Ulnar Nerve Entrapment / Cubital Tunnel

[Slidewinder]

... one must exclude the handle as sole source of injury. So something else is happening to these people ...

In my Nov. 24 post in this thread I write about a RowErg user, who, in his words, "I trashed my elbows going those distances. I used ice like it was the only thing that mattered." He took my advice and modified the handle in the manner I describe earlier in this thread. After several weeks he reported back to me. In his words, "I've been rowing for a month and still no pain."

If you wish I can private message to you the contact information of this man (after receiving his permission, of course). Then you can tell him in your booming voice of authority that he should immediately go back to rowing with the C2 stock handle because, "one must exclude the handle as sole source of injury."

[Joebasscat]

... one must exclude the handle as sole source of injury. So something else is happening to these people ...

In my Nov. 24 post in this thread I write about a RowErg user, who, in his words, "I trashed my elbows going those distances. I used ice like it was the only thing that mattered." He took my advice and modified the handle in the manner I describe earlier in this thread. After several weeks he reported back to me. In his words, "I've been rowing for a month and still no pain."

If you wish I can private message to you the contact information of this man (after receiving his permission, of course). Then you can tell him in your booming voice of authority that he should immediately go back to rowing with the C2 stock handle because, "one must exclude the handle as sole source of injury."

I’ll play along. How about a picture of your modified handle as described?

[Sakly]

... one must exclude the handle as sole source of injury. So something else is happening to these people ...

In my Nov. 24 post in this thread I write about a RowErg user, who, in his words, "I trashed my elbows going those distances. I used ice like it was the only thing that mattered." He took my advice and modified the handle in the manner I describe earlier in this thread. After several weeks he reported back to me. In his words, "I've been rowing for a month and still no pain."

If you wish I can private message to you the contact information of this man (after receiving his permission, of course). Then you can tell him in your booming voice of authority that he should immediately go back to rowing with the C2 stock handle because, "one must exclude the handle as sole source of injury."

A single study proves nothing, this should be clear to a technically skilled person. Even not 10 of them would do.
We don't have any background about this person.

Noone says that there is no better option for a handle. That the c2 handle is perfect. But you state that this handle is the root cause for all known injuries of rowers, but no references for evidence.
We even don't know what percentage gets injured.

[JaapvanE]

A single study proves nothing, this should be clear to a technically skilled person. Even not 10 of them would do.
We don't have any background about this person.

Indeed. A modification could relieve symptoms, but it wouldn't adress the root cause. Just like an Aspirine will help against the pain of an Apendicites, but won't adress the real issue. And finding the root cause is important, as the relief might be temporary, or that such issues might also manifest themselves later on when the person goes OTW.

Noone says that there is no better option for a handle. That the c2 handle is perfect.

Agreed, although it makes me wonder why there are no aftermarket products to provide better versions. If there is an issue, typically some enterprising person will produce something onto the market to make a buck. The C2 seat clearly has an issue being too hard for a signicant group of people, as there are many aftermarket products making it softer and more colourful. The handle is easily user replaceable, so a more angled or wider version could be made easily. Only aftermarket additions I found were to change the form of the grip and to change the grip's surface to something more sticky. As you mentioned earlier, putting a product onto the market will tell how big of a market it is.

And please note: I'm not saying there isn't a big market for a better rower. Companies like BioRow, which get much closer to the OTW experience with a more expensive and complex machine, are doing quite well. So there are other designs out there that are succesful, although I doubt it is for the handle design alone. There might even be a market for a better handle, but I haven't seen any.

[p_b82]

It would be interesting to know the % of people that use a C2 or other manufacturers machines and their wrist/elbow injury rates.

My gut is that regardless of the handle design, technique would be the ultimate factor - followed by effort/volume; as other's have said.

People can easily get wrist injuries from typing on a pc, and while there are some alternative KB designs and layouts out there, the vast majority of people still use a flat qwerty; not every problem has to be solved for the small % of sufferers.

I mentioned the KB because it's something that can affect me if I have the wrong seating height/wrist angle - as such, with rowing, I made sure when I started not to lift my arms too high at the finish so that I could keep my wrists flat; I will surely be sacrificing a little drive length, but so far, no discomfort has been felt. (And I've got a historic injury on my left wrist that I thought would hamper me, as it did when I was climbing)

[Slidewinder]

... one must exclude the handle as sole source of injury. So something else is happening to these people ...

