Strength and

Conditioning for
Competitive Rowers
Frank J. Nugent, PhD,1,2 Eamonn P. Flanagan, PhD,3 Fiona Wilson, PhD,4 and Giles D. Warrington, PhD1,2
1
Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of
Limerick, Limerick, Ireland; 2Sport and Human Performance Research Centre, Health Research Institute, University of
Limerick, Limerick, Ireland; 3Sport Ireland Institute, National Sports Campus, Dublin, Ireland; and 4Discipline of
Physiotherapy, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided
in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s Web site (http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj).

ABSTRACT
Strength and conditioning (S&C) is an
essential component of performance
enhancement and injury reduction for
competitive rowers. However, infor-
mation regarding the practical appli-
cation of appropriate S&C
programming for competitive rowers is
limited. The aim of this article is to
provide an evidence-based needs
analysis based on a review of the lit-
erature in the area of biomechanics,
physiology, and injury epidemiology in
the sport of rowing. Practical consid-
erations and guidelines for the imple-
mentation of S&C programs for
competitive rowers will be provided.
INTRODUCTION
owing is one of oldest sports in
boats can comprise of 1 rower (single
scull or 13), 2 rowers (double scull or
23), or 4 rowers (quadruple scull or
43), and sweep rowing boats can com-
prise of 2 rowers (pair or 22), 4 rowers
(4 or 42/4+), or 8 rowers (8 or 8+).
Rowing is classified as a strength-
endurance sport as high levels of
strength are needed to generate the
force necessary during the early stage
of a race and during the final sprint to
the finish line, whereas equally high
levels of endurance are needed to last
the duration of a race (60). High levels
of strength may also be important for
injury reduction as rowing is a repetitive
sport where high training volumes are
common (26,105). Subsequently, there
is a risk of overuse injury (79,86,104).
An appropriately designed S&C pro-
gram can help to develop a strong
and robust rower capable of tolerating
associated with the sport of rowing.
This is vital information for designing
appropriate S&C programs for rowers
competing at the elite level (i.e., senior
international rowers) and nonelite level
(i.e., junior rowers, club rowers, masters
rowers, etc). Thus, the aim of this arti-
cle is to provide an evidence-based
need analysis of the biomechanics,
physiology, and injury epidemiology
associated with the sport of rowing.
After this, practical considerations
and guidelines for the implementation
of appropriate S&C programs for com-
petitive rowers will be provided.
NEEDS ANALYSIS
BIOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS
Rowing is performed in a narrow boat
with a sliding seat. The rowing stroke
(both sculling and sweep rowing) is
a cyclical movement that involves the

R the modern Olympic Games

and has been part of the sum-
mer Olympic program since the 1900
Olympic Games (1). There are cur-
rently 14 Olympic events which are
all competed over a 2,000-m rowing
course. There are 2 technical disci-
plines: (a) sculling, which is performed
with 2 oars and (b) sweep rowing,
which is performed with 1 oar. Sculling
Address correspondence to Dr. Frank J. Nugent,
fnugent89@gmail.com
high training volumes (100). Previous
studies in this journal have discussed
the S&C program design for collegiate
sequential contributions of the legs,
body, and arms to propel the rowing
boat forward through the water. Row-
female rowers (45) and S&C goals for ing performance depends on the pro-
pulsive force generated by the rower(s)
rowers (69). However, both studies
to overcome the drag or resistive
were published nearly 15 years ago,
forces that act on the rowing boat,
and numerous updates are required
rower(s), and oars as they move
because of emerging evidence in this
area (10,24,55,57,58,104,111). In addi-
tion, both studies (45,69) provided lim-
KEY WORDS:
rowing; needs analysis; physical prepara-
ited discussion on the biomechanics,
tion
physiology, and injury epidemiology

6 VOLUME 42 | NUMBER 3 | JUNE 2020 Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 through the water and air (9,87). Pro-
pulsive force is generated at the foot
stretcher (where a rower straps their
feet into the boat or rowing ergome-
ter), primarily in the horizontal plane,
and must be efficiently transferred
through the trunk/arms to the oar(s)
during the rowing stroke (16,87). A
study by Kleshnev (49) involving 88
elite rowers found that 45.2 6 4.9%
of the total propulsive force is gener-
ated by the legs, 32.2 6 5.8% by the
trunk, and 22.6 6 5.8% by the arms.
The rowing stroke is performed pri-
marily in the sagittal plane, and there
are 4 distinct phases—the catch, drive,
finish, and recovery (101) (Figures 1
and 2).
(28,47,87,101,107). Throughout the
drive phase, EMG activity indicates
the trunk and arm muscles—primarily
the latissimus dorsi, trapezius, deltoi-
deus posterior, biceps brachii, and bra-
chioradialis—are active during what
seems to be an isometric contraction
due to the lack of associated joint ac-
tions (107). The middle of the drive
phase, when the oars are perpendicular
to the boat (Figures 1B and 2B), has
been found to be the point where peak
force and highest EMG activity occurs
(18,87); however, this may take place
earlier in the drive phase as the boat
velocity and skill level of the rower in-
creases (87). A number of studies have
found asymmetries in the EMG activ-
ity of the knee, hip, and back extensors
during the drive phase of the rowing
stroke in sweep rowers (15,47,73). This
suggests that the sweep-rowing stroke
may involve slightly different muscle
activation patterns than the sculling
stroke. However, the studies were con-
ducted on a rowing ergometer, and to

The catch phase. This phase in-

volves the rower placing the rowing
oar into the water to produce the ini-
tial propulsion of the boat (101)
(Figure 1A). As sweep rowing involves
only 1 oar, there is an asymmetrical
movement at the catch phase that in-
volves rotation and lateral bending of
the spine which occurs primarily in the
upper thoracic region (93) (Figure 2A).
Rotation and lateral bending occurs to
the left in “bow or port-side sweep
rowers” and to the right in “stroke or
starboard-side sweep rowers” (93). In
the catch position, maximal flexion oc-
curs at the hips, knees, and ankles to
optimize rowing stroke length (SL)
(i.e., the distance the oar travels
through the water) (62).

The drive phase. This phase is

commonly termed—“the leg drive”
and can be divided into the early and
late drive phase (101) (Figures 1B and
2B). During the early drive phase, elec-
tromyographic (EMG) activity indi-
cates that the knee extensor muscles—
the rectus femoris, vastus medialis, and
vastus lateralis, contract to generate
propulsive force during the catch phase
(28,47,87,107). During the late drive
phase, the hip and back extensor
muscles—the gluteus maximus, biceps
femoris, and erector spinae, contract to
initiate what is commonly termed—“the
body swing,” which helps to fur- Figure 1. Phases of the sculling stroke. (A) Displays the catch phase. (B) Displays the
ther contribute to boat propulsion drive phase. (C) Displays the finish phase.

7
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 S&C for Rowers
Figure 2. Phases of the sweep rowing stroke. (A) Displays the catch phase. (B) Displays
the drive phase. (C) Displays the finish phase.
the best of the authors’ knowledge, no
studies have investigated EMG activity
in a sweep rowing boat. A more
detailed discussion of this topic is pro-
vided in “the importance of robustness”
section, later in this article.
The finish phase. This phase occurs
at the end of the drive phase when the
legs and trunk are fully extended and
involves the rowing oar handle(s) being
8 VOLUME 42 | NUMBER 3 | JUNE 2020
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
drawn toward the rower’s body, thus
releasing the oar from the water (101)
(Figures 1C and 2C). It is commonly
termed “the arm pull,” and EMG find-
ings indicate that the leg muscles are not
active during this phase and muscle
activity is primarily in the latissimus
dorsi, trapezius, deltoideus posterior,
biceps brachii, and brachioradialis
(74,107). The trunk flexor muscles—rec-
tus abdominis, external oblique, and
transversus abdominis/internal oblique
—play a role during the finish phase by
decelerating trunk extension during the
layback of the stroke (74,107).
The recovery phase. This phase is
the opposite of the drive phase and is
initiated by the rower extending their
arms away from the body after the finish
phase (101). This is followed by hip and
knee flexion as the rower moves toward
the stern of the boat in preparation for
the catch phase (101). During the recov-
ery phase, EMG activity of the majority
of muscle groups is low; however, the
trunk flexors are involved in flexing the
trunk over the extended legs (74) and the
knee flexors—primarily the bicep femoris,
are involved in pulling the rower toward
the stern of the boat (28,47,87). Kleshnev
(50) suggests that the duration of the
recovery phase ranges from 0.7 to 2.4
seconds (s) across stroke rates from 16
to 44 strokes per minute (strokes/min),
respectively. During the recovery phase,
a rowing boat is moving at its greatest
velocity; therefore, it is vital that the boat
is balanced to prevent the oar(s) making
contact with the water surface, which
would increase drag and thus reduce
boat velocity (9,87).
The duration of muscular contraction
during the rowing stroke is an impor-
tant consideration for S&C coaches
when prescribing S&C exercises and
their associated loads. Kleshnev (50)
suggests that the duration of muscular
contraction from the catch to the finish
phase of the rowing stroke ranges from
0.7 to 1.4 seconds across rowing stroke
rates from 16 to 44 strokes/min,
respectively. In comparison with
land-based sports that commonly
involve muscular contraction durations
of ,0.25 seconds, the duration of mus-
cular contraction during the rowing
stroke seems to be relatively long. Con-
sequently, the role of the stretch-
shortening cycle (SSC) during the row-
ing stroke is debatable (24,32,53,55).
The SSC is defined as the sequential
combination of eccentric, isometric,
and concentric muscle actions that
promote an enhanced concentric force
output (51). Schmidtbleicher (82) has

