Performance tracking devices in the form of wrist-worn watches are common in rowing; however, the accuracy of relevant output variables (i.e. stroke rate [SR] and velocity) during on-water training is unknown. To assess the quality of wrist-watch data output, 16 rowing athletes recorded 118 on-water rowing sessions using a Garmin Forerunner 735XT, which was compared to a Catapult Optimeye R4 tracking device. Garmin recording function was set to ‘Every Second’ ( N = 68 sessions) or ‘Smart’ ( N = 50 sessions). Catapult velocity was calculated as the average velocity per stroke, while a 15 s velocity moving average was determined for Garmin data. Catapult and Garmin were filtered for training-specific data (SR = 14–50 strokes per minute [spm]; velocity = 2.1–7.0 m/s−1). Efficacy and reliability of the Garmin was assessed via the difference between devices (% error), intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC ± 95% confidence interval (CI)) and coefficient of variation (CV%). Error in 15 s smoothed velocity was 3.8% (‘Every Second’) and 8.2% (‘Smart’). Both recording functions demonstrated ‘good’ reliability (ICC = 0.75–0.9, CV < 10%) for SR and velocity; the exception was SR using ‘Smart’ recording. Our data suggests that when using the ‘Every Second’ recording function, data is filtered and velocity is smoothed over 15 s, the Garmin device can be reliable for SR and velocity measurement within 1 spm and <0.20 m/s−1 respectively.

Watts, SP, Binnie, MJ, Goods, PSR, Hewlett, J, Fahey-Gilmour, J, and Peeling, P. Demarcation of intensity from 3 to 5 zones aids in understanding physiological performance progression in highly trained under-23 rowing athletes. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2023—The purpose of this investigation was to compare 2 training intensity distribution models (3 and 5 zone) in 15 highly trained rowing athletes (n = 8 male; n = 7 female; 19.4 ± 1.1 years) to determine the impact on primary (2,000-m single-scull race) and secondary (2,000-m ergometer time trial, peak oxygen consumption [V̇O2peak], lactate threshold 2 [LT2 power]) performance variables. Performance was assessed before and after 4 months training, which was monitored through a smart watch (Garmin Ltd, Olathe, KS) and chest-strap heart rate (HR) monitor (Wahoo Fitness, Atlanta, GA). Two training intensity distribution models were quantified and compared: a 3-zone model (Z1: between 50% V̇O2peak and lactate threshold 1 (LT1); Z2: between LT1 and 95% LT2; Z3: >95% LT2) and a 5-zone model (T1–T5), where Z1 and Z3 were split into 2 additional zones. There was significant improvement in LT2 power for both male (4.08% ± 1.83, p < 0.01) and female (3.52% ± 3.38, p = 0.02) athletes, with male athletes also demonstrating significant improvement in 2,000-m ergometer time trial (2.3% ± 1.92, p = 0.01). Changes in V̇O2peak significantly correlated with high-quality aerobic training (percent time in T2 zone; r = 0.602, p = 0.02), whereas changes in LT2 power significantly correlated with “threshold” training (percent time in T4 zone; r = 0.529, p = 0.04). These correlations were not evident when examining intensity distribution through the 3-zone model. Accordingly, a 5-zone intensity model may aid in understanding the progression of secondary performance metrics in rowing athletes; however, primary (on-water) performance remains complex to quantify.

Winning times at benchmark international rowing competitions (Olympic Games and World Championships) are known to vary greatly between venues, based on environmental conditions and the strength of the field. Further variability in boat speed for any given effort is found in the training environment, with less controlled conditions (i.e., water flow, non-buoyed courses), fewer world class competitors, and the implementation of non-race specific effort distances and intensities. This combination of external factors makes it difficult for coaches and practitioners to contextualise the performance underpinning boat speed or race results on any given day. Currently, a variety of approaches are referenced in the literature and used in practice to quantify this underpinning performance time or boat speed, however, no clear consensus exists. The use of relative performance (i.e., time compared to other competitors), accounting for influence of the weather (i.e., wind and water temperature), and the novel application of instrumented boats (with power instrumentation) have been suggested as potential methods to improve our understanding of on-water rowing speeds. Accordingly, this perspective article will discuss some of these approaches from recent literature, whilst also sharing experience from current practice in the elite environment, to further stimulate discussion and help guide future research.