In my Nov. 24 post in this thread I write about a RowErg user, who, in his words, "I trashed my elbows going those distances. I used ice like it was the only thing that mattered." He took my advice and modified the handle in the manner I describe earlier (Nov. 24) in this thread. After several weeks he reported back to me. In his words, "I've been rowing for a month and still no pain."

A single study proves nothing, this should be clear to a technically skilled person. Even not 10 of them would do.
We don't have any background about this person.
Noone says that there is no better option for a handle. That the c2 handle is perfect. But you state that this handle is the root cause for all known injuries of rowers, but no references for evidence.
We even don't know what percentage gets injured.

Is dismissal of that man's experience ("I've been rowing for a month without pain.") in accordance with the scientific method?

My hypothesis was that the stock C2 handle was causing injuries because the rigid, single-piece structure of the handle did not and could not ensure that the user's hands, wrists and forearms remained in alignment with the direction of applied force throughout the stroke. I tested this hypothesis when a man who had sustained arm injuries while working out on the C2 RowErg asked me for advice. I described to him a handle modification. He agreed to make the modifications and report back to me in a month. He did. He reported as I have stated.

There is only one functional difference between the C2 stock handle and the modified handle that the man is now using. The modified handle ensures that the user's hands, wrists, and forearms remain in alignment as described. The stock C2 handle does not ensure this. Therefore this man's experience supports my hypothesis. It suggests, but does not yet establish, a direct causal link between the C2 handle design and all of the reported and unreported arm injuries (five in this thread alone).

The unscientific response (yours) is to dismiss this test as meaningless because it was just one test, and to hold even more firmly to the groupthink belief that the C2 stock handle simply could not be the cause of reported arm injuries among users. The scientific response (mine) is to accept that after just one test I have obtained support for my hypothesis, and that this obviously does not warrant abandonment of the hypothesis. It warrants further tests. Concomitantly, unlike you and unscientific others here, I remain open to the possibility that the described design deficiency of the C2 stock handle could be a direct cause of arm injuries among users.

[JaapvanE]

Is dismissal of that man's experience ("I've been rowing for a month without pain.") in accordance with the scientific method?

Yep, as N = 1, on a total population of over a million. Totally insignificant. And with a million underlying causes for arm pain and the placebo effect to take into account, totally insignificant.

My hypothesis was that the stock C2 handle was causing injuries because the rigid, single-piece structure of the handle did not and could not ensure that the user's hands, wrists and forearms remained in alignment with the direction of applied force throughout the stroke. I tested this hypothesis when a man who had sustained arm injuries while working out on the C2 RowErg asked me for advice. I described to him a handle modification. He agreed to make the modifications and report back to me in a month. He did. He reported as I have stated.

A key element in any experiment is isolating the cause and effect of the intervention. As several indicated in this thread here: given the millions of meters rowed daily, the big first question is why the tested subject is experiencing problems where the rest of the population isn't. Bad technique etc. are very likely causes and thus must be excluded before any test of an intervention of any kind can be valid. You didn't exclude all these underlying factors, so there is no way to prove that C2's design is causing it and that your modification is fixing it.

The unscientific response (yours) is to dismiss this test as meaningless because it was just one test, and to hold even more firmly to the groupthink belief that the C2 stock handle simply could not be the cause of reported arm injuries among users.

You use groupthink to wave away extremely valid concerns. A small word of advise my Phd-thesis advisor gave to me a couple of decades ago: when the world disagrees with you, you either bring a lot of convining evidence, or be very prepared to be proven wrong at every turn. You blame everybody who disagrees with you as a "groupthinker": this isn't productive, and as you don't bring any evidence, so there is only remaining option.

The scientific response (mine) is to accept that after just one test I have obtained support for my hypothesis, and that this obviously does not warrant abandonment of the hypothesis. It warrants further tests. Concomitantly, unlike you and unscientific others here, I remain open to the possibility that the described design deficiency of the C2 stock handle could be a direct cause of arm injuries among users.

