Rowing as a concurrent training modality

Abstract

<h2>Abstract</h2> <p><a href="/terms/concurrent-training/" class="term-link" data-slug="concurrent-training" title="Concurrent training">Concurrent training</a>, defined as the simultaneous pursuit of both cardiovascular endurance and resistance training adaptations, is commonly limited by the "interference effect," wherein aerobic exercise attenuates gains in <a href="/terms/muscle-hypertrophy/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-hypertrophy" title="muscle hypertrophy">muscle hypertrophy</a> and maximal strength. The modality of aerobic exercise performed alongside resistance training plays a significant role in determining the magnitude of this interference. This review by Doma and Deakin (2019) evaluates rowing as a concurrent training modality, assessing its interference potential against traditional options such as running and cycling.</p> <p>The evidence demonstrates that rowing, as an ergometer-based exercise, engages approximately 86% of skeletal muscle mass simultaneously, providing a high cardiovascular stimulus with a total-body muscular demand unlike typical lower-body-dominant aerobic modalities. Critically, rowing's predominantly concentric muscle action profile minimizes eccentric-induced <a href="/terms/muscle-damage/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-damage" title="muscle damage">muscle damage</a>, a primary driver of the interference effect. Review findings indicate that rowing produces less residual neuromuscular fatigue relative to running at equivalent cardiovascular intensities, and is therefore associated with less impairment of subsequent resistance training performance. Rowing additionally offers low-impact joint loading, making it valuable for individuals with lower extremity orthopedic limitations.</p> <p><em>Keywords: rowing, concurrent training, interference effect, eccentric muscle damage, cardiovascular conditioning</em></p>

Introduction

<h2>Introduction</h2> <p>The <a href="/terms/concurrent-training/" class="term-link" data-slug="concurrent-training" title="interference effect">interference effect</a>, first formally described by Hickson (1980), represents one of the most practically significant phenomena in exercise science for athletes and fitness enthusiasts who wish to develop both strength and cardiovascular fitness simultaneously. Hickson observed that combining heavy resistance training with high-intensity endurance training produced smaller strength gains than resistance training alone, despite equivalent training loads for each modality. Subsequent research has refined our understanding of this interference, demonstrating that it operates through multiple mechanisms including molecular signaling conflicts, glycogen depletion, accumulated fatigue, and <a href="/terms/muscle-damage/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-damage" title="muscle damage">muscle damage</a> [1].</p> <p>The magnitude of concurrent training interference is not uniform across all aerobic exercise modalities. Running, cycling, swimming, and rowing each impose distinct mechanical, metabolic, and neuromuscular demands that differentially interact with concurrent resistance training. Running, particularly downhill or at high speeds, generates substantial eccentric muscle loading during the landing phase of each stride, producing delayed-onset muscle soreness (<a href="/terms/delayed-onset-muscle-soreness/" class="term-link" data-slug="delayed-onset-muscle-soreness" title="DOMS">DOMS</a>) and markers of muscle damage such as elevated <a href="/terms/creatine-monohydrate/" class="term-link" data-slug="creatine-monohydrate" title="creatine">creatine</a> kinase (CK) that persist for 24–72 hours post-exercise [2].</p> <p>Rowing on an ergometer offers a mechanically distinct profile. The rowing stroke is driven by leg drive (approximately 60% of force production), back extension (approximately 20%), and arm pull (approximately 20%), engaging quadriceps, hamstrings, glutes, erector spinae, latissimus dorsi, rhomboids, biceps, and forearm flexors in a coordinated sequence. Unlike running, the rowing stroke generates minimal eccentric force at the critical muscle-damaging moment because the deceleration at the catch position is controlled and the drive phase is predominantly concentric [3].</p> <p>This mechanical difference creates a theoretical advantage for rowing as a concurrent training modality. <a href="/terms/intermittent-fasting/" class="term-link" data-slug="intermittent-fasting" title="If">If</a> rowing can provide equivalent or superior cardiovascular stimulus while generating less muscle damage and neuromuscular fatigue than running, it should produce less interference with subsequent resistance training. The practical implication is significant: individuals pursuing <a href="/terms/muscle-hypertrophy/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-hypertrophy" title="muscle hypertrophy">muscle hypertrophy</a> while maintaining or improving cardiovascular fitness may benefit from replacing running-based cardio with rowing-based conditioning [4].</p> <p>This review examines the evidence base for rowing as a concurrent training tool, evaluating aerobic adaptations from rowing training, the degree of interference observed in studies combining rowing with resistance training, and the practical programming considerations for optimizing both cardiovascular and strength outcomes.</p>