Anthropometric characteristics of elite rowers (70)
Characteristics Heavyweight
males (n 5 33)
Height (cm) 192.4 6 5.4
Body mass (kg) 94.7 6 5.9
Body fat (%) a
12.6 6 2.7
a
Sum of 4 skinfold sites.
suggested that the SSC can be classi-
fied as either fast or slow. The fast SSC
is characterized by short muscular con-
traction durations (,0.25 seconds) and
small angular displacements of the
hips, knees, and ankles (e.g., maximal
sprinting). The slow SSC is character-
ized by longer contraction durations
(.0.25 seconds) and larger angular dis-
placements (e.g., a vertical jump).
Therefore, rowing seems to be a slow
SSC activity as the muscular contrac-
tion durations are well in excess of 0.25
seconds, even at high stroke rates of 44
strokes/min. However, further
research is needed in this area.
PHYSIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
Elite-level rowing performance is
highly dependent on the physiological
attributes of a rower and can be deter-
mined through a combination of
anthropometric (44,70,113), metabolic
(12,44,70,113), and physical character-
istics (44,57).
Anthropometric characteristics.
In rowing, there are 2 weight classes:
lightweight (70–72.5 kg for males and
57–59 kg for females) and heavyweight
(i.e., .72.5 kg for males and .59 kg for
females). Currently, of the 14 Olympic
events, only 2 are lightweight events,
Figure 3. Correlations between gym-based tests and peak stroke power, 500-, 2,000-, and 5,000-m rowing ergometer performance
(57). *p , 0.05; **p , 0.01.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Table 1
Heavyweight
females (n 5 21)
179.4 6 4.9
75.7 6 5.2
22.4 6 3.0
whereas the remaining events are for
heavyweight rowers. Table 1 provides
a summary of the anthropometric
characteristics of 76 elite rowers (70).
Body mass (BM) and lean BM have
been found to have a significant corre-
lation with 2,000-m rowing ergometer
performance (r 5 20.82 to 0.85 and r
5 20.91 to 0.94, respectively) (44,113).
Therefore, optimizing lean BM is
important for S&C coaches working
with rowers as excess body fat may
be detrimental to performance because
of the increased profile drag force it
creates on the hull of the rowing boat
(e.g., the boat is lower in the water),
without creating any increase in pro-
pulsive force (9,69,80).
Metabolic characteristics. In
rowing, there are 2 competitive distan-
ces: the 2,000 m Olympic/Paralympic
event and the 4,000–10,000-m
long-distance events (e.g., head of the
river events and coastal events). The
head of the river events are generally
contested during the early preparation
phase of the season with the 2,000-m
events contested during the competi-
tive phase of the season. Rowing events
consist of an all-out effort and the last
from around 5.5–8 minutes for the
2,000-m Olympic events, 7–11 minutes
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
Lightweight Lightweight
males (n 5 15) females (n 5 7)
181.3 6 4.1 167.8 6 1.6
74.5 6 2.8 59.5 6 1.9
10.7 6 2.7 19.4 6 2.3
for the equivalent Paralympic events,
and well in excess of 14 minutes for the
head of the river events and coastal
events (67). However, the duration of
each event may vary because of
weather conditions, boat type, com-
petitive level, and weight class. A
2,000-m rowing race can be broken
down into 3 main components—the
start phase, the mid-race phase, and
the finish phase (91). The start phase
involves the rower accelerating the
boat from a static position on the start-
ing blocks and lasts upward of 1 minute
in duration (91). During this phase,
stroke rates of 42–48 strokes/min are
common (91). The start phase transi-
tions into the mid-race phase that lasts
from around 1 to 6 minutes of duration,
depending on the specific event, and
typically involves stroke rates of 32–
38 strokes/min (91). The mid-race
phase transitions into the finish phase
that lasts upward of 1-minute duration
and involves stroke rates in excess of 38
strokes/min as rowers sprint toward
the finish line (91).
The energy demands of the 2,000-m
event have been found to be primarily
derived from aerobic metabolism with
84–88% of overall energy supplied
through this pathway (22,75). The
longer distance and duration events,
9
 S&C for Rowers
Figure 4. Catch and drive phase isometric exercise (102). The rower performs a max-
imal isometric catch or drive phase against a rowing ergometer handle in
a fixed position. The rower should try to suspend their bodyweight off the
ergometer handle. (A) Displays a catch phase isometric exercise. (B) Dis-
plays a drive phase isometric exercise.
such as the head of the river, coastal
events, and Paralympic events, can be
expected to be more aerobic in nature
(67). Consequently, it is no surprise
that rowers have been found to have
maximal oxygen uptake (V̇ O2max)
values of 5.08–5.84 L/min in elite
males and 3.71–4.13 L/min in elite
females (70). In elite heavyweight
male rowers, V̇ O2max values as high
as 6.0–6.8 L/min have been recorded
(13,33). During incremental rowing
ergometer tests, the power output at-
tained at V̇ O2max (P@V̇ O2max) has
been found to determine 95.3% of
2,000-m rowing ergometer perfor-
mance in 76 elite rowers (70). The
P@V̇ O2max is derived from V̇ O2m-
ax, which has been consistently
found to have a significant correla-
tion with 2,000-m rowing
10 VOLUME 42 | NUMBER 3 | JUNE 2020
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
performance (r 5 0.84–0.91)
(12,44,113). In addition, the muscle
fiber composition of elite rowers
has been found to consist of 70–
85% slow-twitch fibers, or type I fi-
bers, which further indicates that the
sport has high aerobic demands
(36,54,68,91). Anaerobic-alactic and
lactic metabolism also plays a role
in rowing performance, and peak
blood lactate values of 11–19
mmol/L have been recorded after
a 2,000-m race (84). Improving
anaerobic-alactic and lactic metabo-
lism to generate the power necessary
to accelerate the boat to racing
velocity or during the final sprint to
the finish line is an important consid-
eration for S&C coaches (91).
Physical characteristics. A
2,000-m rowing race typically
involves 210–230 rowing strokes
(91). Elite rowers have been found
to produce 1,000–1,500 Newton (N)
of force per stroke during the start
phase, 500–700 N during the
mid-race phase, and 600–700 N dur-
ing the finish phase (38,91). Rowing is
therefore classified as a strength-en-
durance sport as high levels of
strength are needed to generate the
force necessary during the start phase
of a race, whereas equally high levels
of endurance are needed to last the
duration of a race (60). A study by
Lawton et al. (57) investigated power,
strength, and strength-endurance de-
terminants of rowing ergometer per-
formance in 19 elite male rowers. A
dynamometer and various barbell
tests were used to assess power,
strength, and strength-endurance,
whereas rowing ergometer perfor-
mance was assessed using peak stroke
power (PSP), 500-m, 2,000-m, and
5,000-m tests. The PSP and 500-m
tests are widely used by rowing
coaches to assess start phase perfor-
mance in rowers, whereas the 2,000-
and 5,000-m tests assess performance
over Olympic distance and
long-distance events (e.g., head of
the river events), respectively (98).
A summary of the findings is pro-
vided in Figure 3. The findings sug-
gest that the highest correlations
were between strength/power tests
and PSP, measured over 15 maximal
effort strokes and 500-m rowing per-
formance. Lawton et al. (57) con-
ducted further analysis of the data
using regression models, which indi-
cated that a combination of 1 repeti-
tion maximum (RM) power clean and
6RM bench pull power determined
73% of PSP and 70% of 500-m rowing
performance (p , 0.05 for all). A
combination of the 5RM leg press
and 6RM bench pull determined
59% of 2,000-m rowing ergometer
performance (p , 0.05), whereas
a combination of 5RM leg press and
60RM seated arm pull determined
57% of 2,000-m performance (p ,
0.05). These findings seem to suggest
that gym-based power, strength, and
strength-endurance exercises (e.g.,

