Rowing Biomechanics Publications in 2025

Traditionally, we begin the new year with a brief review of scientific articles published in 2025. Each publication was evaluated using a 0–5 scale (0 = very poor, 5 = excellent). The following five criteria were applied: Effort, Novelty, Scientific rigour, Methodological adequacy, Practical applicability.

An article published by scientists from Kursk, Russia and Pinsk, Belarus (1) proposed a simple method for assessing rowing technique using a smartphone fixed to the rower’s upper back and the “Phyphox” software to get gyroscope data.

The systematic review by Spanish researchers (2) represents an exceptional effort, analysing 34 studies published between 1999 and 2025 and involving 909 rowers of all levels.

We have previously discussed studies from Portugal on Randall foils (RBN 2025/09) and just repeat here that both studies are questionable in terms of scientific rigour and practical relevance.

A notable effort was the longitudinal observational study conducted by a Chinese research team (5), in which 30 elite male rowers were monitored over almost an entire year to examine relationships between internal and external training load.

Fang and Troy from the United States (6) investigated the effects of knee range of motion and rowing speed on lower-limb loading during Functional Electrical Stimulation FES-assisted rowing, an important rehabilitation exercise for athletes with spinal cord injury (SCI).

Jacobs and Schumann from Chemnitz University, Germany (7), published a large-scale cross-sectional study on relationship between neuromuscular profiles and 2000 m performance in elite rowers.

An excellent study by a Canadian–Croatian–Swiss research group (8) provides empirical evidence to validate and refine the classification system for para-rowing, particularly the distinction between PR2 and PR1 classes.

An observational study from Portugal and Spain (9) examined the relationship between on-water single-scull performance and intracycle velocity variation (IVV).

A perspective article by Australian and Irish authors (10) presents no experimental data, but proposes a conceptual framework for sport-specific movement competency (MC) in rowing, in addition to traditional physiological and biomechanical metrics.

An article by sport scientists and coaches from Spain, Chile, and Japan (11) was included because it presents a case study of training and performance management, which is rare in modern elite sport.

French scientists (12) developed and validated a novel method to assess linear force–velocity (FV) and parabolic power–velocity profiles during on-water rowing, representing a significant advance beyond ergometer-based testing.

Authors from Alicante, Spain (13) attempted to study kinematic differences between Olympic (sliding-seat) and Traditional (fixed-seat) rowing and produced very obvious results.

Dutch researchers published a pilot study (14) on the effects of 5° forward blade tilt on lower-back muscle activation, a factor of low-back pain (LBP).

Table 1. Ranking of rowing biomechanics articles published in 2025

N Reference Effort Novelty Scientific rigour Methods Practicality Total
1 8. Lafreniere et al. 5 5 4 5 5 4.8
2-3 7. Jacobs & Schumann 5 4 4 5 5 4.6
2-3 12. Nordez et al. 5 5 4 4 5 4.6
4-5 5. Dai et al. 5 3 4 5 4 4.2
4-5 11. Mujika et al. 4 4 3 5 5 4.2
6 2. Borges et al. 5 3 4 5 3 4.0
7-8 6. Fang & Troy 4 4 3 4 4 3.8
7-8 14. van Trigt et al. 4 4 3 4 4 3.8
9-10 1. Anpilogov et al. 4 4 3 4 3 3.6
9-10 10. Legge et al. 3 4 3 4 4 3.6
11-12 4. Cardoso et al. 4 3 3 3 3 3.2
11-12 9. Leão et al. 3 3 3 4 3 3.2
13-14 3. Cardoso et al. 5 3 3 1 3 3.0
13-14 13. Penichet-Tomas et al. 3 3 3 3 3 3.0

This is a short version of the Newsletter. To access the full text, please subscribe to BioRow membership here: https://biorow.com/membership/

