm L_Elbow (L_ElbowMedial) L_Forearm L_Wrist L_Ulnaris L_HandRad L_HandUln Arm Right R_Upperarm R_Elbow (R_Elbowmedial) R_Forearm R_Wrist R_Ulnaris R_HandRad R_HandUln Leg Right R_Thigh1 R_Thigh2 R_Thigh3 R_Knee Tibia R_FootAnkle

  30  

R_FootSub R_FootHeel R_FootToe Leg Left L_Thigh1 L_Thigh2 L_Thigh3 L_Knee Tibia L_FootAnkle L_FootSub L_FootHeel L_FootToe Paddle PaddleLeft PaddleMidle PaddleRight Power and Rope Right Powerright1 Powerright2 Roperight Power and Rope Left Powerleft1 Powerleft2 Ropeleft Ergo(meter) Right and Left ErgoRight ErgoLeft ErgoBack