Content uploaded by Trent W Lawton
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Trent W Lawton
Content may be subject to copyright.
Terms and Conditions for Use of PDF
The provision of PDFs for authors' personal use is subject to the following Terms & Conditions:
The PDF provided is protected by copyright. All rights not specifically granted in these Terms & Conditions are expressly
reserved. Printing and storage is for scholarly research and educational and personal use. Any copyright or other notices
or disclaimers must not be removed, obscured or modified. The PDF may not be posted on an open-access website
(including personal and university sites).
The PDF may be used as follows:
• to make copies of the article for your own personal use, including for your own classroom teaching use (this includes
posting on a closed website for exclusive use by course students);
• to make copies and distribute copies (including through e-mail) of the article to research colleagues, for the personal use
by such colleagues (but not commercially or systematically, e.g. via an e-mail list or list serve);
• to present the article at a meeting or conference and to distribute copies of such paper or article to the delegates
attending the meeting;
• to include the article in full or in part in a thesis or disser tation (provided that this is not to be published commercially).
This material is the copyright of the original publisher.
Unauthorised copying and distribution is prohibited.
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
Strength Testing and Training of Rowers
A Review
Trent W. Lawton,
1,2
John B. Cronin
2,3
and Michael R. McGuigan
1,2,3
1 New Zealand Academy of Sport, Performance Services - Strength and Conditioning, Auckland,
New Zealand
2 Sport Performance Research Institute New Zealand, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand
3 School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia,
Australia
Contents
Abstract................................................................................. 413
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
2. Search Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
3. Evaluation of Quality of Current Evidence Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
4. Measuring Rowing Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
5. How Strong are Elite Rowers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
6. Reliability of Strength, Power and Endurance Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
7. Validity of Strength, Power and Endurance Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
7.1 Peak Forces (Maximal Strength) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
7.2 Sustained Forces (Strength Endurance) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
7.3 Scaling of Strength and Endurance Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
7.4 Alternative Applications of Strength Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423
8. The Effects of Strength Training on Rowing Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423
8.1 Strength Training and Rowing Injuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428
9. Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
10. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
Abstract In the quest to maximize average propulsive stroke impulses over 2000-m
racing, testing and training of various strength parameters have been in-
corporated into the physical conditioning plans of rowers. Thus, the purpose
of this review was 2-fold: to identify strength tests that were reliable and valid
correlates (predictors) of rowing performance; and, to establish the benefits
gained when strength training was integrated into the physical preparation
plans of rowers. The reliability of maximal strength and power tests involving
leg extension (e.g. leg pressing) and arm pulling (e.g. prone bench pull) was
high (intra-class correlations 0.82–0.99), revealing that elite rowers were sig-
nificantly stronger than their less competitive peers. The greater strength of
elite rowers was in part attributed to the correlation between strength and
greater lean body mass (r =0.57–0.63). Dynamic lower body strength tests
that determined the maximal external load for a one-repetition maximum
(1RM) leg press (kg), isokinetic leg extension peak force (N) or leg press peak
REVIEW ARTICLE Sports Med 2011; 41 (5): 413-432
0112-1642/11/0005-0413/$49.95/0
ª2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
power (W) proved to be moderately to strongly associated with 2000-m er-
gometer times (r =-0.54 to -0.68; p <0.05). Repetition tests that assess
muscular or strength endurance by quantifying the number of repetitions
accrued at a fixed percentage of the strength maximum (e.g. 50–70%1RM leg
press) or set absolute load (e.g. 40 kg prone bench pulls) were less reliable and
more time consuming when compared with briefer maximal strength tests.
Only leg press repetition tests were correlated with 2000-m ergometer times
(e.g. r =-0.67; p <0.05). However, these tests differentiate training experience
and muscle morphology, in that those individuals with greater training ex-
perience and/or proportions of slow twitch fibres performed more repetitions.
Muscle balance ratios derived from strength data (e.g. hamstring-quadriceps
ratio <45%or knee extensor-elbow flexor ratio around 4.2 –0.22 to 1) ap-
peared useful in the pathological assessment of low back pain or rib injury
history associated with rowing. While strength partially explained variances
in 2000-m ergometer performance, concurrent endurance training may be
counterproductive to strength development over the shorter term (i.e. <12 weeks).
Therefore, prioritization of strength training within the sequence of train-
ing units should be considered, particularly over the non-competition phase
(e.g. 2–6 sets ·4–12 repetitions, three sessions a week). Maximal strength
was sustained when infrequent (e.g. one or two sessions a week) but intense
(e.g. 73–79%of maximum) strength training units were scheduled; however, it
was unclear whether training adaptations should emphasize maximal strength,
endurance or power in order to enhance performance during the competition
phase. Additionally, specific on-water strength training practices such as
towing ropes had not been reported. Further research should examine the on-
water benefits associated with various strength training protocols, in the
context of the training phase, weight division, experience and level of rower, if
limitations to the reliability and precision of performance data (e.g. 2000-m
time or rank) can be controlled. In conclusion, while positive ergometer time-
trial benefits of clinical and practical significance were reported with strength
training, a lack of statistical significance was noted, primarily due to an ab-
sence of quality long-term controlled experimental research designs.
1. Introduction
Depending on crew size, boat type and weather
conditions, an Olympic 2000-m rowing event lasts
somewhere between 5:19.85 and 7:28.15 minutes,
based on 2009 world best times. A relatively high
energy cost with sculling (two oars) or rowing
(single oars), was attributed to drag created by
wind and water resistance.
[1]
Subsequently, elite
rowers have developed better technique, demon-
strating a more efficient recovery phase (partic-
ularly in the timing of forces at the catch), a faster
stroke rate and a stronger, more consistent and
effective propulsive stroke.
[1-8]
All other factors
remaining equal, rowers who sustain greater net
propulsive forces (or strength) achieve faster boat
speeds.
[3,7]
From this relatively simplistic description, and
with consideration of the impulses required to
change boat inertia on starting or over the fin-
ishing burst of 2000-m racing, it would appear
that rowing requires muscle strength, endurance
and power. For the purposes of this review, strength
was broadly defined as the amount of force pro-
duced in a specific task or activity. Irrespective of
the mode of assessment or the duration required,
the peak or greatest force achieved in any task
has commonly been defined as the ‘maximum
strength’.
[9]
‘Strength endurance’ (or muscle endur-
ance) on the other hand, was defined as the total
414 Lawton et al.
ª2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2011; 41 (5)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
concentric work produced over a number of rep-
etitions, often within a designated time inter-
val.
[10]
A rower who performed an equal quantity
of work more quickly was more powerful; there-
fore, a third and equally important measure of
strength was muscle ‘power’.
[11]
Given these de-
mands and that on-water performance could not
be predicted precisely from any single test, includ-
ing ergometer time trials,
[7,10,12-16]
testing and
training of various strength parameters have been
incorporated into the physical preparation of
rowers. The reliability and relevance of such prac-
tice in the context of the physical preparation of
the rower provided the focus for this review.
Therefore, the purpose of this review was 2-fold:
to identify strength tests that were reliable and
valid correlates (predictors) of rowing perfor-
mance; and, to establish the benefits gained when
strength training was integrated into the physical
preparation plans of rowers.
2. Search Strategy
This review evaluated and interpreted the cur-
rent evidence base to provide coaches, sport sci-
entists and rowers alike, with an understanding of
the rationale and application of strength testing
and training principles to rowing. The conclusions
of this article were drawn from either peer-reviewed
journal publications or conference proceedings.
Books or association journals were excluded in
the analysis, but cited where of value for under-
standing the concepts of rowing or the training of
rowers.
Google Scholar and the EBSCO Host search
engines with varying combinations of the keywords
‘strength’, ‘power’ and/or ‘endurance’ with the term
‘rowing’ or ‘oarsmen/women’ were used to filter
relevant research from electronic databases such
as MEDLINE, CINAHL, Biomedical Reference
Collection: Basic, PubMed and SPORTDiscus
.
Bibliographical referral was an equally important
search strategy.
Studies were included in the analysis if the in-
vestigation utilized dynamometry to assess muscle
strength (including tests using electromyography
(EMG), rowing ergometers or on-water analysis,
which were considered measures of rowing force)
or strength training interventions (excluding re-
sisted inspiration studies). For inclusion, a project
must have recruited rowers with at least 1 year of
experience.
For the purposes of this review, the level of
rower was defined by the level of competition ex-
perience (where identified). An ‘elite’ subject sample
utilized rowers who participated in open-age in-
ternational competition (Class A), such as the
World Cup regattas or World Championships.
A ‘sub-elite’ sample recruited junior or under-
23 age competitors with international experience,
or open-age rowers of national ranking or com-
petition experience. Finally, ‘non-elite’ rowers
participated in club or university rowing events.
3. Evaluation of Quality of Current
Evidence Base
In total, the search process recovered 53 papers.
Around half (n =27) used rowers classified as sub-
elite or elite. The authors were unable to find any
scientific paper that incorporated a measure of
strength into a model of on-water rowing perfor-
mance (i.e. race ranking or 2000-m times) because
models utilizing on-water results have limitations
primarily due to large standard error of the esti-
mates of data.
[16]
Therefore, discussion was limited
to the relevance of strength testing and training as
part of the physiological preparation and reduc-
tion of injury risk associated with competitive
rowing. The majority of studies (n =35) were de-
scriptive investigations that used strength testing
to characterize differences between rowers (e.g.
non-elite and elite) with non-rower populations.
Less than one-third (n =17) of the recovered
research was intervention based, of which ten
papers involved strength training along with a pre-
and post-measure of rowing performance (i.e. er-
gometer time trial) and strength (e.g. one-repetition
maximum [1RM] leg press). The methodological
quality of this experimental research was assessed
using the qualitative evaluation criteria proposed
by Brughelli and colleagues.
[17]
Their method used
a 10-item scale to rate the quality of the research
design overcoming the harsh Delphi, PEDro and
Cochrane scales ratings of most strength and
conditioning research due to the lack of blinding
Rowing Strength Testing and Training 415
ª2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2011; 41 (5)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
and randomization of intervention treatments.
