running to rowing comparison

[kipkeino68]

Does anyone know how many meters per week of rowing it takes to equal the same fitness level as running 40 miles per week?

[yehster]

I've felt like rowing meters require a similar level of effort to running the same distance. So 40 miles/week would translate into roughly 65,000 meters per week on the erg.

[coggs]

Really depends on the individual. I know I'd rather row 125,000 meters in a week than go for one 5 mile run. And swimming? Forget it. Some people are just adept at particualr exercises. Maybe it's psychological, but I think there are also physiological reasons. My body was just never able to take the strain of running, raquet sports, or basketball, but I can hop in my scull, erg, cycle, X-C or roller ski/skate all day.

As far as burning calories, I don't think you can find a better exercise than X-C sking in rolling hills. Rowing comes close, but my lake has no hills.

[Bob S.]

As far as burning calories, I don't think you can find a better exercise than X-C sking in rolling hills. Rowing comes close, but my lake has no hills. :D

Open ocean rowers do have them when the big ocean swells come rolling in. It is sort of spooky, but fun.

Bob S.

[PaulS]

Well it certainly depends on the speed involved. Lots of people have run a 4 minute mile, but it's the rare erger that will have done a 4 minute Mile (1609m).... very rare...

Of course the fastest rowers and runners are not built quite the same, so as indicated above, folks will have their own preferences and abilities.

The ant is very strong and fast, relative to size and weight, but "relative" doesn't mean much in the real world.

Coggs, you're lucky, let's hope the Wake Surfers don't discover your flat water.

[johnlvs2run]

Does anyone know how many meters per week of rowing it takes to equal the same fitness level as running 40 miles per week?

They are not really comparable.

I'm a runner and the most I have run is 132 miles in a week at age 29.

At age 56 I rowed 110km in a day and 465km (289miles) in a week.

A taller heavier person should find rowing to be easier than I do, and running much more difficult.

Overall running is much more difficult. It is relatively easy to go from running to rowing, but not easy at all to go from rowing to running, as you basically have to start from the beginning all over again. I'm not saying you can go from running to rowing and row top times, but with a running background you can row for an hour right off the start with no problems. Conversely, rowing is not much preparation for running.

[Ducatista]

I know I'd rather row 125,000 meters in a week than go for one 5 mile run.

I'd rather row 10K than run a block. That's not hyperbole, just the facts. I have no problem walking double-digit mileage, though, and I could swim damn near forever.

[zubeldia]

I'm built more like a runner but can no longer run because of injuries. When fully fit, I find the sports pretty comparable in terms of meters rowed or run. And so, for me at least, 40 miles covered doing each sport feels fairly similar. That said, I'm by no stretch of the imagination built like a rower and running probably comes a little easier...

Zubeldia

[Nosmo]

Depends somewhat on how you define fitness level. From a cardio vascular and calorie standpoint I think they are roughly equivelent. From a strength total body standpoint rowing is better, but for maintaining bone density, running is better.

The thing is running is so much more abusive, so it takes much more time to build up distance and to adapt to it.

Running a marathon is equivelent to erging a marathon plus doing a couple of rounds of boxing with someone bigger and stronger then you.

[trailrunner]

Nosmo sums it up perfectly. "The thing is running is so much more abusive, so it takes much more time to build up distance and to adapt to it."

[Atorrante]

I think that if your upper body is stronger than you lower body you will row better. That is my scenario, but altough I row faster, find it easier to run, or maybe enjoy it more, finding it less boring. My best 10K rowing is about 38:30, an almost impossible time for a 10K run, that is about 47 minutes.

[Bob S.]

I think that if your upper body is stronger than you lower body you will row better.

Think again. The quadriceps are the real drivers in rowing. If you look at pictures of the more successful crews you will see that they are relatively slim in their upper bodies, but have very well developed quads. The main upper body muscle development is in the lats.

[johnlvs2run]

Running a marathon is equivelent to erging a marathon plus doing a couple of rounds of boxing with someone bigger and stronger then you.

You should be a writer.

[Jim Barry]

40 miles per week is about 35% of an elite marathoner's mileage.

I suppose you could look at 35% of an elite oarsman's training load. From what I've read this is something like 20-30 hours a week. They do spend a lot of time on technical drills and time in the gym that is not accounted for in the runner equivalent. Let's say it's about 12 hours of core cardio/power rowing. 35% of 12 is 4.2 hours rowing/week. At 2:00/500m (15,000m per hour) that'd be 63km a week. (or about 40 miles!)

That said, I agree they are different sports and what volume matter to one may not have much to do with the other.

[Atorrante]

Think again. The quadriceps are the real drivers in rowing.[/quote]


Altough this may be true, the upper body makes a longer contribution to the total pull distance in each stroke. Try a 5 minute row with only the upper body, and then a 5 minute row with only the lower body, each one at the same SPM, and compare the distance rowed.