Rowing vs. Running

[ceckerson]

I am trying to explain my indoor rowing distances and times to people who aren't familiar with it. But they are familiar with running. How do rowing and runing compare, in terms of energy and fitness? Put another way, does rowing 10K roughly equate to the exertion and fitness benefit of running 10K? Thanks.

[johnlvs2run]

The distances are roughly equivalent, though much easier on an erg.

Depending on the person's size, age and conditioning, rowing on an erg is either faster or not as fast as is running.

The fitness benefits of running are much greater, as there is more movement and more of the body involved, especially the large muscles of the legs. However, rowing on an erg is still a good exercise.

[ancho]

John, your points of view sometimes are more than surprising

[Ray79]

The fitness benefits of running are much greater, as there is more movement and more of the body involved, especially the large muscles of the legs.

Really??

[tadis]

How do rowing and runing compare, in terms of energy and fitness?

Last Friday I ran a 5k. First time I've ran that distance in over 12 years. I'm a regular erger, doing over 50k a week. My 5k PB is sub 20 minutes. I wanted to run the 5k with no running prep to see how my body would react and if my times would be comparable. I am pleased to say that I finished the 5k around 28 minutes. I'm sure that time would have been better if I were wearing proper running shoes, gloves (it was about 30degrees F outside), and better clothing. Only noticeable muscle soreness is in my shoulder/neck area.

[Nosmo]

A lot depends on the individual and how they approach the workout. Some find running much easier others find rowing much easier. In terms of energy, I think they are pretty similar. Cardiovascular efforts also very similar but one can erg at high low stroke rating in which case running gets the advantage (unless one just jogs along slowly.) Erging definitely develops bigger muscle.
Running is harder on the body and can be more destructive to joints, although running is better for bone density.

[dg1951]

Hi,
I was a runner for 20+ years, with PB's for 10K of 32:15, 5K of 15:30, 1M of 4:35. What I have notice since I took up erging as my primary sport is that rowing is tougher from a competitive sense. Simply comparing mile or 2k record times for both sports tells the tale. Having said that I believe day to day training efforts seem to be fairly equivalent.
My training times on the road were generally in the 7:00 - 7:15 range for running. I can pretty much hold a 2:00/500m pace through an hour (15K) without a real strain, that equates to a 6:25 +/- mile.

[aikon]

Im not going to state which is better, rather give you my experience. I trained hard for the 2006 Chicago Triathlon and if wasnt for the running I would have done a reasonable time. For 2007 I swam once in the whole year and probalbly cycled 200 miles in total. For 2007 the run was its usual disaster-the bike-I would have matched my last years time if it wasnt for a loose saddle and sore "Mens Tackle" but I beat my swim by 1 min over last year. There is no way that running alone would have given me the strength and CV fitness to do that.

Richard

[tbartman]

Here's my take. First, I'm 40 y.o., 6'3", 185 lb. Been erging about 3-4 x/ week for 14 months, various types of rows (long, intervals, etc). I run maybe 1-2 times per month, also starting 14 months ago. At first I was so out of shape I could only run short distances, but have now worked up to running 10k with no walk breaks.

When I erg 10k, I do it in about 38-40 minutes, my HR is around 150-155 generally.

When I run 10k, it takes me 58-60 minutes, and my HR is pegged around 158-160 (my AT)

My thoughts on this:

1) People who do primarily one (running, erging) are going to be better at that than the other.

2) I think erging gives a much better total body workout since it uses far more muscle groups.

3) Don't know what to make of the HRs above. It would seem to indicate that running is a harder cardio workout for me.

4) I think body size makes a big difference in the two.

For running, weight has a large effect, and there are threads on here (and an article in the New York Times), that points out that shorter/lighter runners have an advantage over taller/heavier runners because the advantage of the longer legs is more than outweighed by the extra mass that has to be moved (ever notice that the Kenyans who win marathons are like 5' 6" and 120-130 lbs?). Someone 5' 4" and 116 lbs and someone else 6' 3" and 160 lbs both have BMIs of 20. But the second guy has almost 40% more mass to move.

For rowing, being taller and a bit heavier is a big advangage. Top university rowers are usually 6'2" to 6'5" and somewhere around 210-230 lbs.

The jist of the NY Times article was this: If you look in the mirror and think "I look a lot like that famous tennis player, but nothing like that famous NFL linebacker", then you know which sport you're going to be better at. If I put 10 olympic rowers and 10 olympic marathon runners in a room, you'd have absolutely no problem sorting them out with 100% accuracy.

In summary, I disagree with John Rupp's post.

[BobD]

Very nicely summarised.

[p-fitz]

The distances are roughly equivalent, though much easier on an erg.

10k of running is "roughly equivalent" to 10k on the erg? They're not both exactly 10k?

[Bob S.]

The distances are roughly equivalent, though much easier on an erg.

10k of running is "roughly equivalent" to 10k on the erg? They're not both exactly 10k?

The 10k on the erg is mythical. Since the erg doesn't really go anywhere, the distances shown on the monitor are just values chosen by the designers to approximate the the distance that a boat (4X?) would have travelled if the same average effort had been put in by the members of the boat crew. I would agree with John's use of the term roughly equivalent.

Bob S.

[Ray79]

The distances are roughly equivalent, though much easier on an erg.

10k of running is "roughly equivalent" to 10k on the erg? They're not both exactly 10k?

The 10k on the erg is mythical. Since the erg doesn't really go anywhere, the distances shown on the monitor are just values chosen by the designers to approximate the the distance that a boat (4X?) would have travelled if the same average effort had been put in by the members of the boat crew. I would agree with John's use of the term roughly equivalent.

Bob S.

True Bob - although I believe that the boat is a 4- (crewed by clones of course)

I just dont agree with Johns assertion that there is more movement (apart from the "physical" distance covered) and more of the body is used in running than erging. I dont see too many neglected areas here
http://www.concept2.co.uk/rower/muscle_groups.php

Running is a relatively static exercise as far as body movement goes IMO, and whereas much of the power also comes from the legs, the way this power is applied is totally different. To state that the benefits of one are more than the other is a flawed point of view.

tbartman hit the nail on the head. Some people are more suited for one exercise than the other. This does not mean that the physical benefits of either exercise for any person can be discounted.

[johnlvs2run]

Let 's take a look at the activity level with running, as compared to a few other athletic endeavors.

Tracing the ball of the foot during running shows there is 3 times the distance covered with each step as with cycling, comparing a runner taking 180 strides per minute and a cyclist with a cadence of 90 revolutions per minute, and similar expertise levels. Being conservative, we can say the runner's feet cover 2 1/2 to 3 times the distance of the cyclist. We can probably all agree that the rest of the runner's body likewise has much more rotation and movement than the cyclist, as about the only parts of the cyclist's body that move are the legs.

A rower, during a 60 minute row, only goes at a rate of 30 strokes per minute if that, only 1/3 of the movement of a runner, and travels much less distance with the legs. There is likewise much less distance covered with the rest of the body per unit of time than the runner. There is more body movement per time with cycling than with rowing.

There is no reason to compare swimming, as the legs move hardly at all, and there is much less rotation speed of the trunk, arms and hands.

Cross country skiing is perhaps the most comparable to running as regards to activity and movement of the body.

[paul s]

Running, rowing, blah, blah, blah. It all boils down to one thing. Do them both, preferably even more. I do my rowing at home, then two or three days a week I will go to a Lifestyle Fitness Center and do the treadmill, a recumbent bike, and a Cybex Arc Trainer. The Cybex Arc Trainer is simply the finest lower body piece of equipment I have ever run across.

Paul Salata