However, most of the ‘quasi-experimental’ inter-
ventions reviewed lacked use of either a crossover
research design, control group and/or randomi-
zation allocation of rowers to treatment interven-
tions. Subsequently, many papers rated poorly
when the Brughelli et al.
[17]
evaluation criteria
were used (see table I). Nonetheless, these de-
scriptive research interventions reported positive
performance outcomes of clinical
[26,28]
and prac-
tical significance
[20,21]
from the short-term inclu-
sion of strength training that warranted discus-
sion within the relevant sections of this review.
There were also constraints to the relevance
and applicability of some data when reviewed in
the context of contemporary rowing practices.
For example, over the past 30 years, training
volumes have increased by >20%in many coun-
tries, with medal winners now training between
1100 and 1200 hours a year.
[29]
Such volumes of
endurance training are far greater than the 4 days
(or around 6 hours) a week deployed in the ref-
erenced research. Additionally, this review syn-
thesized data from research spanning over 40 years
(1968–2010). After allowing for a population trend
of increasing height of 0.03 m, the 21st century
elite rower is some 0.06 m taller at 1.94 –0.05 m
and 1.81 –0.05 m (male and females, respectively),
and about 6.4 kg and 12.1 kg heavier at 94.3 –
5.9 kg and 76.6 –5.2 kg than Olympic rowers of
just over two decades earlier.
[30]
Given the signif-
icant influence of height and lean body mass on
2000-m performance,
[30-35]
the divergent charac-
teristics of rowing populations must not be over-
looked in review of the data. Finally, 2000-m
ergometer times of <328 seconds and 374 seconds,
respectively, for heavy and lightweight males
(379 seconds and 407 seconds, respectively, for
females) were recently proposed as benchmarks
for a medal placing in the A-Finals for small boat
categories (e.g. single or double sculls) at the 2007
World Championships.
[16]
While not the defini-
tive measure of an elite rower, such benchmarks
were considerably faster than average ergometer
times of rowers reviewed in this article. Thus, it
would appear warranted to revisit many of the
Table I. Methodological rating of the quality of intervention studies incorporating strength testing, training and rowing performance
Item
a
Bell
et al.
[18]
duManoir
et al.
[19]
Ebben
et al.
[20]
Gallagher
et al.
[21]
Haykowsky
et al.
[22]
Kennedy
and Bell
[23]
Kramer
et al.
[24]
Syrotuik
et al.
[25]
Tse
et al.
[26]
Webster
et al.
[27]
Inclusion criteria were
clearly stated
12 1 2 2 1 1 1 21
Rowers were randomly
allocated to groups
20 2 2 0 0 0 1 10
Intervention was clearly
defined
11
b
21 1
b
1
b
22
b
11
Groups were tested for
similarity at baseline
11 2 0 1 1 2 1 21
Use of a control group 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 0
Outcome variables
were clearly defined
22 2 1 2 2 2 2 22
Assessments were
practically useful
22 1 1 2 2 2 2 22
Duration of intervention
was practically useful
11 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
Between-group statistical
analysis was appropriate
22 2 2 2 2 2 2 22
Point measures of variability 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1
Rating (out of 20) 13 12 14 13 12 11 14 13 16 11
a The score for each criterion was as follows: 0 =clearly no; 1 =maybe; and 2 =clearly yes.
b Strength training intervention was not the primary independent variable of interest.
416 Lawton et al.
ª2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2011; 41 (5)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
past experimental themes in future research. In
particular, with consideration of the increased
professionalism, endurance training volumes and
general changes in anthropometrical build, the
testing and training of strength parameters within
the distinct phases of physical preparation of the
champion elite warrant investigation. Stronger
experimental research designs (e.g. use of control
groups or crossover designs) over periods of longer
intervention (e.g. more than 12 weeks) were also
required (regardless of the experience of the pop-
ulation examined). Finally, where standard er-
rors with modelling data permit, the common
variances shared between changes in strength and
on-water performance data should be explored.
4. Measuring Rowing Strength
Without doubt, the most valid and specific mea-
sure of rowing strength is to assess the force vec-
tors produced during 2000-m racing. Hartmann
et al.
[36]
reported that peak force significantly de-
creased during maximal free rating 6-minute
rowing ergometry. From the first stroke to the
last stroke, peak forces after the initial and most
forceful ten strokes (around 1350 N for men and
1020 N for women) did not exceed more than
65–70%of maximum force thereafter. As the
level of force declined, rowers substituted both an
increase in stroke speed and rate in order to sus-
tain mechanical power assessed at the flywheel.
Similar results have been reported during on-
water racing, the level of force up to 1000 N and
1500 N for the start; thereafter, speed was main-
tained with peak rowing forces between 500 and
700 N for the 210–230 strokes performed over
6 minutes.
[37]
Relatively modest forces produced at fast
movement speeds accentuate the importance of
stroke-to-stroke consistency, stroke smoothness
and a high mean propulsive stroke power in order
to achieve fast boat speeds.
[3,6,7]
Forces measured
at the oar-pin during the drive phase
[6,7]
from
catch (i.e. oar-blade entry into the water) to finish
(i.e. oar-blade exit from the water) rise then fall
producing a bell-shaped propulsive impulse (see
figure 1). When disaggregated to examine the
timing and relative contribution of the main body
segments involved in the propulsive stroke, anal-
ysis showed that the leg drive (i.e. knee extension)
Catch
Drive 1
Drive 2
Drive 3
Release
Recovery
(pre-entry to catch)
Time (sec)
Force (N)
Fig. 1. Schema of the main phases and force-time characteristics of the propulsive rowing stroke.
Rowing Strength Testing and Training 417
ª2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2011; 41 (5)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
produced just under half, the trunk swing (i.e. hip
and trunk extension) almost one-third and the
arms (i.e. elbow flexion and shoulder adduction)
less than one-fifth of total stroke power.
[5,38]
Subsequently, strength tests of these main body
segments have been used to compare the differences
between elite and non-elite rowers, irrespective of
rowing experience or skill. For example, stronger
non-elite oarswomen produced greater leg exten-
sion power across a spectrum of loads (e.g. 17.5%
greater power at 50%1RM) compared with weaker
controls
[11]
and stronger sub-elite oarsmen sus-
tained greater power (849.4 W) in 30 seconds of
arm cranking than club level (610.2 W) rowers.
[39]
Similarly, isokinetic leg flexion strength tests
proved useful for the early identification of indi-
viduals with the physiological potential to excel at
rowing,
[13]
while also having been used to identify
possible training interventions to bridge the gap
between slower and faster rowers of equivalent
skill.
[40]
5. How Strong are Elite Rowers?
Internationally successful rowers are taller,
heavier, of greater sitting height and lower fat-
mass than their less successful peers.
[30-34,41]
They
have some of the highest absolute aerobic power
(e.g. maximum oxygen uptake [ .
VO
2max
]valuesover
6.0 L/min and 4.0 L/min for males and females, re-
spectively) reported of any competitive sport.
[2,37,42]
Rowers are also relatively strong when compar-
isons of strength are made with other endurance
athletes.
[2,43-45]
The comparison of greatest in-
terest to rowers and coaches alike is: how strong
are the fastest rowers?
Elite male rowers generated a force of more
than 2000 N in an isometric simulated-row posi-
tion
[46]
and forces over 4000 N at 120knee ex-
tension.
[47]
They can produce forces of around
300 N at 1.05 radians per second during isokinetic
leg extension,
[13,48,49]
and cable or bench row
1RM loads of around 90 kg.
[50,51]
Based on the
strength training data of elite male rowers,
strength targets (expressed as a factor relative to
body mass) for 1RM dead lift (1.9), back squat
(1.9) and bench row (1.3) have been suggested.
[52]
Elite female rowers produce a force of around
200 N at 1.05 radians per second during leg ex-
tension.
[13,53]
Strength targets expressed as a fac-
tor relative to body mass for 1RM dead lift (1.6),
back squat (1.6) and bench row (1.2) have also
been reported based on the strength data of elite
female rowers.
[52]
Other useful data can be interpreted from
the substantial literature that has investigated
novice and sub-elite rowers. In summary, male
non-elite rowers leg press around 290 kg for a
1RM
[19,23,27,54,55]
(168 kg for women
[10,23,24,27]
)
and bench row around 80 kg for a 1RM.
[55]
Sub-
elite rowers might perform over 100 repetitions with
a load of approximately 50 kg (or about 50%of a
1RM) for a bench pull task over 6 minutes.
[55,56]
6. Reliability of Strength, Power and
Endurance Tests
Comparisons between the strength of novices
and elite rowers are interesting but potentially mean-
ingless if the reliability and validity of such tests
to rowing performance is questionable. Hopkins
[57]
argued, when selecting tests to monitor the pro-
gression of an athlete, that it is important to take
into account the uncertainty or noise in the test
result, ideally, for the specific population of in-
terest. The precision of testing is important
particularly if an attempt is made to replicate the
data of previous research, or when the tests are
used to assess different sample populations.
The reliability for a range of strength and power
measures commonly used with rowers appears
quite robust. Intra-class correlations (ICC) for
isokinetic leg extension peak torque range from
0.82 to 0.94.
[18,58,59]
The coefficient of variations
(CV) for concentric power using a linear encoder
on a seated cable row ranged from 3%to 5%.
[50]
Also, the reliability of tests using the leg press or
prone bench pull exercise trialled with rowers ap-
pear as robust as reliability trials using the same
exercises but with inexperienced middle-aged men
(reported ICCs of 0.99, or typical [standard] error
of the mean expressed as a CV [log transformed]
of 3.3%).
[18,60]
The authors were unable to ascertain the re-
liability for typical upper and lower body (e.g. leg
pressing or arm rowing) repetition endurance
418 Lawton et al.
ª2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2011; 41 (5)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
tests typically used by rowers from previous lit-
erature. It is likely that they are less robust com-
pared with maximal strength assessments, given
the need to standardize lifting tempos, test dura-
tions and qualitative technical criteria to assess
in the determination of test data (i.e. completed
repetitions).
