Mechanical Work and Physiological Responses to Simulated Flat Water Slalom Kayaking

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the physical work demand in relation to metrics of force and subsequent physiological response to a simulated flatwater slalom competition. Eight New Zealand team members completed a standard incremental step-test to ascertain power:oxygen consumption relationship. This was followed by a simulated race run where breath-by-breath analysis along with force and power data logged at 50 Hz to determine stroke length, impulse, peak force, time to peak force, and rate of peak force per stroke. Physiological response to negotiating a flatwater slalom course was greater than straight-line paddling (36.89 ± 2.01 vs. 32.17 ± 1.97 ml⋅kg-1⋅min-1, p = 0.0065) at the same power output. Mean power output for the duration of the simulated race (91.63 ± 7.19 s) was 203.8 ± 45.0 W, incurring an oxygen deficit of 1.386 ± 0.541 L⋅min-1 translating to an overall anaerobic contribution of 32 ± 18% and aerobic contribution of 68 ± 18%. Moderate to strong relationships between time duration and stroke peak force (R2 = 0.354, R2 = 0.485) and rate of peak force development (R2 = 0.345, R2 = 0.426) but not for stroke length (R2 = 0.022, R2 = 0.012), impulse (R2 = 0.088, R2 = 0.097) or time to peak force (R2 = 0.001, R2 = 0.0001) for left and right strokes, respectively. The number of propulsive (<0.6 s) strokes outweighed turning/driving (>0.6 s) strokes with a ratio of 94:6%. Longer stroke duration was significantly correlated to greater impulse (R2 = 0.507, p < 0.0001) and time to peak force (R2 = 0.851, p < 0.0001), but a lower rate of force development (R2 = 0.107, p < 0.0001). The results show that a flatwater slalom under simulated race conditions entails initial supra-maximal (anaerobic) work rate with a subsequent transition to one associated with maximal aerobic capacity. Inability to sustain work done and the subsequent decline in peak force and force profile per stroke requires further research regarding strategies to enhance performance.

Application of Instrumented Paddles in Measuring On-Water Kinetics of Front and Back Paddlers in K2 Sprint Kayaking Crews of Various Ability Levels

“…Nearly all previously studies of on-water kayak performance examined individual performance in a one-seater K1 kayak [3,5,7,9,10]. The literature on crew boats is very limited [11][12][13].…”

Association Between Mechanical, Physiological, and Technical Parameters With Canoe Slalom Performance: A Systematic Review

“…After the removal of duplicates (66 studies), 59 articles were checked at the title and abstract level, of which 38 were excluded. Finally, 21 full-texts were screened, and eight (Hunter et al, 2008 ; Messias et al, 2015 ; Vieira et al, 2015 ; Ferrari et al, 2017 ; Bielik et al, 2019 , 2020 ; Macdermid et al, 2019 ; Baláš et al, 2020 ) reached the eligibility criteria ( Figure 1 ). The eligible study's mean quality was high (92.9 ± 2.9%) and classified as having excellent methodological quality according to the 16-item checklist.…”

“…Only one study evaluated Olympic medalists (Bielik et al, 2019 ), while others tested elite or competitive canoe slalom athletes. One study evaluated athletes from the C1 category (Baláš et al, 2020 ), while the other four studies included the K1 category (Messias et al, 2015 ; Vieira et al, 2015 ; Ferrari et al, 2017 ; Macdermid et al, 2019 ). The remaining three tested athletes from K1/C1 (Hunter et al, 2008 ) and K1, C1, and C2 (Bielik et al, 2019 , 2020 ).…”

“…Three studies used simulated races in whitewater (Messias et al, 2015 ; Vieira et al, 2015 ; Ferrari et al, 2017 ) and two in flatwater (Macdermid et al, 2019 ; Baláš et al, 2020 ) courses. Two studies (Messias et al, 2015 ; Ferrari et al, 2017 ) inserted 24 gates (18 downstream and 6 upstream) during the performance task in whitewater, while Vieira et al ( 2015 ) adopted only 11 (eight downstream and three upstream).…”

“…Two studies (Messias et al, 2015 ; Ferrari et al, 2017 ) inserted 24 gates (18 downstream and 6 upstream) during the performance task in whitewater, while Vieira et al ( 2015 ) adopted only 11 (eight downstream and three upstream). In flatwater trials, the slalom athletes from the study by Macdermid et al ( 2019 ) traversed 15 gates, with 11 downstream and 4 upstream gates. The course proposed by Baláš et al ( 2020 ) had buoys for pivot turns rather than gates.…”