Your response is far from scientific. I participated in quite some heated scientific debates during my Phd-thesis, and yours isn't even close. You don't have an open mind: you have an extreme bias towards accusing C2 causing harm and pushing your solution. A bias that is so big you dismiss everybody who disagrees with you as a "groupthinker" without seriously adressing to their arguments. That isn't science, that is a shouting match under the very thin veil of science.

Science isn't about a single test on a single subject. Especially in life and social sciences, a N=1 experiment (except for waking the dead, maybe) is far from sufficient. There are too many variables in humans to account for. There is a thing called placebo effect. You have to provie what the condition is fixing, while excluding other causes. For any evidence to become convincing in these environments, you are talking about large groups, controlled circumstances and controlgroups, etc.

When conducting scientific tests, 99% is in test-design, excluding biasses, controlling test circumstances and isolating causes and effects. You have done nothing of this, thus the result is invalid by definition. And N=1. You can't even exclude that technique is an underlying cause.

[Sakly]

In my Nov. 24 post in this thread I write about a RowErg user, who, in his words, "I trashed my elbows going those distances. I used ice like it was the only thing that mattered." He took my advice and modified the handle in the manner I describe earlier (Nov. 24) in this thread. After several weeks he reported back to me. In his words, "I've been rowing for a month and still no pain."

A single study proves nothing, this should be clear to a technically skilled person. Even not 10 of them would do.
We don't have any background about this person.
Noone says that there is no better option for a handle. That the c2 handle is perfect. But you state that this handle is the root cause for all known injuries of rowers, but no references for evidence.
We even don't know what percentage gets injured.

Is dismissal of that man's experience ("I've been rowing for a month without pain.") in accordance with the scientific method?

My hypothesis was that the stock C2 handle was causing injuries because the rigid, single-piece structure of the handle did not and could not ensure that the user's hands, wrists and forearms remained in alignment with the direction of applied force throughout the stroke. I tested this hypothesis when a man who had sustained arm injuries while working out on the C2 RowErg asked me for advice. I described to him a handle modification. He agreed to make the modifications and report back to me in a month. He did. He reported as I have stated.

There is only one functional difference between the C2 stock handle and the modified handle that the man is now using. The modified handle ensures that the user's hands, wrists, and forearms remain in alignment as described. The stock C2 handle does not ensure this. Therefore this man's experience supports my hypothesis. It suggests, but does not yet establish, a direct causal link between the C2 handle design and all of the reported and unreported arm injuries (five in this thread alone).

The unscientific response (yours) is to dismiss this test as meaningless because it was just one test, and to hold even more firmly to the groupthink belief that the C2 stock handle simply could not be the cause of reported arm injuries among users. The scientific response (mine) is to accept that after just one test I have obtained support for my hypothesis, and that this obviously does not warrant abandonment of the hypothesis. It warrants further tests. Concomitantly, unlike you and unscientific others here, I remain open to the possibility that the described design deficiency of the C2 stock handle could be a direct cause of arm injuries among users.

Really, it doesn't make sense to discuss with you. Don't like to waste my time.

[Slidewinder]

A key element in any experiment is isolating the cause and effect of the intervention. As several indicated in this thread here: given the millions of meters rowed daily, the big first question is why the tested subject is experiencing problems where the rest of the population isn't. Bad technique etc. are very likely causes and thus must be excluded before any test of an intervention of any kind can be valid. You didn't exclude all these underlying factors, so there is no way to prove that C2's design is causing it and that your modification is fixing it.

Many (several dozen) have modified the C2 stock handle in accordance with my instructions. None have reported back to me that they tried the modifications for a while and then decided to go back to the C2 handle. Those who did get back to me, thanked me. These were not people who had experienced injury. They were people who understood the truth of my statement that at any human/machine interface, the machine should adapt to the natural movement of the human, not the human to the machine, as is the case with a rigid, single-piece handle. They understood that if the handle design ensured alignment of the hands, wrists, and forearms throughout the stroke, that this would be more comfortable than if the hands, wrists, and forearms were out of alignment with the direction of applied force. They also accepted that it was a reasonable hypothesis that injury would be less likely if the wrist joints were maintained in a neutral position while under load.