Figure 5. Finish phase isometric exercise. The rower performs an isometric hold in the
finish phase of the rowing stroke. The exercise can be progressed by
placing a barbell on the rower’s shoulders or in an overhead position.
(A) Displays a barbell on shoulders position. (B) Displays an overhead
barbell position.
1RM power clean, 6RM bench pull,
etc.) can determine aspects of perfor-
mance across a range of rowing dis-
tances, which is similar to the
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
findings of previous research in the
area for both elite and nonelite row-
ers (2,44,48,70). This is an important
consideration for S&C coaches and
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
may help to inform gym-based test-
ing protocols and exercise selection.
Relative strength (the maximum
amount of weight that can be lifted
relative to BM) may be a particularly
important component of 2,000-m row-
ing performance (69). Based on 10
years of descriptive data collected
using barbell strength tests, McNeely
et al. (69) found that elite male rowers
(n 5 26) had 1RM relative strength
levels of 1.9 times BM for the dead-
lift/back squat and 1.3 times BM for
the bench pull, whereas nonelite males
(n 5 103) had 1RM relative strength
levels of 1.4 times BM for the deadlift/
back squat and 1.05 times BM for the
bench pull. Similar findings were evi-
dent in elite female rowers (n 5 31)
who had 1RM relative strength levels
of 1.6 times BM for the deadlift/back
squat and 1.2 times BM for the bench
pull, whereas nonelite females (n 5
146) had 1RM relative strength levels
of 1.25 times BM for the deadlift/back
squat and 0.95 times BM for the bench
pull. Relative strength may be of par-
ticular importance for rowers during
the start phase of a race as the boat
must be accelerated from a static posi-
tion (69). It is tactically and psycholog-
ically advantageous to have an early
lead during the start phase as this will
allow rowers, who race with their back
toward the finish line, to be able to
monitor the position of other boats,
to react to any sudden changes in pace
by competitors, and to avoid the water
disturbance created by other boats
(31). The findings of McNeely et al.
(69) are similar to previous studies,
which also suggest that elite rowers
are significantly stronger and more
powerful than nonelite rowers in bar-
bell tests (46), dynamometer tests (56),
and isometric tests (83). However,
a major limitation of the McNeely et al.
(69) study is that no information was
provided on how range of motion
(ROM) was controlled for and stan-
dardized during back squat and bench
pull testing; therefore, the values pro-
vided may be much higher than typi-
cally expected. In addition, anecdotal
evidence suggests that elite/nonelite
11
 S&C for Rowers
Figure 6. Movement screening of the catch phase of the rowing stroke (111). (A)
Displays a rower with a good catch phase position—pelvis in anterior
rotation with a low level of lumbar flexion. (B) Displays a rower with a poor
catch phase position—pelvis in posterior rotation with a high level of
lumbar flexion.
rowers may have much greater relative
strength levels in the deadlift due to its
biomechanical similarity to the rowing
stroke. The rate of force development
(RFD) may also be an important com-
ponent of rowing performance (109).
The rate of force development or
“explosive strength” describes how fast
an athlete can develop force and is
determined from the slope of the
force–time curve (35,96). The ability
to express high RFD is a central factor
to performance across a wide range of
sports (35,92,96) and may be vital to
improving performance in a rowing
boat moving at a high velocity during
competition.
INJURY ANALYSIS
Rowing is a repetitive and weight-
supported sport where high training
volumes are common, similar to
12 VOLUME 42 | NUMBER 3 | JUNE 2020
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
cycling, kayaking, and swimming. It
is commonplace for elite rowers to
perform 14–18 sessions spread across
17–23 hours of training per week
(26,105). Subsequently, there is a risk
of injury, particularly overuse injury
(86). Therefore, S&C coaches should
be aware of the common injury sites
and risk factors. Based on epidemio-
logical data, the lower back is the
most common injury site in rowers
and accounts for ;32% of total inju-
ries over a 12-month period (86,112).
Lower back pain (LBP) in rowers has
been suggested to occur due to the
biomechanical pattern of the rowing
stroke, which involves repeated load-
ing of the lumbar spine in a flexed
position (79,104). Risk of LBP may
further increase during periods where
high levels of fatigue are experienced
from high-volume or high-intensity
training, which is common practice
in the sport (17,64,71). Other sug-
gested predisposing factors for LBP
that may be of interest to an S&C
coach include poor hip ROM
(14,16,66) and lower-limb strength
asymmetries (15,47). The knee is
the second-most common injury site
in rowers with an injury incidence of
15.9–18.8% reported over a 12-month
period (86,112). Common knee inju-
ries include patellofemoral pain syn-
drome, tendinopathy, and iliotibial
band friction syndrome (79,104).
The rowing stroke requires maximal
knee flexion which places high com-
pressive forces between the posterior
surface of the patella and femur (104).
The mechanism of knee injuries in
rowers has been poorly examined in
research but is likely to be as a result
of high patellofemoral loading both
in the boat (104). Anecdotal evidence
suggests that high volumes of addi-
tional conditioning activities such as
running or squatting with poor bio-
mechanics may contribute. Rib stress
injuries (RSI) are of particular con-
cern for the rowing population as
they account for the most time lost
from on-water training and competi-
tion (79). The incidence of RSI varies
from 4.6 to 12.8% in rowers
(63,85,86). Elite rowers have been re-
ported to have a higher incidence of
RSI (63,108). There are numerous
theories as to the cause of RSI and
both intrinsic factors (e.g., muscular
imbalances, poor trunk strength/
endurance, and poor thoracic mobil-
ity) and extrinsic factors (e.g., poor
rowing stroke mechanics, equipment
problems, and sharp increases in
training load) have been suggested
to contribute (25,104).
PROGRAMMING
CONSIDERATIONS
The previous section of this article
provided a needs analysis of the sport
of rowing with a specific focus on the
area of biomechanics, physiology, and
injury epidemiology. Based on the
findings of the needs analysis, the fol-
lowing section details a number of pro-
gramming considerations for S&C
 physiological demands (e.g., BLapeak of
. 8.8 mmol/L and RPE of .17) and
resulting fatigue associated with HRST
protocols may interfere with the
training-intensity distribution of row-
ers. A number of studies have assessed
training-intensity distribution in elite
and junior rowers (34,105). The find-
ings suggest that elite rowers complete
.95% of their total training volume as
low-intensity training (i.e., at a blood
lactate concentration of ,2 mmol/L)
(34,105); therefore, incorporating 2–3
HRST sessions per week (23,29,32)
must be considered with caution as this
would acutely increase the volume of
high-intensity training (HIT) (i.e.,
blood lactate concentration of .4
mmol/L or RPE of $17) (43) within
a training program. In addition, the
technical demands of performing
upward of 120 repetitions per set are
high, and the risk of injury may far out-
weigh any potential benefits to
performance.

STRENGTH AND POWER

DEVELOPMENT
Strength and conditioning programs
Figure 7. Movement screening of the finish phase of the rowing stroke (111). (A)
for rowers may be better directed
Displays a rower with a good finish phase position—pelvis in slight pos-
terior rotation. (B) Displays a rower with a poor finish phase position—
toward LRST protocols (e.g., 3–5 sets
pelvis in excessive posterior rotation with flexion of the lumbar spine. 3 1–5 repetitions) to develop maximal
strength and power which has been
consistently found to improve a large
coaches: strength-endurance develop- strength-endurance capacities, particu- number of endurance performance
ment, strength and power develop- larly during the competitive phase of markers (e.g., V̇ O2max, exercise econ-
ment, and the importance of the rowing season (23,29,32,68,99). In omy, lactate threshold, etc.) (10,77). In
robustness, mobility, and flexibility some cases, HRST protocols may addition, maximal strength and power
considerations. range up to 120 repetitions per set has the highest correlations with 2,000-
(68,99). Consequently, HRST proto- m rowing performance (2,44,57,70).
STRENGTH-ENDURANCE cols are physiologically demanding Strength exercises that develop the
DEVELOPMENT and may result in the accumulation lower body and trunk musculature
A recent review by Lawton et al. (55) of high levels of fatigue. A study by such as the back squat, front squat,
concluded that strength training inter- Jürimäe et al. (48) investigated the and deadlift have been found to be
ventions may lead to positive improve- physiological responses to a HRST widely used in S&C programs for row-
ments in rowing performance. protocol in 12 nonelite rowers. The ers (32). Squatting to full depth (i.e.,
However, the specific format of the HRST protocol involved the use of hamstrings touching the calves) should
strength training interventions varied a leg press and barbell bench pull exer- be encouraged as the catch position of
from low-repetition strength training cise. The HRST protocol for the leg the rowing stroke requires maximal
(LRST) (e.g., 3–5 sets 3 1–5 repeti- press resulted in peak blood lactate flexion at the hips, knees, and ankles
tions) to high-repetition strength train- (BLapeak) values of 11.8 6 2.5 mmol/ (69). Hip-hinging strength exercises
ing (HRST) (e.g., 2–3 sets 3 15–30 L and rating of perceived exertion such as the Romanian deadlift may
repetitions) across many of the re- (RPE) values of 17.5 6 2.7, whereas help to develop trunk strength in the
viewed studies (23,29,95). Tradition- the HRST protocol for the bench pull gluteus maximus, biceps femoris, and
ally, S&C programs for rowers have resulted in BLapeak values of 8.8 6 1.9 erector spinae, which are all muscle
focused on HRST to develop and RPE values of 17.0 6 1.8. The high groups that are recruited during the