Isometric measures of strength endurance of
the abdominal core of the body appear reason-
ably stable, but again, like repetition tests, the
duration of the test and qualitative assessment to
determine test completion reduce the precision
and reliability of the measures with reported
ICCs ranged from 0.76 to 0.89 for right and left
side static holds over 90 seconds, 0.88 for a spine
extension test lasting 2 minutes on average and
0.93 for a spine flexor test lasting almost 3 min-
utes.
[61]
However, ICCs ranging between 0.97 and
0.99 for the same tests with rowers of similar age,
experience and build (height and lean body mass)
have also been reported.
[26]
7. Validity of Strength, Power and
Endurance Tests
Strength data, while offering satisfactory pre-
cision, needs to be a relevant and valid measure of
rowing ability. One form of validity can be in-
ferred when strength significantly differentiates
rowers of varying ability (e.g. novice and elite).
Alternatively, the validity of strength data can
be evaluated using correlation and regression
analysis in an attempt to explain variances in
rowing performance (e.g. 2000-m ergometer time
trial).
The estimation of correlation coefficients is
dependent on a number of statistical criteria, namely
the assumption of normality, linearity and homo-
scedasticity of data and a sample size adequate
for the number of variables included in the anal-
ysis. Many of the studies reviewed do not report
or violate one or all of these assumptions.
This may be of little concern given that the
strength of the relationship is often of interest
within the unique population selected. However,
the risk here is that often these predictor data are
used to model performance outcomes and the
relationships between data are ignored. At this
point, it should be noted that a curvilinear re-
gression between leg extension power (W) and
ergometer time (seconds) provided a better fit
(r
2
=41%) to the explained variance in rowing
performance than linear regression (r
2
=38%).
[62]
In practical terms, this may mean relatively small
increases in strength are associated with relatively
large improvements in rowing performance changes
for weaker rowers, whereas, relatively large increases
in strength may be associatedwithcomparatively
small, although significant, improvements in row-
ing performance for stronger rowers.
7.1 Peak Forces (Maximal Strength)
The earliest tests of strength in rowers used
strain gauges to assess isometric muscle forces of
body segments at specific joint angles.
[12,39,46]
How-
ever, these isometric strength tests did not appear
in any precise way to discriminate between levels
of rowing performance. For example, a simulated
rowing position differentiated the strength be-
tween world class rowers and national champions
and between national champion and senior row-
ers;
[46]
however, multiple regression analysis found
that the rank of a rower for crew selection was
weakly explained (r =0.577; p <0.05) by isometric
strength and experience compared with rowing
ergometer trials (r =0.895; p <0.05).
[12]
Further-
more, maximal isometric force did not correlate
with power or force production during modified
ergometer rowing (albeit small sample sizes).
[47]
Dynamic muscle strength and power tests more
effectively discriminate between performance abil-
ities.
[63,64]
Highly ranked elite rowers perform
better in isokinetic leg strength
[13,40,49]
and arm
cranking power tests.
[39]
Those strength tests with
superior discriminative ability involve bi-lateral
recruitment of large muscle mass, such as the leg
press exercise (see table II). However, maximal
dynamic tests involving smaller muscle mass,
such as the upper body, provide ambiguous in-
sight into ergometer performance (see table III).
In reviewing the literature, it was not obvious
whether advances in strength testing technology
provided any superior precision, reliability or val-
idity of data to rowing performance. In terms of
the interrelationships amongst these tests, some
Rowing Strength Testing and Training 419
ª2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2011; 41 (5)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
Table II. Leg strength assessment and ergometer performance
Study Strength test Rowers (n) Phase, mean strength and
ergometer results (–SD)
Main findings
Isoinertial
Chun-Jung
et al.
[54]
45
incline leg press (knee
flexion ~90
), Cybex (USA)
1RM (kg)
Non-elite (17) Non-competitive:
Males (n =10)
1RM: 154.6 –26.9 kg
2000 m (C2): 452.2 –25.3 sec
Females (n =7)
1RM: 130.5 –15.3 kg
2000 m (C2): 521.4 –19.2 sec
Pooled 1RM (144.7 –25.4 kg) correlated with
(r =–0.536; p <0.05) 2000-m time (481 –41.4 sec)
Ju
¨rima
¨e et al.
[55]
45
incline leg press (knee
flexion ~90
), unstated
manufacturer. 1RM and
continuous max. reps with 50%.
1RM in 7 min (reps)
Non-elite males (12) Competitive:
1RM: 252.3 –44.3 kg
max. reps: 173.5 –11.8
2000 m (C2): 417.2 –14.3 sec
Max. reps correlated with 2000-m time
(r =-0.677; p <0.05), but not 1RM
Kramer et al.
[10]
45
incline leg press (knee
flexion ~100
), Champion Barbell
Company (USA). 1RM and max.
reps at 28 reps/min with 70%.
1RM in 7 min (J)
Non-elite females
(16), sub-elite
females (4)
Non-competitive:
1RM: 172.6 –33.0 kg
max. reps: 13 932 –5335 J
2500 m (C2): 591 –41 sec
1RM and max. reps correlated with 2500-m time
(r =-0.57 and -0.51, respectively; p <0.05)
Isokinetic
Kramer et al.
[59]
Unilateral leg extension,
Kin-Com (USA). Peak and
average torque (Nm) of 3 reps at
160/sec
Non-elite lightweight
males (15)
Competitive:
PT: 202 –24 Nm
AT: 171 –19 Nm
2000 m (C2): 412.5 –11.5 sec
Oarside significantly stronger than non-oarside
(~6%;p<0.01). Poor correlations between
oarside and non-oarside strength measures and
2000-m times (ranged from 0.32 to -0.42;
p>0.05)
Kramer et al.
[10]
Unilateral leg extension,
Kin-Com (USA). Peak torque at
180/sec from sum of highest 5
concentric reps for each leg
Non-elite females
(16), sub-elite
females (4)
Non-competitive:
PT: 279 –44 Nm
2500 m (C2): 591 –41 sec
No significant correlation between isokinetic leg
extension with ergometer time (range, r =-0.27 to
-0.37; p >0.05). Isokinetic strength high
correlation with 1RM 45leg press (r =0.75)
Russell et al.
[15]
Bilateral leg extension, Cybex
(USA). Peak torque at 1.05
radians/sec of 3 reps
Sub-elite males (19) Non-competitive:
PT: 268 Nm (SD not stated)
2000 m (C2): 403 –16.2 sec
.
VO
2max
(r =-0.43), body mass (r =-0.41) and leg
extensor strength (r =-0.40) were the major
significant (p <0.05) predictors of rowing
ergometer performance
Continued next page
420 Lawton et al.
ª2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2011; 41 (5)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
researchers found that isokinetic leg strength
data were strongly correlated with isoinertial leg
strength data (r =0.75; p <0.05).
[10]
Therefore,
either maximal isoinertial leg strength (kg)
[10,54]
or power (W)
[35,62,65]
or peak isokinetic quadriceps
strength data (N)
[10,15]
can be used to provide
valid physiological measures and predictors of
non-elite and sub-elite rowers’ ergometer perfor-
mance. It should be noted that this relationship
has not been tested with elite-level rowers.
Acknowledging limitations with single factor
performance models,
[15]
the greater strength of
elite rowers can in part be attributable to a larger
muscle mass.
[30-34]
Along with .
VO
2max
greater
lean body mass was a significant attribute of
champion elite rowers
[30-32]
and strongly corre-
lated with ergometer performance (r =-0.77 to
-0.91).
[34,35]
Maximal strength was also strongly
associated with muscle mass and cross-sectional
area (r =0.57–0.63).
[48,49,53,66]
It appears likely
that a more valid strength test to rowing, targets
those body segments more critical to the develop-
ment of rowing power (i.e. anterior thigh, pos-
terior chain complex and erector spinae muscle
groups of the legs and trunk).
[38]
7.2 Sustained Forces (Strength Endurance)
Given a large aerobic energy contribution
(approximately 70–85%) in racing 2000 m,
[1,2,37,67]
it was not surprising that tests of local muscle
strength endurance (i.e. repetition endurance
tests) have been investigated. Strength endurance
has been assessed as the maximum repetitions
achieved with a load of approximately 50%of
1RM,
[51,68-70]
or calculated from the quantity of
work achieved based on distance and repetitions
executed using a load of 70%of 1RM.
[10,24]
A
lifting tempo and time constraint for the test is
typical for this type of assessment. However, the
number of repetitions completed in these tests
remains much less than the number of strokes
completed during 2000 m of rowing. These tests
also overlook important kinematic data that may
prove useful in the analysis of performance dif-
ferences (e.g. time and velocity of concentric
muscle actions). Nonetheless, strength endurance
tests using a leg press, report strong to modest
Table II. Contd
Study Strength test Rowers (n) Phase, mean strength and
ergometer results (–SD)
Main findings
Accommodating resistance
Shimoda
et al.
[65]
Horizontal bilateral leg press,
Anaeropress (Japan). Peak
power (W) from average of best
two efforts of five trials
Non-elite males (16) NS
PP: 2241 –286 W
2000 m (C2): 409.3 –12.2 sec
Ergometer time correlated with .
VO
2max
(r =-0.61;
p=0.012), leg press power (r =-0.68; p =0.004)
and stroke power consistency (r =0.69; p =0.003)
Yoshiga and
Higuchi
[62]
Horizontal bilateral leg press,
Anaeropress (Japan). Peak
power (W) from average of best
two efforts of five trials
Non-elite males (332) NS
PP: 2260 –367 W
2000 m (C2): 425 –20 sec
Ergometer time related to height (r =-0.48;
p<0.001), body mass (r =-0.73; p <0.001), fat-
free mass (r =-0.76; p <0.001) and leg press
power (r =-0.62; p <0.001)
Yoshiga and
Higuchi
[35]
Horizontal bilateral leg press,
Anaeropress (Japan). Peak
power (W) from average of best
two efforts of five trials
Non-elite males (78) NS
PP: 2300 –379 W
2000 m (C2): 426 –14.9 sec
Absolute leg press power correlated with
ergometer time (r =-0.52; p <0.001), but not
when expressed relative to bodyweight (r =-0.21;
p>0.05)
1RM =one-repetition maximum; AT =average torque; C2 =Concept2 rowing ergometer; max. =maximum; NS =not specified; PP =peak power; PT =peak torque; reps =repetitions.