But of these several dozen people, one had been injured on the C2 RowErg. Yes, his case is only N=1 with respect to pain relief and injury prevention, but it nevertheless supports my hypothesis, and warrants further tests. It was not 1 case out of 10,000. It was the only case. Was it some freak result? Maybe it was. But I doubt it. Cause and effect were isolated. The only difference in functionality between the C2 handle and the modified handle was that the modified handle ensured alignment of the hands, wrists, and forearms as described. Regarding technique: If technique had been the original cause of his pain, why did he not experience pain when using the modified handle? What you and others here refer to as "good technique" is just the consensus recommended strategy to deal with the non-compliant C2 handle. Technique cannot overcome deficiencies in equipment design. This man no longer experiences pain, because the modified handle maintains a bio-mechanically correct alignment of the joints as described, thereby enabling, not opposing, proper technique. You ask, why when using the C2 handle, had he been injured when so many others use the stock handle with no problems. Well, there are five people who have posted on this thread who have been injured. I suspect there are thousands. I know that he is a small man. The C2 handle has a fixed width, which probably works better for certain sized people than others. A handle modified to include articulation accommodates various arm length, shoulder width, etc.. Further, various posters have stated that they have regularly rowed x number of meters for x number of years with no problem. Well, the man who came to me in pain had rowed millions of meters too. The pain and injury developed over time. One poster on this thread admits that he has had elbow surgery. In the past (presumably before his injury and surgery) he always jeered my ideas when the subject of handle design came up. Not a peep out of him now.

Why have the five injured posters on this thread fallen into silence? Why do they not offer their views? Do they think that the C2 handle design is a direct cause of their injuries? Or do they think that they have only themselves to blame - that it was because of their "poor technique". I know why they have remained silent. In this forum culture there is only one response from these injured people that is acceptable. They must blame themselves. They cannot blame the C2 handle design. That would be heresy. You, and others here, will twist yourselves into pretzels rather than even suggest that the C2 handle is a possible cause of user injuries. Those who have been injured though, are beyond acrobatics, both mental and physical. They have fearfully retreated into silence.

[jackarabit]

Say what?

[JaapvanE]

But of these several dozen people, one had been injured on the C2 RowErg. Yes, his case is only N=1 with respect to pain relief and injury prevention, but it nevertheless supports my hypothesis, and warrants further tests. It was not 1 case out of 10,000. It was the only case. Was it some freak result? Maybe it was. But I doubt it. Cause and effect were isolated. The only difference in functionality between the C2 handle and the modified handle was that the modified handle ensured alignment of the hands, wrists, and forearms as described.

You can't state this. That is the whole point. There is absolutely no evidence to back this up. This is a shiny example of the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" falacy. You describe pains that manifest themselves during rowing, but that does not automatically imply they are caused by rowing. Those are two different things.

A practical example: I tore my biceps a couple of months ago during a training. Only moment I currently really feel it is during rowing. Is it caused by rowing? No, it is a Judo injury (for those familiar: a shoulder lock-up during Uke-Otoshi with a 90kg Uke). But after my initial recovery, it is only rowing when I feel it. Does that make the handle design the cause of this injury in your book?

You don't even know how the person was injured or if had some other condition which caused his pain. An (bacterial) infection can cause extremely similar pain, but is often removed by the human immune system after a while. First step in research is to understand the problem and its causes. To state

Another 14 years has passed and still no one dares to state the obvious: the handle is the cause of all these injuries! Instead, everyone sings praises to Concept 2 and encourage the injured users to "get back up on the horse" after they have healed, guaranteeing more injury.

are slanderous ramblings that could do more harm than good. If this person had a serious bacterial infection the only decent advise to give them is to visit a medical professional. People have been sent to jail for suggesting they could remedy medical conditions without proper training. There is a reason why doctors must see/meet a patient.

Regarding technique: If technique had been the original cause of his pain, why did he not experience pain when using the modified handle? What you and others here refer to as "good technique" is just the consensus recommended strategy to deal with the non-compliant C2 handle. Technique cannot overcome deficiencies in equipment design.

Regardless of any design, it is the highly recommended use for most barbells, bars, and most fitness equipment. In fact, no stressed gripping, relaxed body where possible, and no sudden jolts of force are almost universal truths to any type of exercise. As I mentioned in an earlier post: I lost a training partner due to deathgripping a very ergonomically designed SZ-bar. It also is the recommended technique for OTW rowing: exploding at the catch and a death grip are known issues that can cause injury and should be treated as safety issues, not a simple matter of form.