13
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 S&C for Rowers

Table 2
Gym-based tests for competitive rowers

Physical characteristic Test (s)

Anthropometry Height, body mass, and skin folds (70)
Movement screening Overhead squat, catch phase test (111), and finish phase test (111)
Power Counter movement jump, 7 stroke maximal effort ergometer test (44), 1RM power clean/squat clean (57),
and bench pull/jump squat force-velocity profile (57)
Strength 1RM tests for the lower body (e.g. back squat, front squat, deadlift, or concept 2 dynamometer leg press)
and upper body (e.g., pull-up, bench pull, bench press, military press, or concept 2 dynamometer
seated arm pull/press) (58,68)
Strength-endurance Metronomea tests for the lower body (e.g., one leg glute bridge, or back extension) and the upper body
(e.g., press up, inverted row, or pull-up)
Trunk Metronomea tests for the trunk (e.g., one leg glute bridge, or back extension) and maximum duration
tests (e.g., side plank, dead bug, or finish phase holds) (98)
a
Using a metronome at a specific tempo to control the concentric and eccentric actions during testing.

RM 5 repetition maximum.

body swing action of the late drive barbell (88). The second pull features also occurs during the secondary
phase of the rowing stroke (28,47,87). greater force and power output than action (i.e., the drive phase) (18,55,87).
A strong trunk can help to optimize the first pull and is characterized by Plyometric exercises are also com-
force transfer from the legs, through triple extension at the ankle, knee, monly used for power development
the trunk, and on to the handles of and hip (88). Therefore, Olympic
in S&C programs for rowers (32). Plyo-
the oar during the drive phase of the weightlifting exercises such as the
metric training involves performing
stroke, whereas a weak trunk may not snatch, clean, and their derivatives
effectively transfer the force generated (e.g., hang clean, hang snatch, etc.) jumping and throwing-type exercises,
by the legs (9,87,102). In addition, high may be similar to the kinetic and kine- which use the SSC. However, to the
levels of trunk strength are needed to matic demands of the rowing stroke best of the authors’ knowledge, a lim-
tolerate the high forces experienced where the highest force/power output ited number of studies have
during the start of a rowing race where
the boat is rapidly accelerated from
a static position or during the finish
phase of rowing race where sudden Table 3
and aggressive increases in the stroke Example preseason phase S&C session for a junior rower
rate occur (102). Upper-body pulling
exercises such as the pull-up and bench Number Exercise Sets Reps/duration % 1RM Rest
pull may help to develop the arm pull- 1 DB goblet squat 3–4 6–8 — 2 min
ing action during the finish phase of the
stroke. The bench pull is a popular 2 BW inverted row 3–4 6–8 — 2 min
strength exercise for rowers (32); how- 3 DB deadlift 3–4 6–8 — 2 min
ever, care should be taken when pre-
scribing this exercise because of the 4a BW one leg Romanian deadlift 3–4 10–12 each side — —
high compressive forces on the rib cage 4b RB-assisted press up 3–4 10–12 — —
which may contribute to RSI (63).
4c BW split squat 3–4 10–12 each side — 1 min
Olympic weightlifting exercises (e.g.,
the snatch and clean) help to develop 5a One leg glute bridge 3–4 30–60 s each side — —
power in the lower body and trunk
5b Side plank 3–4 30–60 s each side — —
musculature and are widely used in
S&C programs for rowers (32). The Session aims: to improve movement competency and strength and build trunk endurance.
snatch and clean feature distinct first
DB 5 dumbbell; BW 5 bodyweight; RB 5 resistance band; RM 5 repetition maximum.
and secondary pulling actions on the