Rowing Strength Testing and Training 421
ª2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2011; 41 (5)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
correlations with ergometer time (r =-0.68 and
-0.51, respectively; p <0.05).
[10,55]
In contrast, non-significant correlations are
associated with upper body repetition tests (e.g.
bench pull) and ergometer times (see table III).
Furthermore, a 6-minute bench pull repetition
endurance test using a 41 kg load correlated poorly
with on-water power during a simulated race
(104.8 –26.75 repetitions; r =0.21; p >0.05).
[56]
Unlike maximal strength assessments, the valid-
ity to rowing performance of upper body repeti-
tion endurance tests appears questionable. This is
somewhat surprising given the logical validity of
muscle endurance testing to endurance perfor-
mance and warrants discussion.
The number of repetitions completed using a
set percentage of 1RM varies according to the
quantity of muscle groups utilized as well as the
training history and sex of the rower.
[71-73]
At an
equal percentage of maximal ability, the number
of repetitions attained with an upper body activity
will be lower than that of a lower body activity.
Ju
¨rima
¨e et al.
[55]
found that the number of repe-
titions performed in leg pressing at 50%1RM was
closer (repetitions =173.5 –11.8) to the number
of average strokes taken to complete a 2000-m
time trial (n =194.2 –19.5) than bench pulling
(repetitions =122.6 –17.7) at 50%1RM, thus ex-
plaining the significant and strong correlations
found for leg pressing. Arguably, a lower per-
centage of 1RM was required for bench pulling;
however, such a contention remains untested. It
may be that repetition endurance tests, whether
isokinetic or isoinertial, provide data better used
to differentiate training experience and muscle
morphology. That is, at a fixed percentage of
1RM, individuals with greater endurance train-
ing experience, proportions and hypertrophy of
slow-twitch fibres perform a greater number of
repetitions at sub-maximal loads.
[66,71,74,75]
Inter-
nationally, successful rowers have significantly
greater proportions (e.g. 70–85%) and hypertrophy
of slow-twitch fibres of the quadriceps muscle than
lesser ranked national rowers (e.g. 66.1%)
[2,37,49,53]
and, subsequently, perform better in repetition
endurance tests of the legs.
[2,53]
Whereas relatively
similar variances in rowing performance may be
shared with repetition endurance tests involving
the legs, given a relatively smaller muscle mass
and limited contribution to rowing power,
[5,38]
it
would appear repetition endurance tests of the
arms have little common variance with rowing
performance.
7.3 Scaling of Strength and Endurance Data
To account for differences in body size (height
and weight), it is common practice to normalize
Table III. Arm strength and ergometer performance
Study Strength test (isoinertial) Rowers (n) Phase, mean strength and
ergometer results (–SD)
Main findings
Chun-Jung et al.
[54]
Inverted rows performed in
a squat rack, MF Athletic
Corp. (USA). Max. reps
with bodyweight
Non-elite (17) Non-competitive:
Males (n =10)
max. reps: 13.9 –4.0
2000 m (C2): 452.2 –25.3 sec
Females (n =7)
max. reps: 3.9 –3.4
2000 m (C2): 521.4 –19.2 sec
Pooled max. reps data (9.8 –6.3)
correlated with ergometer time
(r =-0.624; p <0.05)
Ju
¨rima
¨e et al.
[55]
Prone bench pull, unstated
manufacturer. 1RM and
continuous max. reps with
50%. 1RM in 7 min
Non-elite
males (12)
Competitive:
1RM: 82.0 –12.6 kg
max. reps: 122.6 –17.7
2000 m (C2): 417 –14.3 sec
1RM and max. reps not
significantly correlated with
ergometer time (correlation not
reported)
Kramer et al.
[10]
Prone bench pull, Universal
Inc., (USA). 1RM and max.
reps at 28 reps/min with
70%. 1RM in 7 min (J)
Non-elite
females (16),
sub-elite
females (4)
Non-competitive:
1RM: ~48.7 –7.1 kg
max. reps: 5528 –2511 J
2500 m (C2): 591 –41 sec
1RM, but not max. reps, significant
relationship with ergometer time
(r =-0.52; p <0.05; and r -0.25;
p>0.05, respectively)
1RM =one-repetition maximum; C2 =Concept2 rowing ergometer; max. =maximum; reps =repetitions.
422 Lawton et al.
ª2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2011; 41 (5)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
data by dividing the result by body mass (also
known as ratio scaling) or by first raising body
mass using a power exponent based on the theory
of geometric symmetry (known as allometric scal-
ing).
[76-78]
Ratio and allometric scaling of strength
data reduces observed differences between males
and females or between elite athletes participat-
ing in endurance sports. When allometric scaling
was used to normalize ergometer 2000-m times,
the resultant data provided a stronger model to
predict on-water performance.
[14]
To our knowl-
edge, neither ratio nor allometric scaling of strength
data have been used to examine relationships with
on-water performance. Given somatotype differ-
ences
[30-32]
and body mass constraints, allometric
or ratio scaling of strength data might prospec-
tively explain variances in on-water performances
between heavyweight and lightweight, male and
female, or novice and elite rowers.
7.4 Alternative Applications of Strength
Testing
Apart from quantifying the physiological ca-
pacity of a rower, strength testing has also proved
useful for the refinement of an optimal rowing
technique. For example, past isometric strength
testing established that the strongest rowing ac-
tion was one where the elbows were kept at 180
during the leg driving phase, and where the arms
were adducted and hands held at umbilicus height
during the arm pulling phase of the rowing stroke.
[79]
Such strength tests may also prove useful as
feedback to assist a rower to establish and refine
their rowing technique.
Strength tests may also provide data that is
equally useful for evaluating musculo-skeletal
conditions associated with pain or injury when
rowing. For example, non-elite rowers with poor
hamstring strength relative to the extensor mus-
cles of the knee (e.g. ratio less than 45%) reported
more frequent occurrences of low back pain af-
fecting their participation in rowing.
[28]
Sub-elite
rowers with a past rib-stress fracture occurrence
were found to have lower knee extensor to elbow
flexor strength ratios (i.e. 4.2 –0.22 to 1) when
matched to non-injured controls (i.e. 4.8 –0.16 to
1; p <0.05).
[80]
In addition, elite rowers were re-
ported to have greater strength and better sym-
metry (i.e. 1 : 1 ratios) between trunk flexor and
extensors than weaker control non-rowers, more
akin to the imbalances observed in low back pain
populations.
[81]
The asymmetry of muscle devel-
opment and strength associated with pain pathol-
ogy, particularly of the legs and back observed in
novice rowers, may be attributable to the asym-
metrical rotation of trunk during the sweep-oar
rowing technique.
[82]
For example, unilateral
strength tests show that the oarside leg of non-
elite lightweight oarsmen was significantly stronger
(around 6%;p<0.05) than the non-oarside leg;
[59]
however, such differences were not observed
amongst more experienced sub-elite oarsmen.
[82]
It may therefore be that the interpretation of
strength test data and the utilization of subse-
quent musculo-skeletal interventions differ be-
tween novice and elite rowers.
8. The Effects of Strength Training on
Rowing Performance
This review thus far has highlighted that mus-
cle strength data significantly explains much of
the variance in ergometer performance. There-
fore, the efficacy of various strength training in-
terventions on rowing performance warranted
investigation. The purpose of this section is to
examine whether strength training offers any
benefits or performance edge over and above that
attainable by rowing itself.
Strength training improves muscle function by
inducing neuromuscular adaptations (e.g. im-
proved muscle recruitment, rate and synchroni-
city of fibre contractions) with long-term benefits
ultimately attributable to (selective) hypertrophy
of muscle fibres, vascular proliferation and ex-
pansion of energy substrates within the muscle.
[83]
In terms of increasing maximal strength, RM
loading ranging from 1–12RM for up to three to
four sessions a week, are thought optimal loading
parameters for intermediate training (individuals
with 6 months of consistent exercise history).
[9]
More frequent strength training may be required
for experienced athletes (up to 6 days each week)
where muscle-group training is divided over two
sessions in order to limit the total duration of
Rowing Strength Testing and Training 423
ª2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2011; 41 (5)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
exercise as training volumes approach up to eight
sets for each muscle group.
[84]
The acute training
objective is to progressively increase the intensity
of the exercise (determined as a proportion of
maximum ability), rather than increase the vol-
ume of repetitions to increase muscle fatigue.
[85]
Indeed, strategies to reduce fatigue significantly
increase the rate of muscle work (i.e. power),
thus, improve the quality of training and rate of
muscular adaptation.
[86,87]
There is some contention about the efficacy
and utility of various strength training mod-
alities, particularly for advanced endurance ath-
letes. Concurrent maximal strength and aerobic
endurance training appears counterproductive to
strength development.
[88]
It has been proposed
that the acute fatigue of muscle fibres from en-
durance training compromises the intensity of the
training required for strength development. It
was also proposed that adaptations induced at
the muscle level from endurance exercise are an-
tagonistic to the hypertrophy response required
to optimize strength (for reviews see Docherty
and Sporer
[89]
and Leveritt et al.
[90]
). From this
literature, it seems that the successful integration
of strength training may be difficult for endurance
athletes. However, short-term resistance strength
training interventions (e.g. 5–10 weeks) with highly
trained endurance cyclists and distance runners
provided evidence that a performance edge was
gained when units of strength training were
scheduled in place of, and not in addition to, en-
durance exercise.
[91,92]
If it is decided that strength training is to be
utilized in an athlete’s preparation, a rower’s first
challenge is to decide how to successfully in-
tegrate and sequence endurance and strength
training units. Irrespective of whether the objec-
tive is to build or maintain maximal strength,
strength training should be scheduled after a
rower has had opportunity to recover. Any pre-
ceding endurance exercise should consist of low-
intensity continuous exercise, avoiding the use of
the glycolytic energy system.
[93]
However, often
time constraints mean this may not be practicable.