By changing the handle, you only change the stressed point. So another tendon gets beaten up by slamming into a flywheel. Another muscle gets stressed in the hand by deathgripping. Hopefully it is a bit stronger or healthier. Or not, and this person will tear it in a couple of weeks, which typically puts them out of business permanently.

This man no longer experiences pain, because the modified handle maintains a bio-mechanically correct alignment of the joints as described, thereby enabling, not opposing, proper technique.

I sincerely hope this man is OK, as I hope nobody gets injured. But I seriously doubt he uses proper technique, as you haven't excluded it as a source and started figthing symptoms while ignoring the underlying cause (be it medical or technique).

You ask, why when using the C2 handle, had he been injured when so many others use the stock handle with no problems. Well, there are five people who have posted on this thread who have been injured. I suspect there are thousands.

Still, millions hours rowed each week. If it was only the handle that was causing issues, many more should be injured and even thousands wouldn't be a high number given the marketshare of Concept2. By sheer logic, it must be how people use the handle, as most survive perfectly.

And five people complain, and many people here are willing to help to alleviate their issue. But you start throwing unsubstantiated claims that it is the handle design that is the sole cause of their issue and that there is giant conspiracy here to keep it silent. You stop people in the tracks that are willing to look at these people's technique, or asking them further about medical state.

Following the good example of Sakly, i'll further refrain from answering you. It is a total waste of time.

[Sakly]

Following the good example of Sakly, i'll further refrain from answering you. It is a total waste of time.

Oh, what a shame! I was just about to write how persistent you can lead the discussion with the concrete wall.

[Slidewinder]

I have thought a lot about rowing ergometer handle design, probably more than anyone here, probably more than Concept 2. There are various design goals that need to be considered. Injury prevention is important. There are others. Little has been said or written on the question, "What stroke geometry should be enabled by a rowing ergometer handle?"

Most RowErg users, if asked what rowing stroke is most closely replicated when using the stock C2 handle, will reply that it is closest to a sweep stroke. Well, I suppose it is similar to a sweep stroke in that it is pulled and pushed and both are rigid sticks. But with respect to stroke geometry, the stock C2 handle enables neither a sweep nor a sculling stroke. With the former, the handle moves through a single large arc. With the latter, the handgrips (plural) move through two large arcs. So, with respect to replication of OTW rowing, the C2 handle does very poorly. Since the C2 RowErg is used worldwide as a training tool for rowing athletes it would be a better training tool if the rowing handle design enabled a better replication of an OTW stroke geometry.

What rowing stroke then should the handle design aim for? Should it be a sweep or a sculling stroke? Well, back to the design requirement of injury prevention. In consideration of that, a sculling geometry would seem to be the preferred choice. Look at freeze frames of both sculling and sweep athletes at points throughout the stroke. The sculling stroke appears the most fluid and natural - the two large arcs of movement, perfectly balanced and symmetrical; the hands, wrists, and forearms remaining in alignment throughout the stroke, from catch to finish. A sweep athlete, however skilled, always looks crabbed, angular, and awkward at the completion of the stroke.

So a sculling geometry is what we should aspire to in the design of our rowing ergometer handle. Rowers have been perfectly replicating a sculling stroke on the Coffey rowing machine for decades. It incorporates oar stubs pivotable at their outer ends, a vaned flywheel mounted flat behind the rower, dynamically balanced movement, everything dimensioned and configurable to match an actual rowing shell. Users call it the closest thing to being on the water while still being on dry land. A similar device, the BioRower is now available, but it was Calvin Coffey, a former U.S. rowing Olympian who came up with the idea, patented it, and has been quietly building and selling his beautiful machines for the last 30 years. But we are not looking to re-design the entire machine. We want a rowing handle design that will connect to the single pull chain or strap of a typical rowing ergometer, and give us a better sculling replication than the standard, single-piece, rigid handle.