Evidence Review

<h2>Evidence Review</h2> <h3>Cardiovascular Demands of Rowing</h3> <p>Rowing ergometer exercise produces among the highest rates of oxygen consumption of any common exercise modality due to the large muscle mass engaged. Elite rowers exhibit VO2max values of 65–75 ml/kg/min, comparable to elite distance runners and cyclists [5]. During a maximal 2000-meter rowing time trial (approximately 6–7 minutes for trained individuals), energy contribution is approximately 70% aerobic and 30% anaerobic, with heart rates routinely exceeding 95% HRmax [6].</p> <p>At moderate intensities typical of Zone 2 cardiovascular conditioning, rowing produces heart rates and oxygen consumption rates equivalent to running at comparable relative intensities. A 20-minute rowing session at 70–75% HRmax delivers a cardiovascular stimulus similar to a 20-minute run at the same relative heart rate while engaging substantially more upper-body musculature.</p> <h3><a href="/terms/concurrent-training/" class="term-link" data-slug="concurrent-training" title="Interference Effect">Interference Effect</a>: Rowing vs. Running Comparison</h3> <p>The key question is whether the type of cardio affects resistance training interference. Doma et al. systematically reviewed studies measuring neuromuscular performance after rowing versus running at equivalent intensities. Running consistently demonstrated greater impairment of muscle force production in the 24–48 hours post-exercise, reflected in:</p> <table> <thead> <tr> <th>Marker</th> <th>Post-Running</th> <th>Post-Rowing</th> <th>Duration</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>CK elevation (U/L)</td> <td>+250–400%</td> <td>+50–120%</td> <td>24–48h</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Maximal force deficit</td> <td>-15–25%</td> <td>-5–10%</td> <td>24–48h</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Rating of muscle soreness</td> <td>Moderate-high</td> <td>Mild</td> <td>24–48h</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vertical jump performance</td> <td>-8–12%</td> <td>-3–5%</td> <td>24h</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>These differences are attributable primarily to the lesser eccentric component of rowing compared to the repeated eccentric loading during the deceleration phase of running [7].</p> <h3>Rowing-Specific <a href="/terms/muscle-hypertrophy/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-hypertrophy" title="Hypertrophy">Hypertrophy</a> and Strength Outcomes</h3> <p>Several studies have examined whether rowing alongside resistance training impairs hypertrophy. Concurrent programs combining rowing with resistance training (3 sessions/week of each) consistently demonstrate significant muscle hypertrophy improvements over 8–12 weeks, with average lean mass gains of 1.5–3.0 kg in untrained subjects [8]. Hypertrophy outcomes are not significantly different between groups performing resistance training alone versus resistance training plus rowing when sessions are separated by 6 hours or more.</p> <p>Strength outcomes from concurrent rowing-resistance training programs compare favorably to resistance training alone. A <a href="/terms/meta-analysis/" class="term-link" data-slug="meta-analysis" title="meta-analysis">meta-analysis</a> of 8 concurrent training studies using rowing as the aerobic modality found no statistically significant attenuation of lower-body maximal strength (<a href="/terms/one-repetition-maximum/" class="term-link" data-slug="one-repetition-maximum" title="1-<a href="/terms/repetition-maximum/" class="term-link" data-slug="repetition-maximum" title="RM">RM</a>">1-RM</a> squat, 1-RM leg press) when training sessions were separated by at least 6 hours [9].</p> <h3>Aerobic Adaptation from Rowing Training</h3> <p>Regular rowing training produces the full spectrum of cardiovascular adaptations: increased VO2max (8–15% over 8 weeks in untrained individuals), improved cardiac output, reduced resting heart rate, and enhanced fat oxidation [10]. The total-body nature of rowing means that aerobic adaptations benefit performance in daily activities and other sports more broadly than lower-body-dominant aerobic modalities.</p>

Discussion

<h2>Discussion</h2> <h3>Mechanisms of Reduced Interference with Rowing</h3> <p>The lower interference of rowing compared to running can be explained through three complementary mechanisms. First, the reduced eccentric muscle loading during rowing means less mechanical disruption of <a href="/terms/sarcomere/" class="term-link" data-slug="sarcomere" title="sarcomere">sarcomere</a> structure, lower inflammatory cytokine release, and faster restoration of excitation-contraction coupling in skeletal muscle [11]. Resistance training sessions following rowing therefore encounter a relatively undamaged neuromuscular system capable of producing higher-quality contractions.</p> <p>Second, the energy system demands of rowing at moderate intensities are slightly more metabolically balanced than running. While both activities stress glycolytic and oxidative systems, the distributed muscle mass engagement in rowing may reduce the degree of local glycogen depletion in any specific muscle group. Quadriceps glycogen depletion after a 45-minute rowing session is lower than after equivalent running, potentially leaving greater substrate availability for resistance training [12].</p> <p>Third, rowing's technical demands promote a structured, controlled movement pattern that limits the high-speed eccentric loading associated with running. Even at high intensities, the controlled catch position and smooth leg drive of proper rowing technique restrict the magnitude of eccentric force generation, unlike maximal-speed running where ground reaction forces can exceed 2.5 times body weight [13].</p> <h3>Practical Limitations of the Rowing Advantage</h3> <p>The interference advantage of rowing is most pronounced when comparing rowing to running, and specifically to moderate-to-high-intensity running. Cycling, another commonly used <a href="/terms/concurrent-training/" class="term-link" data-slug="concurrent-training" title="concurrent training">concurrent training</a> modality, shares rowing's predominantly concentric muscular action profile and demonstrates similarly low interference with resistance training. Between cycling and rowing, interference differences are small in practice, and the choice between these modalities can appropriately be guided by individual preference, equipment availability, and injury history [14].</p> <p>The upper-body muscular engagement of rowing creates an additional consideration for athletes performing upper-body resistance training. Rowing sessions generate meaningful fatigue in the latissimus dorsi, biceps, and posterior shoulder musculature. Programs that include heavy rowing and heavy vertical pulling exercises (lat pulldowns, pull-ups, weighted rows) should account for this overlap by separating these sessions or adjusting volume accordingly [15].</p> <h3>Rowing as a Performance Tracking Tool</h3> <p>The 2000-meter rowing time trial provides a standardized, reproducible measure of cardiovascular fitness progress. Unlike many field tests that depend on running economy, body weight, or weather conditions, the rowing ergometer delivers consistent performance metrics regardless of outdoor conditions. Tracking 2000m time over months of training provides objective evidence of cardiovascular adaptation and can guide training intensity prescription using rowing-specific heart rate and power zones [16].</p>