Therefore, an alternative integration strategy is
to sequence phases of physiological preparation
(known as periodization) and to prioritize strength
training during the non-competition phase.
[94,95]
A typical prioritized strength phase ranged be-
tween 9 and 10 weeks (refer table IV). On average, a
little less than 5 hours of endurance exercise was
scheduled, distributed over three to four sessions
each week. Strength training was normally per-
formed on alternate days to the endurance exercise,
with between two and four sessions scheduled
each week. Such periodized training sequences
allowed non-elite and sub-elite rowers to achieve
significant average weekly strength gains of around
2.5%a week.
[19,22-25,27]
At the end of the training
phase, significant improvements in 2000-m er-
gometer performance times were also reported
(table IV). However, as noted section 3, the reader
needs to be aware of the limitations of research in
this area. That is, it is inconclusive whether any
performance edge was attributable to strength
gains in examination of the standardized effect
sizes due to the absence of any control groups or
crossover research designs. Nonetheless, empha-
sizing strength training over an off-season would
appear to be an effective strategy to promote
strength development without loss of endurance
or performance gains.
After a period of prioritization over the off-
season, a rower may have little time or sufficient
energy to commit to further strength gains. Gen-
eral strength training might be ceased and replaced
with specific on-water practices such as towing
ropes to increases boat drag, thus providing resis-
tance to promote muscle strength. To our knowl-
edge, there is no evidence regarding the efficacy
of such strategies.
What is apparent from the literature is that
intensive on-water training is unlikely to achieve
the mechanical, metabolic and hormonal stimuli
required to maintain maximal strength. For ex-
ample, the isokinetic leg strength of elite oarsmen
declined 12–16%by the end of a competition
period once strength training was ceased.
[48]
In
contrast, at sufficient intensity (i.e. 73.0–79.3%of
predicted 1RM), oarswomen were able to maintain
maximal strength over a 6-week competition period
whether one or two resistance sessions were per-
formed each week.
[18]
Therefore, some element of
off-water strength training to maintain maximal
strength appears warranted all year round.
424 Lawton et al.
ª2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2011; 41 (5)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
Table IV. Intervention studies involving strength testing, training and rowing performance
Study Rower’s level; sex (n); age;
height; weight
a,b
Phase and strength training
intervention
Strength tests and rowing
performance assessment
c
Main findings
Bell et al.
[18]
Non-elite; F (20); 20.4 –1.5 y;
170.7 –9 cm; 64.9 –8.8 kg
Non-competitive:
10 wk concurrent strength (~4–5
sets ·~6 reps at 64–81%1RM,
3 d) and ergometer endurance
training (<2h/wk). Then, for 6 wk,
group 1 performed one strength
session each wk (~3–4·~6 reps
at 73–79%1RM) while group 2
performed two strength sessions
each wk as endurance training
steadily increased (<4h/wk, 4 d).
Descriptive study, no control
group for strength intervention
Pre- and post-tests used to
calculate total load (i.e.
weight ·reps) based on 6–11RM
for all strength exercises
prescribed (e.g. inclined leg
press.
d
Change in 7-min row
power (Gjessing Ergorow, Oslo
Norway). Average power:
176.7 –26.6 W
After 10 wk, strength increased for all
exercises (p <0.05, ES not calculated) as
did average power for 7-min rowing
ergometer test (ES =0.51, p <0.05).
Inclined leg press strength results were
maintained for a further 6-wk phase
whether one or two sessions a week at
sufficient intensity (e.g. 73–79%1RM)
were performed (ES not calculated)
duManoir et al.
[19]
Non-elite; M (10); 31.2 –12.1 y;
184.4 –4 cm; 79.2 –9.0 kg
Non-competitive:
10 wk concurrent strength (2–6
sets ·4–10 reps, 3 d) and
endurance training (<4h/wk, 3 d).
Descriptive study, no control
group for strength intervention
Pre- and post-strength tests:
1RM 45
leg press (90
knee
flexion): 339.2 –44.4 kg.
Change 2000-m (C2) time:
436.1 –18.2 sec
Significant improvements (p <0.05) in
1RM leg press (2.83%per wk, ES =1.14)
and 2000-m time (20.7-sec faster,
ES =0.67)
Ebben et al.
[20]
Non-elite and sub-elite; F (26);
20.0 –1.0 y; 170.0 –6 cm;
71.0 –7.0 kg
Non-competitive:
8 wk concurrent high-load
(3 ·12–5RM) or high-rep
(2 ·15–32RM) strength (3 d) and
endurance training.
d
Descriptive
study, no control group for
strength intervention
No strength tests:
average total volume
(i.e. kg ·reps) calculated for all
strength exercises prescribed.
Change 2000-m (C2) time:
non-elite: 509 –26 sec;
sub-elite: 476 –19 sec
e
Average total volume for strength cycle
was 105 003 kg for high rep and
84 744 kg for high load.Both high-load
and high-rep groups improved 2000-m
time regardless of strength protocol
(p <0.001; ES =0.36–0.35 and
0.60–0.20, respectively). Greater
positive effects noted for high-rep
training for non-elite and high load for
sub-elite (ES not stated)
Gallagher et al.
[21]
Non-elite; M (18); 20.2 –0.87 y;
188.0 –8 cm; 82.4 –33.3 kg
Non-competitive:
8 wk concurrent strength (2 d)
and endurance training (<2h,
2 d), as well as regular on-water
training.
d
Intervention design for
high-rep (2–3 sets ·15–30RM) or
high-load (3–5 sets ·1–5RM)
strength training with control
group (no strength training, but
2 h less training each week)
No strength tests:
change in total volume (i.e.
kg ·reps) calculated for all
strength exercises prescribed.
Change 2000-m (C2) time:
control 418.3 –5.4
high rep 386.2 –4.4
high load 403.3 –4.7
High rep increased total volume by
9.44%and high load by 2.02%.
All 2000-m times improved, however, no
differences between control, high rep
and high load (p <0.96, ES =3.28, 2.48
and 2.22 respectively). However,
practical significance of improvements
between high load (3.5%or 15 sec), high
rep (3.1%or 12 sec) and control (2.8%or
11 sec) argued to equal one boat-length
over 2000 m
Continued next page
Rowing Strength Testing and Training 425
ª2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2011; 41 (5)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
Table IV. Contd
Study Rower’s level; sex (n); age;
height; weight
a,b
Phase and strength training
intervention
Strength tests and rowing
performance assessment
c
Main findings
Haykowsky
et al.
[22]
Non-elite rowers (n =25);
M (8); 23.0 –6.1 y; 1.83 –8 cm;
78.1 –12.5 kg
F (17); 22.7 –5.0 y;
170.6 –8 cm; 65.8 –9.8 kg
Non-competitive:
10 wk concurrent strength (3–6
sets ·2–6 reps, 2 d) and
endurance (<5h/wk, 4 d) training.
Descriptive study, no control
group for strength intervention
Pre- and post-strength tests:
average group 1RM 45
leg press
(90
knee flexion): 306.0 –58.0kg.
Average group change 2500-m
(C2) time: 5 77.0–34.7 sec
Significant (p <0.05) improvement in
1RM leg press (2.76%per wk, ES =1.50)
and 2500-m time (20.3-sec faster,
ES =0.50)
Kennedy et al.
[23]
Non-elite rowers (n =38)
M (19); 25.1 –4.8 y;
179.8 –7cm; 79.3 –8.2 kg
F (19); 25.2 –4.6 y;
169.2 –6 cm; 68.0 –11.5 kg
Non-competitive:
10 wk concurrent strength (2–6
sets ·4–12 reps, 2 d) and
endurance (<4h/wk, 4 d) training.
Descriptive study, no control
group for strength intervention
Pre- and post-strength tests:
estimated 1RM 45
leg press (90
knee flexion): M 347.8 –57.9 kg,
F 186.5 –50.5 kg. Change
2000-m (C2) time: M 426.3 –
20.0 sec, F 495.9 –29.7 sec
Significant improvement (p <0.05) in
estimated 1RM (M 1.60%per wk,
ES =1.11 and F 2.28%per wk, ES =0.61)
and 2000-m time (M 31.8-sec faster,
ES =1.04, and F 43.5-sec faster,
ES =1.03)
Kramer et al.
[24]
Sub-elite and non-elite; F (24);
19.3 –1.0 y; 180 –10 cm;
75.0 –6.0 kg
Non-competitive:
9 wk concurrent endurance
(<4h/wk, 4 d) and strength (3–5
sets ·4–12 reps, 3 d) or strength
with plyometric training (i.e. plus
80–310 jumps). Intervention
design for plyometric training with
control group
Pre- and post-strength tests:
1RM 45
leg press (100
knee
flexion): control 164.2 –24.9 kg,
plyometric 162.4 –36.1 kg.
Change 2500-m (C2) time:
control 606 –48 sec,
plyometric 614 –61 sec
Both control and plyometric groups
improved strength (p <0.01; 1.61%per
wk, ES =0.57 and 1.66%per wk,
ES =0.90, respectively) and 2500-m time
(p <0.05; 19-sec faster, ES =0.40 and
22-sec faster, ES =0.33, respectively)
but no differences in change due to
plyometric training (p >0.05)
Syrotuik et al.
[25]
Non-elite rowers (n =22); M
(12), F (10); 23.0 y; 176.3 m;
76.8 kg
f
Non-competitive:
9 wk concurrent strength (3–4
sets ·10RM, 2 d) and endurance
training (31–37 km/wk, dispersed
over 4 d). Intervention design for
creatine monohydrate
supplementation with control
group. No control for descriptive
strength intervention
Pre- and post-strength tests:
estimated 1RM 45
leg press
(90
knee flexion),
creatine 337.7 –96.4 kg.
Control 300.9 –100 kg.
Change 2000-m (C2) time:
creatine 458.2 –42.4 sec,
control 461.4 –38.2 sec
Both creatine and control groups
improved (p <0.05) estimated 1RM
strength (3.37%per wk, ES =1.23 and
2.04%per wk, ES =0.59) and 2000-m
time (18.2-sec faster, ES =0.39 and
15.3-sec faster, ES =0.33, respectively).