14 VOLUME 42 | NUMBER 3 | JUNE 2020

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Table 4
Example in-season phase S&C session for a junior rower
Number Exercise
1 TB hang clean
2 BB front squat
3 Weighted inverted row
4a BW press up
4b DB forward lunge
5a Dead bug
5b BW back extension
Session aims: to improve movement competency and power/strength and build trunk
endurance.
TB 5 technique barbell; BB 5 barbell; BW 5 bodyweight; DB 5 dumbbell; RM 5 repetition
maximum.
investigated the effects of plyometric
training on rowing performance
(24,53). Kramer et al. (53) investigated
the effects of a 9-week plyometric
training intervention on 2,500-m row-
ing performance in 24 nonelite rowers.
The intervention involved 20 minutes
of plyometric training performed 3
times per week. No significant differ-
ence was found between the experi-
mental and control groups (p . 0.05).
Egan-Shuttler et al. (24) investigated
the effects of a 4-week plyometric
training intervention on 500-m rowing
performance, rowing economy, and
peak rowing stroke power in 18 junior
rowers. The intervention involved
30 minutes of plyometric training per-
formed 3 times per week and included
100–170 foot contacts per session. A
significant improvement was found in
the intervention group for 500-m row-
ing performance (from 99.8 6 9 sec-
onds to 94.6 6 2 seconds, p , 0.05) and
rowing economy (p , 0.05). A limita-
tion of both the Kramer et al. (53) and
Egan-Shuttler et al. (24) study is the
effects of plyometric training on the
standard Olympic distance 2,000-m
race were not investigated. However,
the effect of plyometric training on
rowing economy in the Egan-Shuttler
et al. (24) study is promising. Rowing
economy is defined as the volume of
oxygen consumed by the working
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Sets Reps/duration % 1RM Rest
3–4 4–6 — 2 min
3–4 4–6 — 2 min
3–4 4–6 — 2 min
3–4 8–10 — —
3–4 8–10 each side — 1 min
3–4 30–60 s — —
3–4 30–60 s — —
musculature at a given steady-state
workload (19). A high exercise econ-
omy has been found to differentiate
high and low performers in endurance
sports (19,21,110), and plyometric
training has been found to improve
economy, particularly running econ-
omy (81,90,106). A potential mecha-
nism for improved running economy
has been suggested to be an increase
in the stiffness of the musculotendinous
system which improves the ability of
the body to momentarily store and uti-
lize energy absorbed eccentrically by
the force of landing (81,90). However,
land-based activities such as running
are weight bearing and involve a large
amount of eccentric muscle contrac-
tions during landing. Rowing is
a weight-support activity with minimal
eccentric contractions; therefore, the
effects of plyometric training on row-
ing economy and performance may
not be as prominent. However, because
of the dearth of rowing-specific studies,
further research is needed in this area.
THE IMPORTANCE OF
ROBUSTNESS
Rowing is a repetitive sport where
high training volumes are common
(26,105). Subsequently, there is a risk
of injury, particularly overuse injuries of
the lower back, knees, and rib area
(79,86,104). An appropriately designed
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
S&C program can help to develop
a robust rower capable of tolerating
high training volumes (100). A recent
review by Suchomel et al. (94) suggests
that increases in muscular strength
may reduce the occurrence of injuries
across numerous sports. A reduction in
injuries has been suggested to occur
due to increases in the structural
strength of ligaments, tendons, joint
cartilage, and connective tissue sheaths
within muscles and bone mineral con-
tent (27). In rowing, the correction of
muscular strength asymmetries may be
an important area of consideration for
S&C coaches (45,55). Sweep rowing is
an asymmetrical movement where
a rower controls 1 oar on either the
left or right side of their body, and per-
haps, consequently, a number of stud-
ies have found asymmetry in the lower
limbs of sweep rowers (15,47). There is
a risk that lower-limb asymmetry may
lead to alterations in spinal muscle
recruitment as the trunk acts as the
central link between the lower limbs
and the oars, thus increasing risk of
LBP (15). Janshen et al. (47) found
the knee and hip muscles of the leg
on the oar side (inside leg in sweep
rowing) showed 20–45% higher
EMG activity compared with the out-
side leg in 7 elite sweep rowers (p ,
0.05). Parkin et al. (73) observed similar
patterns of asymmetry in the EMG
activity of 19 nonelite sweep rowers.
Buckeridge et al. (15) found asymme-
tries in lower-limb reaction force that
ranged from 5.3 to 28.9% in 17 elite
sweep rowers and scullers; however,
there was no clear relationship
between lower-limb reaction force
asymmetry and the inside/outside leg
in sweep rowers. A recent study by An
et al. (3) investigated lower-limb reac-
tion force in 25 nonelite rowers with
and without a history of LBP. The
study concluded that rowers with a his-
tory of LBP did not demonstrate
greater lower-limb reaction force
asymmetry when compared with
healthy rowers. Further research is
needed in this area before a more defin-
itive conclusion can be drawn. Despite
this, S&C coaches should consider
incorporating single-leg/arm exercises
15
 S&C for Rowers
Table 5
Example preseason phase S&C session for an elite rower
Number Exercise Sets
1 BB back squat 4–5
2 Pull up 4–5
3 BB Romanian deadlift 4–5
4a DB bench press 3–4
4b DB lunge 3–4
5a Weighted back extension 3–4
5b BB glute bridge 3–4
5c Weighted side plank 3–4
Session aims: to improve strength, decrease asymmetry, and build trunk endurance.
BB 5 barbell; DB 5 dumbbell; RM 5 repetition maximum.
(e.g., dumbbell row, dumbbell lunge,
etc.) into their S&C programs for row-
ers to build robustness by improving
movement competency and muscular
strength and addressing any potential
asymmetries that may be present
(45,97,100). These recommendations
are in line with the S&C practices of
other sports involving asymmetrical
movement patterns (11,61).
The lower back has been consistently
found to be the most common injury
site in rowers (86,112). Developing
a strong, stable trunk with a high
endurance capacity is an important
area of consideration for S&C coaches
to reduce the likelihood of LBP
(79,102). The trunk is defined as the
global system consisting of superficial
muscles that span the area from the
shoulder girdle to the hip girdle and
are responsible for spinal movement
(e.g., rectus abdominals, external/inter-
nal obliques, erector spinae, gluteus
maximus, biceps femoris, etc.) (102).
Previous sections in this article have
outlined strength training considera-
tions for the trunk; however, training
the endurance capacities of the trunk,
in particular the lumbar extensors,
may be of particular importance to
decrease risk of LBP (41,74,79,104). A
rower needs high levels of trunk endur-
ance to tolerate repeated loading
16 VOLUME 42 | NUMBER 3 | JUNE 2020
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Reps/duration % 1RM Rest
4–6 80–90% 2–4 min
4–6 80–90% 2–4 min
4–6 80–90% 2–4 min
12–15 60–70% — plemental Digital Content 1–3, http://
12–15 each side 60–70% 1–2 min
30–60 s — —
30–60 s — —
30–60 s each side — —
during a 2,000-m race, which usually
lasts between 5.5 and 8 minutes of
duration in Olympic events. Fatigue
of the lumbar extensors during maxi-
mal effort rowing has been suggested
to lead to excessive lumbar flexion dur-
ing the rowing stroke, which has been
found to be associated with LBP
(18,41). Implementing HRST proto-
cols (.15 repetitions) using hip-
hinging exercises such as the Roma-
nian deadlift, good morning, back
extension, and gluteal bridge may help
to develop the endurance capacities of
the lumbar extensors (Tables 3–5).
Rowing-specific isometric trunk endur-
ance exercises that target the lumbar
extensors may also be performed on
a rowing ergometer for high durations
(.30 seconds where technique allows)
at the catch, drive, and finish phase of
the rowing stroke (Figures 4 and 5).
Owing to the outdoor nature of the
sport, rowing is often performed in
windy conditions, which may further
decrease the stability of a rowing boat;
therefore, core stability may be an
important consideration for S&C
coaches. The core is defined as the
local system that consists of deeper,
smaller muscles that are situated close
to the spine and are responsible for
stabilizing the spine at the segmental
level (e.g., transverse abdominals,
multifidus, quadratus lumborum, etc.)
(102). Core stability training is often
performed on unstable surfaces such
as wobble balls, and Swiss balls (39);
however, a more rowing-specific form
of core stability training can be
achieved in a rowing boat using tech-
nical exercises such as catch, drive, and
finish phase tap downs (see Video, Sup-
links.lww.com/SCJ/A271, http://
links.lww.com/SCJ/A272, http://
links.lww.com/SCJ/A273) (111). A
rower creates instability in the boat
by removing the oar from the water
during each “tap down,” thus challeng-
ing core stability. Tap down exercises
should be progressed from the most
stable position in a rowing boat (i.e.,
the finish phase or see Video, Supple-
mental Digital Content 1, http://links.
lww.com/SCJ/A271) to the least stable
position (i.e., the catch phase or see
Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1,
http://links.lww.com/SCJ/A273) based
on a rower’s technical competency. Core
muscles have a high resistance to fatigue;
therefore, high repetitions (.15 repeti-
tions) or longer durations (.30 seconds)
of each exercise, with appropriate re-
gressions/progressions, are encour-
aged (39,72,102).
MOBILITY AND FLEXIBILITY
CONSIDERATIONS
The mobility and flexibility of a rower is
an important consideration for S&C
coaches to decrease likelihood of injury
(14,66,79,97,104) as well as improving
rowing performance (65,97). Mobility is
defined as the range of movement
around a joint, whereas flexibility refers
purely to the muscle length (97). A num-
ber of studies have emphasized the
importance of improving hip ROM to
reduce stress on the lumbar spine during
the rowing stroke (14,66,79,104). Rowers
with a history of LBP tend to use high
levels of lumbar flexion (41,42) with lim-
ited pelvic rotation (64,66), which has
been found to decrease further as rowing
intensity and duration increases (41,64).
Improving the anterior rotation of the
pelvis at the catch phase of the sculling
and sweep-rowing stroke through
increasing hamstring flexibility has been
 Table 6
Example in-season phase S&C session for an elite rower

Number Exercise Sets Reps/duration % 1RM Rest

1a BB power clean 5–6 2–4 90–95% 2–4 min
a
1b Rowing ergometer sprint 5–6 8–10 s — 2–4 min
2 BB concentric bench pull 5–6 2–4 30–40% 2–4 min
3 BB back squat 4–5 2–4 90–95% 2–4 min
b
4a Catch phase isometric exercise 4–5 30–60 s — —
b
4b Finish phase isometric exercise 4–5 30–60 s — —
Session aims: to increase power, maintain strength, and build rowing-specific trunk endurance.
a
Perform a maximal effort sprint on a rowing ergometer and record peak wattage.
b
Figure 4.

BB 5 barbell; RM 5 repetition maximum.

