## 4 Discussion  
The main aim of the study was to analyze the relationship of anthropometric and strength determinants with 2000 m rowing ergometer performance in traditional rowing. According to several studies, high-performance rowers of both sexes are usually heavier and taller than low-performance counterparts [9; 40; 41]. Our results are in accordance with other studies in which height, body mass and body muscle correlated with better performance [34; 42; 43]. Furthermore, among all variables, body mass for male rowers and body muscle for female rowers were the best predictors of rowing performance. [PERSON] [1] found taller and heavier Olympic male college rowers (185.8 cm and 80.2 kg) compared to traditional rowers of our study (178.4 cm and 77.3 kg)[PERSON] This difference can be due to traditional rowing requiring shorter and lighter rowers in some boat positions for hydrodynamic reasons, so the crew must be not homogeneous [11]. For that reason, some physical advantages of heavier and taller rowers in Olympic rowing could become a disadvantage in boat hydrodynamics and rowing technique in traditional rowing [4; 11; 27]. In line with our findings, [PERSON] and [PERSON] [44] reported that rowing performance is highly influenced by body size, in such a way that large body size increased the rowing performance. However, these authors found that female rowers were slower than males when both groups were matched based on the body size, possibly due to the larger body fat of females which deteriorates the rowing performance. Nevertheless, the differences between sexes in rowing performance were reduced when the fat-free mass was taken into consideration. Therefore, the results support the idea that muscle mass and fat-free mass are key factors related to rowing performance [45], especially in female rowers [19]. High percentage of body fat negatively affects rowing performance because body fat contributes a metabolically non-productive load [46] and low body fat percentage was associated with higher aerobic capacity [47]. Nevertheless, it is difficult to combine high level of musculature with low percentage of body fat [9]. In this study, body fat showed a small correlation with rowing performance [1; 34]. This finding was consistent with previous studies which showed significant differences between age categories, although the differences between elite and sub-elite categories were minimal [4; 41]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Model** & **Sex** & **Equation** & **R\({}^{2}\)** & **Adj. R\({}^{2}\)** & **SEE** & \(p\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Linear} & M & W\({}_{2000\text{m}}\) (W) = \(5.54\cdot\text{Body mass (kg)}-154.97\) & 0.69 & 0.66 & 30.96 & \(p<0.001\) \\ \cline{2-7}  & M & W\({}_{2000\text{m}}\) (W) = \(384.10\cdot\text{MPV (m}\text{s}^{-1})-431.99\) & 0.76 & 0.73 & 27.30 & \(p<0.001\) \\ \cline{2-7}  & F & W\({}_{2000\text{m}}\) (W) = \(4.28\cdot\text{Body muscle (kg)}-30.02\) & 0.89 & 0.86 & 8.00 & \(p=0.002\) \\ \cline{2-7}  & F & W\({}_{2000\text{m}}\) (W) = \(0.50\cdot\text{P}_{\text{max}}\) (W) + \(30.10\) & 0.62 & 0.54 & 14.71 & \(p=0.036\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Allometric} & M & W\({}_{2000\text{m}}\) (W) = \(0.34\cdot\text{[Body mass (kg)]}^{1.537}\) & 0.70 & 0.67 & 0.11 & \(p<0.001\) \\ \cline{2-7}  & M & W\({}_{2000\text{m}}\) (W) = \(57.89\cdot\text{[MPV (m}\text{s}^{-1})^{2.535}\) & 0.76 & 0.73 & 0.10 & \(p<0.001\) \\ \cline{2-7}  & F & W\({}_{2000\text{m}}\) (W) = \(1.84\cdot\text{[Body muscle (kg)]}^{1.177}\) & 0.88 & 0.85 & 0.00 & \(p=0.002\) \\ \cline{2-7}  & F & W\({}_{2000\text{m}}\) (W) = \(1.72\cdot\text{[P}_{\text{max}}\) (W)\({}^{0.815}\) & 0.60 & 0.52 & 0.10 & \(p=0.040\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{l}{SEE: standard error of estimate; W: power; MPV: mean propulsive velocity in bench pull; P\({}_{\text{max}}\): maximum power in bench pull; M: Male; F: Female.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table}