Creatine no beneficial effect on either
test measures (p >0.05)
Tse et al.
[26]
Non-elite; M (34); 20.1 –1.0 y;
175 –6 cm; 67.3 –5.8 kg
Competitive:
Concurrent strength (2 sets ·
12–15 reps, 2 d) and endurance
training.
d
Intervention design for
abdominal core training (n =14)
of 30–40 min of muscle
transverse abdominus activation
endurance (2 d), with control
group (n =20)
Pre- and post-strength tests:
isometric abdominal endurance
test (60
flexion): control
215.5 –62.7 sec, core
176.2 –48.9 sec. Change in
2000-m (C2) time:
control 442.1 –9.5 sec,
core 452.4 –9.8 sec
After 8 wk, no improvement (p >0.05) in
isometric abdominal endurance test for
either control or core training groups
(ES =0.09 and 0.16, respectively) nor
2000-m time (1.4-sec faster, ES =0.13
and 2.1-sec faster, ES =0.18,
respectively). Programme too short,
tests too unrefined and improvements in
incident rate of low back pain overlooked
Continued next page
426 Lawton et al.
ª2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2011; 41 (5)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
An alternative periodization model was to shift
the off-season emphasis from maximal strength
to local muscle endurance adaptation as a com-
petition phase approaches. Lighter loads (i.e.
40–60%1RM) coupled with higher repetitions
(i.e. ‡15) lead to greater local endurance adapta-
tion, without significant muscle hypertrophy.
[83]
Such adaptations may be preferable for light-
weight rowers who need to be cautious of exces-
sive body mass. Local muscle endurance training
provides a suitable complement or substitute for
endurance rowing, particularly for unskilled nov-
ice or injured rowers as very high repetition bench
pull and leg press exercise at low intensities (e.g.
50–125 repetitions using a 40%of 1RM load)
developed blood lactate levels ranging between
6.9 –2.2 mmol/L and up to 11.2–11.8 –
2.5–2.3 mmol/L, respectively,
[55,69,70]
with mean and
peak heart-rate responses (r =0.71–0.77; p <0.05),
and perceived exertion (r =0.76; p <0.05) of leg
pressing comparable to 2000-m ergometer row-
ing.
[55]
After 10 weeks, concurrent strength train-
ing and endurance exercise increased left ventricle
diastole (10.6%), wall thickness (11.3%) and mass
(17.5%), which was contended to be a unique and
plausibly favourable anatomical adaption of the
heart rate amongst rowing populations.
[19,22]
The effects of maximal strength and local mus-
cle endurance exercise on 2000-m ergometer per-
formance has been compared using novice and
sub-elite rowers over 8 weeks of non-competition
phase training.
[20,21]
Maximal strength training
has consisted of 12RM loads, which were pro-
gressively increased to heavier 5RM loads,
[20]
or
5RM loads, which were progressively increased to
sets varying in load between 1RM and 5RM.
[21]
In contrast, strength endurance training utilized
loads ranging between 15RM and 32RM. Ebben
et al.
[20]
concluded that rowers with more training
experience achieved a greater benefit from maximal
strength training, while novice rowers benefited
more from strength endurance training; however,
the lack of control group or crossover research
designs again makes the interpretation of effect
sizes and application of findings problematic (see
tables I and IV). Gallagher et al.
[21]
found that no
significant short-term performance improvements
were gained from the inclusion of either low- or
Table IV. Contd
Study Rower’s level; sex (n); age;
height; weight
a,b
Phase and strength training
intervention
Strength tests and rowing
performance assessment
c
Main findings
Webster et al.
[27]
Non-elite rowers (n =31)
M (12); 21.3 –2.7 y;
184.3 –6.6 cm; 81.5 –7.8 kg
F (19); 22.8 –5.8 y;
173.4 –7.2 cm; 70.9 –9.7 kg
Non-competitive:
8 wk concurrent strength (2–6
sets ·4–12 reps, 2 d) and
endurance (<4h/wk, 4 d) training.
Descriptive study, no control
group for strength intervention
Pre- and post-strength tests:
1RM 45
leg press (90
knee
flexion): M 274.3 –80.7 kg,
F 172.8 –49.0 kg. Change
2000-m (C2) time:
M 444.8 –29.7 sec,
F 501.3 –32.0 sec
All rowers significantly (p <0.05)
increased strength (1.8%per wk,
ES =0.55) and 2000-m time (22-sec
faster, ES =0.65). Duration (i.e. time) and
not sex positively affect performance
a Sample only (refer to original paper for further details).
b Mean –SD unless otherwise stated.
c All data is post-testing.
d Load not stated.
e Significant difference (p =0.002).
f Data for the Syrotuik et al.
[25]
study are presented in mean values.
C2 =Concept2 rowing ergometer; ES =effect size (pre-, post-test data/SD pre-test data); F=female; M=male; max. =maximum; RM =repetition maximum; rep(s) =repetition(s).
Rowing Strength Testing and Training 427
ª2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2011; 41 (5)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
high-load strength training, nor were any detri-
mental outcomes observed when compared with
endurance only controls. However, a lack of sta-
tistical power (low subject numbers), imprecise
assessment of changes in strength and strength
endurance, and unequal training volumes between
control and intervention groups (extra 2 hours
exercise per week) again make the interpretation
of effect sizes difficult (see tables I and IV). Al-
though not statistically significant, the practical
significance of the short-term differences in per-
formance improvements between groups (i.e.
high load 3.5%or 15 seconds faster; low load
3.1%or 12 seconds faster and control 2.8%or 11
seconds faster) were noteworthy and equivalent
to almost a boat length over a 2000-m race.
Nonetheless, longer-term interventions are re-
quired to clarify any beneficial prescription of
strength training methods and performance out-
comes between novice and elite rowers.
To date, strength training research has primarily
focused on the effect of maximal strength training
on rowing performance. However, explosive power
exercise may be more relevant over the competi-
tion phase when peak physical fitness perfor-
mance needs are tuned to the specifics of racing.
Compared with off-season maximal strength train-
ing, lighter isoinertial loads used for local muscle
endurance exercise (40–60%of 1RM) enables the
attainment of a faster movement velocity during
exercise. While isokinetic strength training gains
are specific to the velocity with which training is
performed,
[96]
moderate and fast velocities with
isoinertial loads enhance both strength and
motor performance gains more effectively.
[9]
Significant performance benefits from the in-
tegration of short-term explosive low-fatigue
strength exercise have been reported for highly
trained endurance cyclists (e.g. 8.7%increase in
1 km power and 8.1%increase in 4 km power
[97]
and 7.1%increase in average power over a 1-hour
time-trial performance
[98]
) and middle-distance
runners (e.g. improved running economy ranging
from 4.1–8.1%
[92]
). Izquierdo-Gabarren et al.
[86]
also
found that by reducing the volume of strength
exercise (i.e. five repetitions at 75%1RM) to elimi-
nate fatigue and sustain greater movement velocity,
greater strength and power gains were realized than
when repetition failure occurred (i.e. ten repeti-
tions at 75%1RM). Furthermore, significantly
greater improvements in average power over ten
strokes (3.6–5.0%gain) and 20 minutes (7.6–9.0%
gain) were achieved during fixed-seat ergometer
rowing (Concept 2, model D; Morrisville, VT, USA)
for the non-fatigue exercise group compared
with traditional strength training and control
groups.
There is a paucity of research, however, that
has examined the effects of explosive power train-
ing on rowing performance. Neither sub-elite nor
novice rowers achieved any additional perfor-
mance advantage over traditional strength training
after 9 weeks of lower body plyometric training
was incorporated into the training programme.
[24]
Again, the findings of this research are proble-
matic as total training volumes were not equiva-
lent between groups and overtraining may have
negated any ergometer performance benefits attri-
butable to the addition of explosive leg exercise.
8.1 Strength Training and Rowing Injuries
As mentioned previously in section 7.4, strength
testing may provide a means to assess musculo-
skeletal conditions commonly associated with row-
ing. Most injuries associated with rowing appear
to be related to chronic overuse syndromes af-
fecting soft tissues of the lower back, shoulders,
knees and wrists.
[2]
However, a less than desirable
rowing technique, such as increased posterior tilt
during the leg drive action or excessive flexion
and rotation of the thoracic spine at the catch,
[99]
may lead to imbalances in muscle development
and an associated increase in pain or injury.
While acknowledging limitations with past
research, strength training has been used to cor-
rect muscle imbalances, which, in specific cases,
appeared useful in the reduction of pain asso-
ciated with rowing. For example, the number of
training days lost due to low back pain was re-
duced once the relatively excessive quadriceps
strength (i.e. a knee flexion to extension ratio less
than 45%) was addressed by a specific hamstring
strengthening programme over 6–8 months.
[28]
In
addition, 8 weeks of specific strengthening of the
deep abdominal and low back stabilizers of the
428 Lawton et al.
ª2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2011; 41 (5)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
pelvis and spine, while having no effect on rowing
performance, purportedly reduced the incidence
of painful rowing for those rowers with a history
of low back pain.
[26]
However, it was unclear wheth-
er changes in muscle imbalances led to a subse-
quent improvement in rowing technique, or whether
similar outcomes could have been achieved by al-
locating an equivalent time to practice of a revised
rowing technique.
9. Future Research
On the basis of the evidence reviewed, the clini-
cal relevance and practical significance of positive
benefits associated with various strength training
modalities cannot be ignored. Importantly, no
negative performance outcomes were attributed
to the inclusion of various strength-training pro-
tocols. However, while the integration of strength
training appeared relatively simple, there was an
absence of research that clarified the type of over-
load stimulus required for each distinct phase
of preparation of the competition year (i.e. non-
competition or competition phase) that was of re-
levance to various divisions (light or heavyweight)
and experience levels (novice or elite). Additionally,
few definitive recommendations could be made
with respect to essential programme variables of
strength programme design. For example, it was
unclear what rowing performance advantages
were gained when three or more strength sessions
a week were integrated over a training phase,
whether changes in 2000-m times were attribut-
able to lower or upper body strength develop-
ment, or in emphasizing one over the other, or
whether any particular exercises such as the lat-
eral pulldown, shoulder press or dead-lifts were
potentially more beneficial than others. What
was apparent was that year-round monitoring,
as part of longer-term investigations, rather than
intermittent episodic interventions of <10 weeks,
was required to better understand performance
benefits attributable to various strength-training
protocols. Of note, such benefits should be ex-
amined in the context of models that incorporate
on-water performance data (e.g. 2000-m times or
rank of rower) if limitations to the reliability and
precision of such data can be overcome.