Practical Recommendations

<h2>Practical Recommendations</h2> <h3>Rowing Intensity Zones (by Stroke Rate and Heart Rate)</h3> <table> <thead> <tr> <th>Zone</th> <th>Heart Rate</th> <th>Stroke Rate (SPM)</th> <th>Effort Description</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Zone 1 (easy)</td> <td>70% HRmax</td> <td>18–20 SPM</td> <td>Fully conversational, smooth technique</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Zone 2 (aerobic)</td> <td>70–80% HRmax</td> <td>20–24 SPM</td> <td>Light breathing effort, sustainable 30–60 min</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Zone 3 (threshold)</td> <td>80–88% HRmax</td> <td>24–28 SPM</td> <td>Harder breathing, sustainable 20–30 min</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Zone 4 (hard)</td> <td>88–95% HRmax</td> <td>28–32 SPM</td> <td>Uncomfortable, interval work only</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Zone 5 (maximal)</td> <td>95% HRmax</td> <td>32 SPM</td> <td>All-out, 30–60 sec maximum</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>SPM = strokes per minute.</p> <h3>Programming Rowing with Resistance Training</h3> <p><strong>Optimal scheduling</strong>: Separate rowing and resistance training sessions by 6 hours when possible. <a href="/terms/intermittent-fasting/" class="term-link" data-slug="intermittent-fasting" title="If">If</a> training twice per day is not feasible, resistance training should precede rowing.</p> <p><strong>Weekly structure for <a href="/terms/muscle-hypertrophy/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-hypertrophy" title="hypertrophy">hypertrophy</a>-focused athletes:</strong></p> <table> <thead> <tr> <th>Day</th> <th>AM Session</th> <th>PM Session</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Monday</td> <td>Lower body resistance</td> <td>—</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Tuesday</td> <td>—</td> <td>Zone 2 rowing (30 min)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Wednesday</td> <td>Upper body resistance</td> <td>—</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Thursday</td> <td>—</td> <td>Rowing intervals (20 min)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Friday</td> <td>Full body resistance</td> <td>—</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Saturday</td> <td>Zone 2 rowing (40 min)</td> <td>—</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Sunday</td> <td>Rest</td> <td>—</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <h3>Technique Essentials</h3> <p>Poor rowing technique amplifies muscle fatigue and reduces the cardiovascular benefit-to-damage ratio. Key points:</p> <ol> <li><strong>The sequence</strong>: Legs drive first, then back opens, then arms pull. Reverse on recovery (arms extend, body swings forward, legs bend). This sequence maintains proper force application and minimizes lumbar stress.</li> <li><strong>Drag factor</strong>: Set drag factor to 120–135 for men, 100–115 for women for most training. Higher drag increases resistance but also increases fatigue; it does not necessarily increase cardiovascular stimulus for Zone 2 work.</li> <li><strong>Catch position</strong>: Arrive at the catch (start of stroke) with shins vertical and back braced. Avoid excessive forward lean, which compresses the thoracic spine under load.</li> <li><strong>Rate vs. power</strong>: For Zone 2 conditioning, prioritize power per stroke at 18–22 SPM over high stroke rates. High stroke rates at low power are less metabolically efficient.</li> </ol> <h3>2000m Benchmark Tracking</h3> <p>Perform a 2000m time trial every 6–8 weeks to track aerobic fitness progress. After an adequate warm-up, row 2000m at maximum sustainable pace. Record time and average split (pace per 500m). Average heart rate during the test provides a benchmark for subsequent interval intensity setting.</p>