suggested to reduce the amount of lum-
bar flexion and therefore decreases the
risk of LBP (79,104). In addition, exces-
sive posterior rotation of the pelvis dur-
ing the finish phase of the rowing stroke
has been found to occur as rowing inten-
sity and duration increases, which may
further contribute to LBP (41,64). This is
commonly termed as “slumping” at the
finish phase of the stroke (64). Conse-
quently, it is recommended that move-
ment screening of the pelvic and spinal
position at the catch and finish phase of
the rowing stroke, in static and dynamic
positions, should be assessed by S&C
coaches on a regular basis (Figures 6
and 7, respectively).
The sports science and medicine team of
a prominent rowing nation has previously
published a number of mobility and flex-
ibility guidelines that may be useful for
S&C coaches when correcting poor pel-
vic and spinal positioning at the catch and
finish phase of the rowing stroke (Figures
6B and 7B) (5–7). In addition, the exer-
cises provided in Figure 5, Supplemental
Digital Contents 1 and 2 (see Video,
http://links.lww.com/SCJ/A271 and
http://links.lww.com/SCJ/A273), may
also help to correct poor pelvic and spinal
positioning. Optimizing rowing SL by
increasing the mobility and/or flexibility
of a rower may also improve rowing per-
formance in a boat and/or on a rowing
ergometer (65,97). Stroke length is the
total arc the rowing oar moves through
the water, which has been suggested to
range from 106 to 1108 in a sculling boat
and 86–908 in a sweep rowing boat at the
elite level (4,87). Stroke length has been
found to have a significant correlation
with 2,000-m rowing ergometer perfor-
mance (r 5 20.76) (44). A study by
McGregor et al. (65) investigated biome-
chanical changes to the rowing stroke
over a 2-year period in 7 elite rowers.
McGregor et al. (65) found a significant
increase in SL that ranged from 14.9 to
18.9 cm (p , 0.0001). This finding coin-
cided with a significant increase in peak
force that ranged from 40 to 80 N (p ,
0.01), and large improvements in compet-
itive performance were observed at the
Olympic level. Improving hip ROM, par-
ticularly through increasing hamstring
flexibility, can help a rower to optimize
the “rock over” position during the recov-
ery phase of the rowing stroke which
helps a rower to transfer their bodyweight
from the seat of the rowing boat to their
feet (97,101). The “rock over” position of
the recovery phase is a key component for
improving SL and effectively balancing
a rowing boat (97,101).
PROGRAM DESIGN
Strength and conditioning programs for
competitive rowers should aim to
develop strength and power, build
robustness, and increase mobility and/
or flexibility, where applicable, to
decrease likelihood of injury and
enhance rowing performance. Table 2
provides a summary of gym-based tests
for competitive rowers, which are based
on the review of the literature that has
been outlined in previous sections of this
article. Gym-based testing should be
conducted on a regular basis (e.g., at
12–16 weeks of intervals throughout
the season) to monitor progress and
should be tailored to the specific cohort
(e.g., junior rowers, elite rowers, etc). Ta-
bles 3 and 4 are examples of a preseason
and in-season S&C program for a junior
rower with an S&C training age of 1–2
years. Tables 5–7 are examples of a pre-
season and in-season S&C program for
an elite rower. Strength and conditioning
coaches are recommended to include
appropriate regressions or progressions
of S&C exercises (59,72), where neces-
sary, when working with junior rowers
and other nonelite rowing cohorts (e.g.,
club level rowers, master rowers, etc.)
To optimize the S&C program design
across an entire season for rowers, the
“interference effect” must be consid-
ered. The interference effect refers to
a compromise in muscle mass,
strength, and power development
which is often observed when resis-
tance and endurance training are com-
bined concurrently compared with
resistance training alone (40). This

17
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 S&C for Rowers

Table 7 Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding:

Example pre/in-season phase rowing-specific core stability session for an The authors report no conflicts of interest
elite rower and no source of funding.

Number Exercise Sets Reps/duration % 1RM Rest

1a Rowing boat finish phase tap 5–6 30–60 s — — Frank J.

downsa Nugent was
a competitive
1b Rowing boat drive phase tap 5–6 30–60 s — — rower and is
downsa a strength and
1c Rowing boat catch phase tap 5–6 30–60 s — — conditioning
downsa coach and lec-
turer in the
Session aim: to build rowing-specific core stability.
Physical Educa-
a
SDC 1–3. tion and Sport Sciences department in the
University of Limerick.
RM 5 repetition maximum.

may be of particular importance in
cyclical endurance sports where high
volumes of endurance training are tra-
ditionally prescribed (8,30). A number
of mechanisms have been proposed to
explain the interference between resis-
tance and endurance training
(20,37,52,76,78,89,103). These include
(a) reductions in motor unit recruit-
ment (37), (b) chronic depletion of
muscle glycogen stores (20), (c) de-
creases in the muscle cross sectional
area (52), (d) decreases in muscle force
production (76,89), and (e) a reduction
in total protein synthesis following
endurance training (78,103). A review
by Garcı́a-Pallarés and Izquierdo (30)
suggests several strategies to reduce the
interference effect in highly trained
rowers. Short training phases of around
5-week duration using highly concen-
trated training loads (.50% of the total
training volume) which focus on the
development of one resistance training
component (e.g., strength, power, etc.)
and one endurance training compo-
nent (e.g., aerobic, anaerobic, etc.) have
been suggested. In addition, resistance
training sessions should be placed
before endurance training sessions,
where possible, to reduce the residual
fatigue associated with endurance
training. However, a recent review by
Baar (8) suggests that performing
a resistance training session directly
after an endurance training session
may result in a greater stimulus than
Eamonn P.
the endurance training session alone Flanagan is the
and will not affect molecular signaling lead strength and
pathways that regulate resistance train- conditioning
ing improvements. Clearly, further coach at the Sport
research is warranted in this area. Ireland Institute
Based on the current literature, S&C in Dublin.
coaches should consider implementing
the following strategies to reduce any
potential interference effect in rowers:
(a) perform resistance-training on sep- Fiona Wilson is
arate days to endurance training or at a competitive
separate stages of the day (e.g., morn- rower, physio-
ing session is resistance training and therapist, and
evening session is endurance training associate profes-
or vice versa) and (b) consider priori- sor in Trinity
tizing resistance training during the ini- College Dublin.
tial 12–16 weeks of preseason training
for elite rowers, when the volume of
endurance training is traditionally still Giles D.
low (8,30,100). Warrington is
an exercise phys-
iologist and
SUMMARY
senior lecturer in
This article has provided an evidence- the Physical
based needs analysis of the biome- Education and
chanics, physiology, and injury epide- Sport Sciences
miology associated with the sport of department in the
rowing. Based on this, the authors sug- University of
gest that S&C coaches should aim to Limerick.
develop strength and power, build
robustness, and increase mobility
and/or flexibility, where applicable, to REFERENCES
decrease likelihood of injury and 1. Available at: https://www.olympic.org/
enhance rowing performance. Exam- rowing-equipment-and-history. Accessed:
ples of gym-based tests and S&C pro- November 13, 2019.
grams for competitive rowers were 2. Akca F. Prediction of rowing ergometer
provided. performance from functional anaerobic