10. Conclusions
While strength explained much of the variances
in 2000-m ergometer performance and muscle
balance assessments derived from strength data
appeared useful in the pathological assessment of
low back pain or rib injury history associated with
competitive rowing, the clinical and practical sig-
nificance of positive benefits associated with
strength training lacked statistical significance,
primarily due to an absence of quality long-term
controlled experimental research designs.
Acknowledgements
This review was made possible due to funds awarded
through a Prime Minister’s Scholarship 2010 (a New Zealand
Government grant). The authors have no conflicts of interest
that are directly relevant to the content of this review.
References
1. Shephard RJ. Science and medicine of rowing: a review.
J Sports Sci 1998; 16 (7): 603-20
2. Hagerman FC. Applied physiology of rowing. Sports Med
1984; 1 (4): 303-26
3. Hofmijster MJ, Landman EHJ, Smith RM, et al. Effect of
stroke rate on the distribution of net mechanical power in
rowing. J Sports Sci 2007; 25 (4): 403-11
4. Hofmijster MJ, Van Soest AJ, De Koning JJ. Rowing skill
affects power loss on a modified rowing ergometer. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 2008; 40 (6): 1101-10
5. Kleshnev V, Kleshnev I. Dependence of rowing performance
and efficiency on motor coordination of the main body
segments. J Sports Sci 1998; 16 (5): 418-9
6. Millward A. A study of the forces exerted by an oarsman
and the effect on boat speed. J Sports Sci 1987 Summer;
5 (2): 93-103
7. Smith RM, Spinks WL. Discriminant analysis of bio-
mechanical differences between novice, good and elite
rowers. J Sports Sci 1995; 13 (5): 377-85
8. Baudouin A, Hawkins D. Investigation of biomechanical
factors affecting rowing performance. J Biomech 2004;
37 (7): 969-76
9. Kraemer WJ, Adams K, Cafarelli E, et al. American College
of Sports Medicine position stand: progression models in
resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc
2002; 34 (2): 364-80
10. Kramer JF, Leger A, Paterson DH, et al. Rowing perfor-
mance and selected descriptive, field, and laboratory vari-
ables. Can J Appl Physiol 1994; 19 (2): 174-84
11. Lund R, Dolny D, Browder K. Strength-power relationships
during two lower extremity movements in female division i
rowers. J Exerc Physiol-online 2006; 9 (3): 41-52
12. Hay JG. Rowing: an analysis of the New Zealand Olympic
selection tests. NZ J Health Phys Educ Rec 1968; 1: 83-90
Rowing Strength Testing and Training 429
ª2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2011; 41 (5)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
13. Hahn A. Identification and selection of talent in Australian
rowing. Excel 1990; 6 (3): 5-11
14. Nevill AM, Beech C, Holder RL, et al. Scaling concept II
rowing ergometer performance for differences in body
mass to better reflect rowing in water. Scand J Med Sci
Sports 2010; 20 (1): 122-7
15. Russell AP, Le Rossignol PF, Sparrow WA. Prediction of
elite schoolboy 2000-m rowing ergometer performance
from metabolic, anthropometric and strength variables.
J Sports Sci 1998; 16 (8): 749-54
16. Mikulic P, Smoljanovic T, Bojanic I, et al. Relationship be-
tween 2000-m rowing ergometer performance times and
World Rowing Championships rankings in elite-standard
rowers. J Sports Sci 2009; 27 (9): 907-13
17. Brughelli M, Cronin J, Levin G, et al. Understanding change
of direction ability in sport: a review of resistance training
studies. Sports Med 2008; 38 (12): 1045-63
18. Bell GJ, Syrotiuk DG, Attwood K, et al. Maintenance of
strength gains while performing endurance training in
oarswomen. Can J Appl Physiol 1993; 18 (1): 104-15
19. duManoir GR, Haykowsky MJ, Syrotuik DG, et al. The
effect of high-intensity rowing and combined strength and
endurance training on left ventricular systolic function and
morphology. Int J Sorts Med 2007; 28 (6): 488-94
20. Ebben WP, Kindler AG, Chirdon KA, et al. The effect of
high-load vs. high-repetition training on endurance per-
formance. J Strength and Cond Res 2004; 18 (3): 513-7
21. Gallagher D, DiPietro L, Viser AJ, et al. The effects of
concurrent endurance and resistance training on 2000 me-
ter rowing ergometer times in collegiate male rowers.
J Strength and Cond Res 2010; 24 (5): 1208-14
22. Haykowsky M, Chan S, Bhambhani Y, et al. Effects of
combined endurance and strength training on left venri-
cular morphology in male and female rowers. Can J Car-
diol 1998; 14 (3): 387-91
23. Kennedy MD, Bell GJ. Development of race profiles for
the performance of a simulated 2000-m rowing race. Can
J Appl Physiol 2003; 28 (4): 536-46
24. Kramer JF, Morrow A, Leger A. Changes in rowing erg-
ometer, weight lifting, vertical jump and isokinetic perfor-
mance in response to standard and standard plus plyo-
metric training programs. Int J Sports Med 1983; 14 (8):
449-54
25. Syrotuik DG, Game AB, Gillies EM, et al. Effects of crea-
tine monohydrate supplementation during combined
strength and high intensity rowing training on perfor-
mance. Can J Appl Physiol 2001; 26 (6): 527-42
26. Tse MA, McManus AM, Masters RSW. Development and
validation of a core endurance intervention program: impli-
cations for performance in college-age rowers. J Strength
and Cond Res 2005; 19 (3): 547-52
27. Webster TG, Gervais PL, Syrotuik DG, et al. The combined
effects of 8-weeks aerobic and resistance training on simu-
lated 2000-meter rowing performance and the related bio-
mechanical and physiological determinants in men and
women. Ad Exerc Sports Physiol 2006; 12 (4): 135-43
28. Koutedakis Y, Frischknecht R, Murthy M. Knee flexion to
extension peak torque ratios and low-back injuries in
highly active individuals. Int J Sports Med 1997; 18 (4):
290-5
29. Fiskerstrand A, Seiler KS. Training and performance char-
acteristics among Norwegian international rowers 1970-
2001. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2004; 14 (5): 303-10
30. Kerr DA, Ross WD, Norton K, et al. Olympic lightweight
and open-class rowers possess distinctive physical and
proportionality characteristics. J Sports Sci 2007; 25 (1):
43-53
31. Bourgois J, Claessens AL, Janssens M, et al. Anthropo-
metric characteristics of elite female junior rowers. J Sports
Sci 2001; 19 (3): 195-202
32. Bourgois J, Claessens AL, Vrijens J, et al. Anthropometric
characteristics of elite male junior rowers. Br J Sports Med
2000; 34 (3): 213-6
33. Mikulic P. Anthropometric and physiological profiles of
rowers of varying ages and ranks. Kinesiology 2008; 40 (1):
80-8
34. Mikulic P. Anthropometric and metabolic determinants of
6,000-m rowing ergometer performance in internationally
competitive rowers. J Strength Cond Res 2009; 23 (6): 1851-7
35. Yoshiga CC, Higuchi M. Rowing performance of female
and male rowers. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2003; 13 (5): 317-21
36. Hartmann U, Mader A, Wasser K, et al. Peak force, velo-
city, and power during five and ten maximal rowing erg-
ometer strokes by world class female and male rowers. Int J
Sports Med 1993; 14 (Suppl. 1): S42-5
37. Steinacker JM. Physiological aspects of training in rowing.
Int J Sports Med 1993; 14 (Suppl. 1): S3-10
38. Tachibana K, Yashiro K, Miyazaki J, et al. Muscle cross-
sectional areas and performance power of limbs and trunk
in the rowing motion. Sports Biomech 2007; 6 (1): 44-58
39. Koutedakis Y, Sharp NCC. A modified Wingate test for
measuring anaerobic work of the upper body in junior
rowers. Br J Sports Med 1986; 20 (4): 153-6
40. Pyke FS, Minikin BR, Woodman LB, et al. Isokinetic
strength and maximal oxygen uptake of trained oarsmen.
Can J Appl Sport Sci 1979; 4 (4): 277-9
41. Drarnitsyn O, Ivanova A, Sazonov V. The relationship be-
tween the dynamics of cardiorespiratory variables and
rowing ergometer performance. Human Physiol 2009; 35 (3):
325-31
42. Secher NH. Physiological and biomechanical aspects of
rowing: implications for training. Sports Med 1993; 15 (1):
24-42
43. Koutedakis Y, Agrawal A, Sharp NC. Isokinetic char-
acteristics of knee flexors and extensors in male dancers,
Olympic oarsmen, Olympic bobsleighers, and non-athletes.
J Dance Med Sci 1999; 2 (2): 63-7
44. Ju
¨rima
¨e J, Abernethy PJ, Quigley BM, et al. Differences in
muscle contractile characteristics among bodybuilders,
endurance trainers and control subjects. Eur J Appl Physiol
Occup Physiol 1997; 75 (4): 357-62
45. Grant S, Shields C, Fitzpatrick V, et al. Climbing-specific
finger endurance: a comparative study of intermediate rock
climbers, rowers and aerobically trained individuals.
J Sports Sci 2003; 21 (8): 621-30
46. Secher NH. Isometric rowing strength of experienced and
inexperienced oarsmen. Med Sci Sports 1975; 7 (4): 280-3
47. Peltonen J, Rusko H. Interrelations between power, force
production and energy metabolism in maximal leg work
430 Lawton et al.
ª2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2011; 41 (5)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
using a modified rowing ergometer. J Sports Sci 1993; 11 (3):
233-40
48. Hagerman FC, Staron RS. Seasonal variations among
physiological variables in elite oarsmen. Can J Appl Sport
Sci 1983; 8 (3): 143-8
49. Larsson L, Forsberg A. Morphological muscle character-
istics in rowers. Can J Appl Sport Sci 1980; 5 (4): 239-44
50. Cronin JB, Jones JV, Hagstrom JT. Kinematics and kinetics
of the seated row and implications for conditioning.