The simple cable loop/bicycle handgrip configuration I describe in my Nov. 24 post in this thread is a good solution. It is crude, but it works fine. For someone with shop skills the idea can be embodied in a more aesthetically pleasing structure. Either way it enables the basic geometry we seek. It should be configured so that when you hold your arms straight in front of you with your hands in a vertical position you will appear in your pose as if you are holding and aiming two pistols. There should be a slight angle between the handgrips and the pistol "barrels". Pistol makers know that this is the most comfortable, neutral, non-stressed, relaxed, ergonomically correct position for the hands. Take a piece of large dowel in a relaxed grip and extend your arm. You will notice that the dowel is at a slight angle to your wrist, just as the handgrip of a pistol is not perpendicular to the barrel but at a slight angle. This is the hand to wrist position that we want the rowing handle to maintain throughout the stroke.

Back to our cable/handgrip assembly. If the cable distance from the centre of the handgrip to the chain swivel connector is adjusted to be around 11" to 13", then as the stroke progresses the handgrips will naturally spread apart as your arms move from an extended position to a retracted close-to-the-torso position. Your hands, wrists, and forearms will remain in alignment with the direction of applied force, and your handgrip to wrist position will always maintain that pistol-grip relationship. But here is the interesting part: As the handgrips move apart as the stroke progresses, if we were to temporarily fasten a short stub to the outer ends of the handgrips (the stubs representing an oar shaft), we would see that the handgrips and the "oars" move through an angular progression in relation to ground, very similar to the angular progression of the handgrips during actual sculling! So not only does this configuration maintain an ergonomically correct hand to wrist relationship throughout the stroke, but fortuitously, the handgrip movement is a close approximation of the stroke geometry of OTW sculling.

Some naysayers will scoff and point out that only one-half of the sculling stroke is being replicated. During sculling the rower's arms are spread wide at the catch. True enough. But as of yet, no one in the patent record has solved the mechanical problem of obtaining a full sculling stroke from a handle with a single attachment point to the pull chain. The Coffey rower, described above, will give you a full sculling stroke, but that is not a single-point handle attachment design. With the described simple cable/handgrip configuration we can replicate the latter half of a sculling stroke. That is a huge improvement over the stock C2 rigid, single-piece design, which, other than moving forward and back, replicates nothing.

One final note: Probably more people use the C2 rowing ergometer for general fitness than those who use it for OTW training. The described cable/handgrip configuration enables not just a sculling stroke, but other non-rowing stroke geometries. For example, the handgrips can be rotated from horizontal to vertical as the stroke progresses, or, held vertically throughout the stroke. These movements are not rowing related, but they are nonetheless viable exercises, engaging other muscle groups, and adding variety and interest to the workout program. This opens up the machine beyond its current limits. You are a rowing athlete - go ahead and row. You are a fitness buff - mix your workout up a bit. As I wrote earlier, those with shop skills could add structure to the design and enhance the look, feel, and performance of the design. The rowing ergometer experience could be much, much better than it is. Why, after forty years, is everyone still pulling on a rigid, single-piece handle?

[nick rockliff]

I have thought a lot about rowing ergometer handle design, probably more than anyone here, probably more than Concept 2. There are various design goals that need to be considered. Injury prevention is important. There are others. Little has been said or written on the question, "What stroke geometry should be enabled by a rowing ergometer handle?"

Most RowErg users, if asked what rowing stroke is most closely replicated when using the stock C2 handle, will reply that it is closest to a sweep stroke. Well, I suppose it is similar to a sweep stroke in that it is pulled and pushed and both are rigid sticks. But with respect to stroke geometry, the stock C2 handle enables neither a sweep nor a sculling stroke. With the former, the handle moves through a single large arc. With the latter, the handgrips (plural) move through two large arcs. So, with respect to replication of OTW rowing, the C2 handle does very poorly. Since the C2 RowErg is used worldwide as a training tool for rowing athletes it would be a better training tool if the rowing handle design enabled a better replication of an OTW stroke geometry.

What rowing stroke then should the handle design aim for? Should it be a sweep or a sculling stroke? Well, back to the design requirement of injury prevention. In consideration of that, a sculling geometry would seem to be the preferred choice. Look at freeze frames of both sculling and sweep athletes at points throughout the stroke. The sculling stroke appears the most fluid and natural - the two large arcs of movement, perfectly balanced and symmetrical; the hands, wrists, and forearms remaining in alignment throughout the stroke, from catch to finish. A sweep athlete, however skilled, always looks crabbed, angular, and awkward at the completion of the stroke.