©2026 Dr. Valery Kleshnev

List of publications

  1. Anpilogov I., Kruchynsky N., Postnikov N. (2025) Combining continuous wavelet transform and interpretable machine learning for evaluating rowing proficiency: a pilot study. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. (2025) 234:4779–4788 doi.org/10.1140/epjs/s11734-025-01701-0
  2. Borges I, Veiga S, González-Frutos P. (2025) The Evaluation of Physical Performance in Rowing Ergometer: A Systematic Review. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. Nov 9;10(4):437. doi: 10.3390/jfmk10040437. PMID: 41283544; PMCID: PMC12641974.
  3. Cardoso R, Fonseca P, Goethel M, Abraldes JA, Gomes BB, Vilas-Boas JP, Fernandes RJ. (2025) Effect of Randall foils on the rowing propulsive cycle. Sports Biomech. Nov;24(11):3286-3295. doi: 10.1080/14763141.2023.2298968. Epub 2024 Jan 18. PMID: 38238912.
  4. Cardoso R, Gomes BB, Abraldes J, Vilas-Boas JP, Fernandes RJ. (2026) The influence of blade design on rowing sprint performance. Sports Biomech. Jan 21:1-13. doi: 10.1080/14763141.2026.2616007. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 41562516.
  5. Dai X, Yan J, Bi X. The association between internal and external measures of training load in elite rowers during ergometer training. (2025) Sci Rep. Dec 29;15(1):44923. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-29394-4. PMID: 41462528; PMCID: PMC12749921.
  6. Fang, Y., & Troy, K. L. (2025). Effect of Adapted Ergometer Setup and Rowing Speed on Lower Extremity Loading in People with and Without Spinal Cord Injury. Bioengineering, 12(1), 75. doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12010075
  7. Jacobs MW, Schumann M. Individual load-velocity measures are associated with 2000-m rowing ergometer performance in German national rowers. (2025) Front Sports Act Living. 2025 Oct 7;7:1688650. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2025.1688650. PMID: 41126928; PMCID: PMC12538512.
  8. Lafreniere R, Jensen M, Smoljanovic T, Wakeling JM, Klimstra M, Thomas Orr R, Pollock CL. (2025) Contribution of trunk swing to the performance of fixed-seat rowing. Front Sports Act Living. Aug 1;7:1618375. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2025.1618375. PMID: 40822737; PMCID: PMC12355813.
  9. Leão J, Cardoso R, Abraldes JA, Soares S, Gomes BB, Fernandes RJ. (2025) Intracycle Velocity Variation During a Single-Sculling 2000 m Rowing Competition. Sensors (Basel). 2025 Jul 30;25(15):4696. doi: 10.3390/s25154696. PMID: 40807861; PMCID: PMC12349136.
  10. Legge N, Slattery K, Watsford M, O’Meara D, Nugent F. Movement competency in rowing: the key to an effective stroke. (2025) Front Sports Act Living. 2025 Jun 19;7:1601563. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2025.1601563. PMID: 40612116; PMCID: PMC12223773.
  11. Mujika I, Nakamura M, Dorfman X, Yamashita D. From Underperformance to Olympic Finals in a World-Class Male Single Sculler: A Case Study. (2025) Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2025 Dec 17;21(2):317-321. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2025-0378. PMID: 41468203.
  12. Nordez, A., Delhaye, C., Teissier, F., Colloud, F., Peyrot, N., & Samozino, P. (2025). Force–velocity and power–velocity relationships in on-water rowing. Sports Biomechanics, 24(9), 2750–2765. doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2025.2511765
  13. Penichet-Tomas A, Calavia-Carbajal S, Pueo B, Villalon-Gasch L. (2025) Kinematic Analysis of Olympic and Traditional Rowing Mechanics at different Stroke Rates. Int J Exerc Sci. 2025 Jun 1;18(7):610-621. doi: 10.70252/RFXJ1471. PMID: 40708773; PMCID: PMC12289236.
  14. van Trigt B, Luidens VGT, Bozaci S, Luiten TJA, van der Laan M, Greidanus AJ. (2026) Assessing the impact of oar blade angle on lower back muscle activation during on-water rowing, a pilot study. Front Sports Act Living. 2026 Jan 9;7:1708377. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2025.1708377. PMID: 41586010; PMCID: PMC12827507.
0 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Biorow