J Strength and Cond Res 2007; 21 (4): 1265-70
51. Liu Y, Lormes W, Beissnecker S, et al. Effects of high in-
tensity resistance and low intensity endurance training on
myosin heavy chain isoform expression in highly trained
rowers. Int J Sports Med 2003; 24 (4): 264-70
52. McNeely E, Sandler D, Bamel S. Strength and power goals
for competitive rowers. Strength Cond J 2005; 27 (3): 10-5
53. Clarkson PM, Graves J, Melchionda AM, et al. Isokinetic
strength and endurance and muscle fiber type of elite
oarswomen. Can J Appl Sport Sci 1984; 9 (3): 127-32
54. Chun-Jung H, Nesser TW, Edwards JE. Strength and power
determinants of rowing performance. J Exerc Physiol-on-
line 2007; 10 (4): 43-50
55. Ju
¨rima
¨e T, Perez-Turpin JA, Cortell-Tormo JM, et al. Re-
lationship between rowing ergometer performance and
physiological responses to upper and lower body exercises
in rowers. J Sci Med Sport 2010; 13 (4): 434-7
56. Jensen RL, Freedson PS, Hamill J. The prediction of power
and efficiency during near-maximal rowing. Eur J Appl
Physiol Occup Physiol 1996; 73 (1-2): 98-104
57. Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and
science. Sports Med 2000; 30 (1): 1-15
58. Kramer JF. Effect of hand position on knee extension and
knee flexion torques of intercollegiate rowers. J Orthopaed
Sports Phys Ther 1990; 11 (8): 367-71
59. Kramer JF, Leger A, Morrow A. Oarside and nonoarside
knee extensor strength measures and their relationship to
rowing ergometer performance. J Orthopaed Sports Phys
Ther 1991; 14 (5): 213-9
60. Levinger I, Goodman C, Hare D, et al. The reliability of the
1RM strength test for untrained middle-aged individuals.
J Sci Med Sport 2009; 12: 310-6
61. Chan RH. Endurance times of trunk muscles in male inter-
collegiate rowers in Hong Kong. Arch Phys Med Rehab
2005; 86 (10): 2009-12
62. Yoshiga CC, Higuchi M. Bilateral leg extension power and
fat-free mass in young oarsmen. J Sports Sci 2003; 21 (11):
905-9
63. Murphy AJ, Wilson GJ. Poor correlations between iso-
metric tests and dynamic performance: relationship to
muscle activation. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1996;
73 (3-4): 353-7
64. Wilson GJ, Murphy AJ. The use of isometric tests of
muscular function in athletic assessment. Sports Med 1996;
22 (1): 19-37
65. Shimoda M, Fukunaga T, Higuchi M, et al. Stroke power
consistency and 2000 m rowing performance in varsity
rowers. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2009; 19 (1): 83-6
66. Gerdle B, Karlsson S, Crenshaw AG, et al. Characteristics of
the shift from the fatigue phase to the endurance level
(breakpoint) of peak torque during repeated dynamic
maximal knee extensions are correlated to muscle mor-
phology. Isokinet Exerc Sci 1998; 7 (2): 49-60
67. Maestu J, Ju
¨rima
¨eJ,Ju
¨rima
¨e T. Monitoring of performance
and training in rowing. Sports Med 2005; 35 (7): 597-617
68. Liu Y, Lormes W, Baur C, et al. Human skeletal muscle
HSP70 response to physical training depends on exercise
intensity. Int J Sports Med 2000; 21 (5): 351-5
69. Liu Y, Lormes W, Wang L, et al. Different skeletal muscle
HSP70 responses to high-intensity strength training and
low-intensity endurance training. Eur J Appl Physiol 2004;
91: 330-5
70. Simsch C, Lormes W, Petersen KG, et al. Training intensity
influences leptin and thyroid hormones in highly trained
rowers. Int J Sports Med 2002; 23 (6): 422-7
71. Douris PC, White BP, Cullen RC, et al. The relationship
between maximal repetition performance and muscle fiber
type as estimated by noninvasive technique in the quad-
riceps of untrained women. J Strength Cond Res 2006; 20
(3): 699-703
72. Hoeger WW, Barette SL, Hale DF, et al. Relationship be-
tween repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition
maximum. J Appl Sport Sci Res 1987; 1 (1): 11-3
73. Hoeger WWK, Hopkins DR, Barette SL, et al. Relationship
between repetitions and selected percentages of one re-
petition maximum: a comparison between untrained and
trained males and females. J Appl Sport Sci Res 1990; 4 (2):
47-54
74. Desgorces FD, Berthelot G, Dietrich G, et al. Local
muscular endurance and prediction of 1 repetition max-
imum for bench in 4 athletic populations. J Strength Cond
Res 2010; 24 (2): 394-400
75. Lindstrom B, Lexell J, Gerdle B, et al. Skeletal muscle fati-
gue and endurance in young and old men and women.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 1997; 52 (1): B59-66
76. Crewther BT, Gill N, Weatherby RP, et al. A comparison of
ratio and allometric scaling methods for normalizing
power and strength in elite rugby union players. J Sports
Sci 2009; 27 (14): 1575-80
77. Jaric S, Mirkov D, Markovic G. Normalizing physical per-
formance tests for body size: a proposal for standardiza-
tion. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19 (2): 467-74
78. Nevill AM, Holder RL. Scaling, normalizing, and per ratio
standards: an allometric modeling approach. J Appl Phy-
siol 1995; 79 (3): 1027-31
79. Bompa TO. Technique and muscle force. Can J Appl Sport
Sci 1980; 5 (4): 245-9
80. Vinther A, Kanstrup IL, Christiansen E, et al. Exercise-in-
duced rib stress fractures: potential risk factors related to
thoracic muscle co-contraction and movement pattern.
Scand J Med Sci Sports 2006; 16 (3): 188-96
81. McGregor AH, Anderton L, Gedroyc WMW. The trunk
muscles of elite oarsmen. Br J Sports Med 2002; 36 (3): 214-7
82. Parkin S, Nowicky AV, Rutherford OM, et al. Do oarsmen
have asymmetries in the strength of their back and leg
muscles? J Sports Sci 2001; 19 (7): 521-6
83. Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, et al. Muscular ad-
aptations in response to three different resistance-training
regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones.
Eur J Appl Physiol 2002; 88 (1-2): 50-60
Rowing Strength Testing and Training 431
ª2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2011; 41 (5)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
84. Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA. Maximizing strength
development in athletes: a meta-analysis to determine the
dose-response relationship. J Strength Cond Res 2004; 18
(2): 377-82
85. Drinkwater EJ, Lawton TW, McKenna MJ, et al. Increased
number of forced repetitions does not enhance strength
development with resistance training. J Strength Cond Res
2007; 21 (3): 841-7
86. Izquierdo-Gabarren M, Gonza
´lez De Txabarri Expo
´sito R,
Garcı
´a-pallare
´s J, et al. Concurrent endurance and strength
training not to failure optimizes performance gains. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 2010; 42 (6): 1191-9
87. Lawton T, Cronin J, Drinkwater E, et al. The effect of
continuous repetition training and intra-set rest training on
bench press strength and power. J Sports Med Phys Fitness
2004; 44 (4): 361-7
88. Bell G, Syrotuik D, Martin TP, et al. Effect of concurrent
strength and endurance training on skeletal muscle prop-
erties and hormone concentrations in humans. Eur J Appl
Physiol 2000; 81 (5): 418-27
89. Docherty D, Sporer B. A proposed model for examining the
interference phenomenon between concurrent aerobic and
strength training. Sports Med 2000; 30 (6): 385-94
90. Leveritt M, Abernethy PJ, Barry BK, et al. Concurrent
strength and endurance training: a review. Sports Med
1999; 28 (6): 413-27
91. Yamamoto LM, Klau JF, Casa DJ, et al. The effects of re-
sistance training on road cycling performance among
highly trained cyclists: a systematic review. J Strength
Cond Res 2010; 24 (2): 560-6
92. Yamamoto LM, Lopez RM, Klau JF, et al. The effects of
resistance training on endurance distance running perfor-
mance among highly trained runners: a systematic review.
J Strength Cond Res 2008; 22 (6): 2036-44
93. De Souza EO, Tricolli V, Franchini E, et al. Acute effect of
two aerobic exercise modes on maximum strength and
strength endurance. J Strength Cond Res 2007; 21 (4):
1286-90
94. Bell G, Petersen S, Wessel J, et al. Adaptations to endurance
and low velocity resistance training performed in a se-
quence. Can J Sport Sci 1991; 16 (3): 186-92
95. Bell G, Petersen SR, Quinney HA, et al. Sequencing of en-
durance and high-velocity strength training. Can J Sport
Sci 1988; 13 (4): 214-9
96. Bell GJ, Petersen SR, Arthur Quinney H, et al. The effect of
velocity-specific strength training on peak torque and
anaerobic rowing power. J Sports Sci 1989 Winter; 7 (3):
205-14
97. Paton CD, Hopkins WG. Combining explosive and high-
resistance training improves performance in competitive
cyclists. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19 (4): 826-30
98. Bastiaans J, Diemen A, Veneberg T, et al. The effects of
replacing a portion of endurance training by explosive
strength training on performance in trained cyclists. Eur J
Appl Physiol 2001; 86 (1): 79-84
99. McGregor AH, Bull AMJ, Byng-Maddick R. A comparison
of rowing technique at different stroke rates: a description
of sequencing, force production and kinematics. In J Sports
Med 2004; 25: 465-70
Correspondence: Mr Trent Lawton, SPRINZ –AUT Univer-
sity, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.
E-mail: trentl@nzasni.org.nz
432 Lawton et al.
ª2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2011; 41 (5)