So a sculling geometry is what we should aspire to in the design of our rowing ergometer handle. Rowers have been perfectly replicating a sculling stroke on the Coffey rowing machine for decades. It incorporates oar stubs pivotable at their outer ends, a vaned flywheel mounted flat behind the rower, dynamically balanced movement, everything dimensioned and configurable to match an actual rowing shell. Users call it the closest thing to being on the water while still being on dry land. A similar device, the BioRower is now available, but it was Calvin Coffey, a former U.S. rowing Olympian who came up with the idea, patented it, and has been quietly building and selling his beautiful machines for the last 30 years. But we are not looking to re-design the entire machine. We want a rowing handle design that will connect to the single pull chain or strap of a typical rowing ergometer, and give us a better sculling replication than the standard, single-piece, rigid handle.

The simple cable loop/bicycle handgrip configuration I describe in my Nov. 24 post in this thread is a good solution. It is crude, but it works fine. For someone with shop skills the idea can be embodied in a more aesthetically pleasing structure. Either way it enables the basic geometry we seek. It should be configured so that when you hold your arms straight in front of you with your hands in a vertical position you will appear in your pose as if you are holding and aiming two pistols. There should be a slight angle between the handgrips and the pistol "barrels". Pistol makers know that this is the most comfortable, neutral, non-stressed, relaxed, ergonomically correct position for the hands. Take a piece of large dowel in a relaxed grip and extend your arm. You will notice that the dowel is at a slight angle to your wrist, just as the handgrip of a pistol is not perpendicular to the barrel but at a slight angle. This is the hand to wrist position that we want the rowing handle to maintain throughout the stroke.

Back to our cable/handgrip assembly. If the cable distance from the centre of the handgrip to the chain swivel connector is adjusted to be around 11" to 13", then as the stroke progresses the handgrips will naturally spread apart as your arms move from an extended position to a retracted close-to-the-torso position. Your hands, wrists, and forearms will remain in alignment with the direction of applied force, and your handgrip to wrist position will always maintain that pistol-grip relationship. But here is the interesting part: As the handgrips move apart as the stroke progresses, if we were to temporarily fasten a short stub to the outer ends of the handgrips (the stubs representing an oar shaft), we would see that the handgrips and the "oars" move through an angular progression in relation to ground, very similar to the angular progression of the handgrips during actual sculling! So not only does this configuration maintain an ergonomically correct hand to wrist relationship throughout the stroke, but fortuitously, the handgrip movement is a close approximation of the stroke geometry of OTW sculling.

Some naysayers will scoff and point out that only one-half of the sculling stroke is being replicated. During sculling the rower's arms are spread wide at the catch. True enough. But as of yet, no one in the patent record has solved the mechanical problem of obtaining a full sculling stroke from a handle with a single attachment point to the pull chain. The Coffey rower, described above, will give you a full sculling stroke, but that is not a single-point handle attachment design. With the described simple cable/handgrip configuration we can replicate the latter half of a sculling stroke. That is a huge improvement over the stock C2 rigid, single-piece design, which, other than moving forward and back, replicates nothing.

One final note: Probably more people use the C2 rowing ergometer for general fitness than those who use it for OTW training. The described cable/handgrip configuration enables not just a sculling stroke, but other non-rowing stroke geometries. For example, the handgrips can be rotated from horizontal to vertical as the stroke progresses, or, held vertically throughout the stroke. These movements are not rowing related, but they are nonetheless viable exercises, engaging other muscle groups, and adding variety and interest to the workout program. This opens up the machine beyond its current limits. You are a rowing athlete - go ahead and row. You are a fitness buff - mix your workout up a bit. As I wrote earlier, those with shop skills could add structure to the design and enhance the look, feel, and performance of the design. The rowing ergometer experience could be much, much better than it is. Why, after forty years, is everyone still pulling on a rigid, single-piece handle?

Read your first paragraph and called it a day,.

[JaapvanE]

We even don't know what percentage gets injured.

According to research mentioned in another trhead, not many:

Did you read in Rowing Injuries in Elite Athletes by S. Arumugam and coauthors (2020)here .

Or look in Rowing Injuries, by E. McNally and coauthors (2005). Download from here.

Elbow injuries aren't that common.