18 VOLUME 42 | NUMBER 3 | JUNE 2020

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 power, strength and anthropometric
components. J Hum Kinet 41: 133–142,
2014.
3. An WW, Wong V, and Cheung RT. Lower
limb reaction force asymmetry in rowers
with and without a history of back injury.
Sports Biomech 14: 375–383, 2015.
4. Available at: https://rowingaustralia.com.
au/tony-rice/rowing-testing-protocols/.
Accessed: October 19, 2019.
5. Available at: https://rowingaustralia.com.
au/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/A4_
poster1_mobilise.pdf. Accessed: October
11, 2019.
6. Available at: https://rowingaustralia.com.
au/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/A4_
poster4_stretch.pdf. Accessed: October
19, 2019.
7. Available at: https://rowingaustralia.com.
au/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/A4_
poster3_pattern.pdf. Accessed: October
11, 2019.
8. Baar K. Using molecular biology to
maximize concurrent training. Sports Med
44: 117–125, 2014.
9. Baudouin A and Hawkins D. A
biomechanical review of factors affecting
rowing performance. Br J Sports Med 36:
396–402, 2002.
10. Beattie K, Kenny IC, Lyons M, and Carson
BP. The effect of strength training on
performance in endurance athletes.
Sports Med 44: 845–865, 2014.
11. Bishop C, Turner A, and Read P. Training
methods and considerations for
practitioners to reduce interlimb
asymmetries. Strength Cond J 40: 40–
46, 2018.
12. Bourdin M, Messonnier L, Hager JP, and
Lacour JR. Peak power output predicts
rowing ergometer performance in elite
male rowers. Int J Sports Med 25: 368–
373, 2004.
13. Bourgois J, Steyaert A, and Boone J.
Physiological and anthropometric
progression in an international oarsman: A
15-year case study. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform 9: 723–726, 2014.
14. Buckeridge E, Hislop S, Bull A, and
McGregor A. Kinematic asymmetries of
the lower limbs during ergometer rowing.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 44: 2147–2153,
2012.
15. Buckeridge EM, Bull AM, and McGregor
AH. Foot force production and
asymmetries in elite rowers. Sports
Biomech 13: 47–61, 2014.
16. Buckeridge EM, Bull AM, and McGregor
AH. Biomechanical determinants of elite
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
rowing technique and performance.
Scand J Med Sci Sports 25: e176–e183,
2015.
17. Buckeridge EM, Bull AM, and McGregor
AH. Incremental training intensities
increases loads on the lower back of elite
female rowers. J Sports Sci 34: 369–378,
2016.
18. Caldwell JS, McNair PJ, and Williams M.
The effects of repetitive motion on lumbar
flexion and erector spinae muscle activity
in rowers. Clin Biomech 18: 704–711,
2003.
19. Cosgrove MJ, Wilson J, Watt D, and
Grant SF. The relationship between
selected physiological variables of rowers
and rowing performance as determined
by a 2000 m ergometer test. J Sports Sci
17: 845–852, 1999.
20. Creer A, Gallagher P, Slivka D, et al.
Influence of muscle glycogen availability
on ERK1/2 and Akt signaling after
resistance exercise in human skeletal
muscle. J Appl Physiol 99: 950–956,
2005.
21. Daniels J and Daniels N. Running
economy of elite male and elite female
runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 24: 483–
489, 1992.
22. De Campos Mello F, De Moraes Bertuzzi
RC, Grangeiro PM, and Franchini E.
Energy systems contributions in 2,000 m
race simulation: A comparison among
rowing ergometers and water. Eur J Appl
Physiol 107: 615–619, 2009.
23. Ebben WP, Kindler AG, Chirdon KA, et al.
The effect of high-load vs. high-repetition
training on endurance performance.
J Strength Cond Res 18: 513–517,
2004.
24. Egan-Shuttler JD, Edmonds R, Eddy C,
O’Neill V, and Ives SJ. The effect of
concurrent plyometric training versus
submaximal aerobic cycling on rowing
economy, peak power, and performance
in male high school rowers. Sports Med
Open 3: 7, 2017.
25. Evans G and Redgrave A. Great Britain
rowing team guideline for diagnosis and
management of rib stress injury: Part 1. Br
J Sports Med 50: 266–269, 2016.
26. Fiskerstrand A and Seiler KS. Training and
performance characteristics among
Norwegian international rowers 1970–
2001. Scand J Med Sci Sports 14: 303–
310, 2004.
27. Fleck S and Falkel J. Value of resistance
training for the reduction of sports injuries.
Sports Med 3: 61–68, 1986.
19
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
28. Fleming N, Donne B, and Mahony N. A
comparison of electromyography and
stroke kinematics during ergometer and
on-water rowing. J Sports Sci 32: 1127–
1138, 2014.
29. Gallagher D, DiPietro L, Visek AJ,
Bancheri JM, and Miller TA. The effects of
concurrent endurance and resistance
training on 2,000-m rowing ergometer
times in collegiate male rowers. J Strength
Cond Res 24: 1208–1214, 2010.
30. Garcı́a-Pallarés J and Izquierdo M.
Strategies to optimize concurrent training of
strength and aerobic fitness for rowing and
canoeing. Sports Med 41: 329–343, 2011.
31. Garland SW. An analysis of the pacing
strategy adopted by elite competitors in
2000 m rowing. Br J Sports Med 39: 39–
42, 2005.
32. Gee TI, Olsen PD, Berger NJ, Golby J, and
Thompson KG. Strength and conditioning
practices in rowing. J Strength Cond Res
25: 668–682, 2011.
33. Godfrey RJ, Ingham SA, Pedlar CR, and
Whyte GP. The detraining and retraining
of an elite rower: A case study. J Sports
Sci Med 8: 314–320, 2005.
34. Guellich A, Seiler S, and Emrich E.
Training methods and intensity
distribution of young world-class rowers.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform 4: 448–460,
2009.
35. Haff GG and Nimphius S. Training
principles for power. Strength Cond J 34:
2–12, 2012.
36. Hagerman FC and Staron RS. Seasonal
variables among physiological variables in
elite oarsmen. Can J Appl Sport Sci 8:
143–148, 1983.
37. Häkkinen K, Alen M, Kraemer WJ, et al.
Neuromuscular adaptations during
concurrent strength and endurance
training versus strength training. Eur J
Appl Physiol 89: 42–52, 2003.
38. Hartmann U, Mader A, Wasser K, and
Klauer I. Peak force, velocity, and power
during five and ten maximal rowing
ergometer strokes by world class female
and male rowers. Int J Sports Med 14:
S42–S45, 1993.
39. Hibbs AE, Thompson KG, French D,
Wrigley A, and Spears I. Optimizing
performance by improving core stability
and core strength. Sports Med 38: 995–
1008, 2008.
40. Hickson RC. Interference of strength
development by simultaneously training
for strength and endurance. Eur J Appl
Physiol Occup Physiol 45: 255–263,
1980.
 S&C for Rowers
41. Holt PJ, Bull AM, Cashman PM, and
McGregor AH. Kinematics of spinal
motion during prolonged rowing. Int J
Sports Med 24: 597–602, 2003.
42. Howell DW. Musculoskeletal profile and
incidence of musculoskeletal injuries in
lightweight women rowers. Am J Sports
Med 12: 278–282, 1984.
43. Hydren JR and Cohen BS. Current scientific
evidence for a polarized cardiovascular
endurance training model. J Strength Cond
Res 29: 3523–3530, 2015.
44. Ingham S, Whyte G, Jones K, and Nevill A.
Determinants of 2,000 m rowing
ergometer performance in elite rowers.
Eur J Appl Physiol 88: 243–246, 2002.
45. Ivey P, Oakley J, and Hagerman P.
Strength training for the preparatory
phase in collegiate women’s rowing.
Strength Cond J 26: 10–15, 2004.
46. Izquierdo-Gabarren M, de Txabarri
Expósito RG, de Villarreal ESS, and
Izquierdo M. Physiological factors to
predict on traditional rowing performance.
Eur J Appl Physiol 108: 83, 2010.
47. Janshen L, Mattes K, and Tidow G.
Muscular coordination of the lower
extremities of oarsmen during ergometer
rowing. J Appl Biomech 25: 156–164,
2009.
48. Jürimäe T, Perez-Turpin JA, Cortell-Tormo
JM, et al. Relationship between rowing
ergometer performance and physiological
responses to upper and lower body
exercises in rowers. J Sci Med Sport 13:
434–437, 2010.
49. Kleshnev V. Power in Rowing. United
Kingdom: Routledge, 2002.
50. Kleshnev V. Rowing Biomechanics
Newsletter. Australian Insitute of Sport,
Bruce, Australia, 2003.
51. Komi PV. Training of muscle strength and
power: Interaction of neuromotoric,
hypertrophic, and mechanical factors. Int
J Sports Med 7: 10–15, 1986.
52. Kraemer WJ, Patton JF, Gordon SE, et al.
Compatibility of high-intensity strength
and endurance training on hormonal and
skeletal muscle adaptations. J Appl
Physiol 78: 976–989, 1995.
53. Kramer JF, Morrow A, and Leger A.
Changes in rowing ergometer, weight lifting,
vertical jump and isokinetic performance in
response to standard and standard plus
plyometric training programs. Int J Sports
Med 14: 449–454, 1993.
54. Larsson L and Forsberg A. Morphological
muscle characteristics in rowers. Can J
Appl Sport Sci 5: 239–244, 1980.
20 VOLUME 42 | NUMBER 3 | JUNE 2020
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
55. Lawton TW, Cronin JB, and McGuigan
MR. Strength testing and training of
rowers: A review. Sports Med 41: 413–
432, 2011.
56. Lawton TW, Cronin JB, and McGuigan
MR. Anthropometry, strength and
benchmarks for development: A basis for
junior rowers’ selection? J Sports Sci 30:
995–1001, 2012.
57. Lawton TW, Cronin JB, and McGuigan
MR. Strength, power, and muscular
endurance exercise and elite rowing
ergometer performance. J Strength Cond
Res 27: 1928–1935, 2013.
58. Lawton TW, Cronin JB, and McGuigan
MR. Strength tests for elite rowers: Low-
or high-repetition? J Sports Sci 32: 701–
709, 2014.
59. Lloyd RS, Oliver JL, Meyers RW, Moody
JA, and Stone MH. Long-term athletic
development and its application to youth
weightlifting. Strength Cond J 34: 55–66,
2012.
60. Maestu J, Jurimae J, and Jurimae T.
Monitoring of performance and training in
rowing. Sports Med 35: 597–617, 2005.
61. Maloney SJ. The relationship between
asymmetry and athletic performance: A
critical review. J Strength Cond Res 33:
2579–2593, 2019.
62. Mazzone T. Sports performance series:
Kinesiology of the rowing stroke. Strength
Cond J 10: 4–13, 1988.
63. McDonnell LK, Hume PA, and Nolte V. Rib
stress fractures among rowers. Sports
Med 41: 883–901, 2011.
64. McGregor AH, Bull AM, and Byng-
Maddick R. A comparison of rowing
technique at different stroke rates: A
description of sequencing, force
production and kinematics. Int J Sports
Med 25: 465–470, 2004.
65. McGregor AH, Patankar ZS, and Bull AM.
Longitudinal changes in the spinal
kinematics of oarswomen during step
testing. J Sports Sci Med 6: 29–35, 2007.
66. McGregor AL, Anderton LI, and Gedroyc W.
The assessment of intersegmental motion
and pelvic tilt in elite oarsmen. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 34: 1143–1149, 2002.
67. McNeely E. Rowing physiology. In:
Rowing Faster. Nolte V, ed. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics, 2011.
68. McNeely E. Training for strength. In:
Rowing Faster. Nolte V, ed. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics, 2011. pp. 163–172.
69. McNeely E, Sandler D, and Bamel S.
Strength and power goals for competitive
rowers. Strength Cond J 27: 10–15,
2005.
70. Nevill AM, Allen SV, and Ingham SA.
Modelling the determinants of 2000 m
rowing ergometer performance: A
proportional, curvilinear allometric
approach. Scand J Med Sci Sports 21:
73–78, 2011.
71. Ng L, Campbell A, Burnett A, and
O’Sullivan P. Gender differences in trunk
and pelvic kinematics during prolonged
ergometer rowing in adolescents. J Appl
Biomech 29: 180–187, 2013.
72. Nugent FJ, Comyns TM, and Warrington
GD. Strength and conditioning
considerations for youth swimmers.
Strength Cond J 40: 31–39, 2018.
73. Parkin S, Nowicky AV, Rutherford OM,
and McGregor AH. Do oarsmen have
asymmetries in the strength of their back
and leg muscles? J Sports Sci 19: 521–
526, 2001.
74. Pollock CL, Jenkyn TR, Jones IC, Ivanova
TD, and Garland SJ. Electromyography
and kinematics of the trunk during rowing
in elite female rowers. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 41: 628–636, 2009.
75. Pripstein LP, Rhodes EC, McKenzie DC,
and Coutts KD. Aerobic and anaerobic
energy during a 2-km race simulation in
female rowers. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup
Physiol 79: 491–494, 1999.
76. Ribeiro N, Ugrinowitsch C, Panissa VLG,
and Tricoli V. Acute effects of aerobic
exercise performed with different volumes
on strength performance and
neuromuscular parameters. Eur J Sport
Sci 19: 287–294, 2019.
77. Ronnestad BR and Mujika I. Optimizing
strength training for running and cycling
endurance performance: A review. Scand
J Med Sci Sports 24: 603–612, 2014.
78. Rose AJ, Alsted TJ, Jensen TE, et al. A
Ca2+–calmodulin–eEF2K–eEF2 signalling
cascade, but not AMPK, contributes to the
suppression of skeletal muscle protein syn-
thesis during contractions. J Physiol 587:
1547–1563, 2009.
79. Rumball JS, Lebrun CM, Di Ciacca SR,
and Orlando K. Rowing injuries. Sports
Med 35: 537–555, 2005.
80. Russell AP, Le Rossignol PF, and
Sparrow WA. Prediction of elite
schoolboy 2000-m rowing ergometer
performance from metabolic,
anthropometric and strength variables.
J Sports Sci 16: 749–754, 1998.
81. Saunders PU, Telford RD, Pyne DB, et al.
Short-term plyometric training improves
running economy in highly trained middle
 and long distance runners. J Strength Cond
Res 20: 947–954, 2006.
82. Schmidtbleicher D. Training for power
events. In: Strength and Power in Sport.
Komi PV, ed. United Kingdom: Blackwell,
1992. pp. 169–179.
83. Secher NH. Isometric rowing strength of
experienced and inexperienced oarsmen.
Med Sci Sports 7: 280–283, 1975.
84. Shephard RJ. Science and medicine of
rowing: A review. J Sports Sci 16: 603–
620, 1998.
85. Smoljanovic T, Bohacek I, Hannafin JA,
et al. Acute and chronic injuries among
senior international rowers: A cross-
sectional study. Int Orthop 39: 1623–
1630, 2015.
86. Smoljanovic T, Bojanic I, Hannafin JA,
et al. Traumatic and overuse injuries
among international elite junior rowers.
Am J Sports Med 37: 1193–1199, 2009.
87. Soper C and Hume PA. Towards an ideal
rowing technique for performance: The
contributions from biomechanics. Sports
Med 34: 825–848, 2004.
88. Souza AL, Shimada SD, and Koontz AL.
Ground reaction forces during the power
clean. J Strength Cond Res 16: 423–
427, 2002.
89. Sporer BC and Wenger HA. Effects of
aerobic exercise on strength performance
following various periods of recovery.
J Strength Cond Res 17: 638–644, 2003.
90. Spurrs RW, Murphy AJ, and Watsford ML.
The effect of plyometric training on
distance running performance. Eur J Appl
Physiol 89: 1–7, 2003.
91. Steinacker JM. Physiological aspects of
training in rowing. Int J Sports Med
14(Suppl 1): S3–10, 1993.
92. Stone MH, Collins D, Plisk S, Haff G, and
Stone ME. Training principles: Evaluation of
modes and methods of resistance training.
Strength Cond J 22: 65–76, 2000.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
93. Strahan AD, Burnett AF, Caneiro JP, et al.
Differences in spinopelvic kinematics in
sweep and scull ergometer rowing. Clin J
Sports Med 21: 330–336, 2011.
94. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, and Stone MH.
The importance of muscular strength in
athletic performance. Sports Med 46:
1419–1449, 2016.
95. Syrotuik DG, Game AB, Gillies EM, and
Bell GJ. Effects of creatine monohydrate
supplementation during combined
strength and high intensity rowing training
on performance. Can J Appl Physiol 26:
527–542, 2001.
96. Taber C, Bellon C, Abbott H, and
Bingham GE. Roles of maximal strength
and rate of force development in
maximizing muscular power. Strength
Cond J 38: 71–78, 2016.
97. Thompson P and Wolf A. Mobility and
flexibility. Training for the Complete
Rower. United Kingdom: The Crowood
Press Ltd, 2016. pp. 81–90.
98. Thompson P and Wolf A. Monitoring and
assessing land training. Training for the
Complete Rower. United Kingdom:
Crowood Press, 2016. pp. 76–80.
99. Thompson P and Wolf A. Specific rowing
conditioning. Training for the Complete
Rower. United Kingdom: Crowood Press,
2016. pp. 52–55.
100. Thompson P and Wolf A. Strength
training. Training for the Complete Rower.
United Kingdom: Crowood Press, 2016.
pp. 56–75.
101. Thompson P and Wolf A. Training and
technique. Training for the Complete
Rower. United Kingdom: The Crowood
Press Ltd, 2016. pp. 19–37.
102. Thompson P and Wolf A. Trunk. Training
for the Complete Rower. United
Kingdom: The Crowood Press Ltd, 2016.
pp. 104–113.
103. Thomson DM, Fick CA, and Gordon SE.
AMPK activation attenuates S6K1, 4E-
21
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
BP1, and eEF2 signaling responses to
high-frequency electrically stimulated
skeletal muscle contractions. J Appl
Physiol 104: 625–632, 2008.
104. Thornton JS, Vinther A, Wilson F, et al.
Rowing injuries: An updated review.
Sports Med 47: 641–661, 2017.
105. Tran J, Rice AJ, Main LC, and Gastin PB.
Profiling the training practices and
performances of elite rowers. Int J Sports
Physiol Perform 10: 572–580, 2015.
106. Turner AM, Owings M, and Schwane JA.
Improvement in running economy after 6
weeks of plyometric training. J Strength
Cond Res 17: 60–67, 2003.
107. Turpin NA, Guevel A, Durand S, and Hug
F. Effect of power output on muscle
coordination during rowing. Eur J Appl
Physiol 111: 3017–3029, 2011.
108. Verrall G and Darcey A. Lower back
injuries in rowing national level compared
to international level rowers. Asian J
Sports Med 5: e24293, 2014.
109. Vinther A, Alkjaer T, Kanstrup IL, et al.
Slide-based ergometer rowing: Effects on
force production and neuromuscular
activity. Scand J Med Sci Sports 23:
635–644, 2013.
110. Weston AR, Mbambo Z, and Myburgh
KH. Running economy of African and
Caucasian distance runners. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 32: 1130–1134, 2000.
111. Wilson F. Back pain in rowing: An evolution
of understanding. In: Presented at World
Rowing Championships Medical Meeting.
France: Aiguebelette, 2015.
112. Wilson F, Gissane C, Gormley J, and
Simms C. A 12-month prospective cohort
study of injury in international rowers. Br J
Sports Med 44: 207–214, 2010.
113. Yoshiga CC and Higuchi M. Rowing
performance of female and male rowers.
Scand J Med Sci Sports 13: 317–321,
2003.