Anyone use a rowing machine?

Thoughts? Useful? Waste of time? 

I know gimmekraft recommends doing rows on the rings. Would a rowing machine give the same benefits plus the cardio?

i row as a general warm up at the gym as i have a hard time with running. 20-30 min. Its moderate to light cardio. 

One of the bouldering gyms around here has a row machine, and I use it for about 5 min as part of a general warmup (along with ROM stretches, etc.) That's about it.

I can't run because of a previous injury. I use a rowing machine for my warmups and cardio.

TheBirdman Friedman wrote:

I know gimmekraft recommends doing rows on the rings. Would a rowing machine give the same benefits plus the cardio?

No, it would not give the same benefits. Rows on rings are a strength exercise, with low reps at high weight. The rowing machine is more like general cardio- much lower intensity over a more sustained duration.

rows, the strength exercise, are a good supplementary strength exercise for climbing. it will work similar muscle groups as chin-ups albeit with slightly different emphasis on some muscles.

I rowed for a few years with a rowing club. It can be a killer aerobic workout. As with climbing (you climb with your feet), you row with your legs. They say .... but your back and arms  also get worked. The Concept2 website (concept2.com) has some introductory ( and beyond) workout plans if you want to really get benefit out of the row.

I rowed in college as well as climbed and found the two activities were amazing compliments to each other.

During the rowing season I would row on the water a couple mornings a week and use the erg about 5 days a week.

It was probably the best overall physical shape I have ever been in in my life.

I have my own rowing machine and use it not as often as I should, it is an amazing workout, and some even find it fun!

My biggest problem with rowing machines recently is that they are popping up in all climbing gyms as a result of cross fit training.

When I see people on the machine pull with terrible form it makes me cringe (like watching people boulder in their harness).

The best use for an erg is for long rows where you are covering a lot of meters, pulling consistently, and working on form to not get hurt.

People who sit down on the machine and pull as hard as they can for 40 seconds with garbage form are fools.

I recomend rowing to all who want to talk the time to do it right.

I rowed fairly seriously in college, and I've got to disagree with most of the posts above. While I think the erg is pretty much the only indoor exercise machine worth spending time on (at least for me), and I think it would be great for mountaineering/Alpine climbing/ general fitness, I think it's actually counter productive to hard rock climbing. Yes you'll be in better overall shape, and you do get a small upper body workout, BUT I think the disadvantages would outweigh (literally) the benefits. If you are rowing properly roughly 80% of your power comes from your legs. This, combined with the fact that you are only taking 20-30 strokes per minute ( as opposed to over 100 strides per minute in running out cycling) make it feel more like weight lifting, and lead to significant muscle gains in your legs. Since this is largely useless muscle for climbing purposes, I've found I climbed harder after I stopped rowing, even though I was in worse overall shape. But that also might be because I was spending way more time actually climbing, so who knows. Just my conclusions as a rower and a climber.

EDIT erg = rowing machine

Alex Milde wrote:

I think it's actually counter productive to hard rock climbing.

quite possible. I was doing a lot of supplementary squatting, deadlifting, and power cleans in addition to rowing training all of which are not things you really want to be doing if your goal is sending hard boulder or sport problems.

for alpine goals (postholing with a 40lb pack anyone) the rate of contraction and force applied in combination with the aerobic capacity seemed damn near perfect. Plus it seems like I can recover from a much larger volume of rowing (compared to the same amount of time spent running), which is also better from an aerobic training perspective. At the time, I think I was bad enough at plain rock climbing, that any gain in fitness was helpful. I'm no longer at competitive times with rowing but climbing stronger and stronger, so you're probably right.

Interesting. Thanks for the responses. The posts about the added bulk of stronger legs reducing your ability to climb hard I find curious. Steve Bechtel is a big believer that strong legs (and a strong overall physique) is key for climbing is something I agree with. I can't imagine the 2-5 lbs. of muscle is going to be the difference between sending and not if your physical conditioning is better than without that weight. 

I might give the rowing a whirl along with my climbing specific workouts (ARC and Hangboarding). I also do quite a bit of bodyweight work (rings, and TRX) as well as weights (sandbags and kettlebells). I think the idea that the added bulk of additional muscle from deadlifts, cleans, etc. is well worth it when you consider the strength gains in your lower back, core, and lower body. 

TheBirdman Friedman wrote:

The posts about the added bulk of stronger legs reducing your ability to climb hard I find curious. Steve Bechtel is a big believer that strong legs (and a strong overall physique) is key for climbing is something I agree with.

Is he talking about alpine/long multi-pitches or bouldering/single pitch? If it's the former, probably, if the latter, he's dead wrong.

I can't imagine the 2-5 lbs. of muscle is going to be the difference between sending and not if your physical conditioning is better than without that weight. 

Plenty of people have gotten sick, dehydrated and could barely get out of bed, yet somehow managed to send their hardest (single pitch/boulder). General physical condition is only helpful to hard climbing to a limited degree (rapid diminishing return after being able to run a few miles w/o stopping). 

reboot wrote:

Is he talking about alpine/long multi-pitches or bouldering/single pitch? If it's the former, probably, if the latter, he's dead wrong.

Plenty of people have gotten sick, dehydrated and could barely get out of bed, yet somehow managed to send their hardest (single pitch/boulder). General physical condition is only helpful to hard climbing to a limited degree (rapid diminishing return after being able to run a few miles w/o stopping). 

This is true but I think there are a few caveats. I have experienced this too; something I'll call the "hangover effect". Commit to climbing early in the week, night before climbing get hammered, don't sleep enough, dehydrated, and basically feeling like death warmed over. I find on these days, with routes I've been projecting for a bit where I know the moves fairly well, I can usually give it one really good burn that sometimes results in sending. So to your point reboot, general physical condition probably isn't all that useful for one attempt on one boulder/sport climb. 

However, if you're a weekend warrior like me and your time is at premium where you are trying to get a lot of volume of hard climbing with minimal recovery over a span of 1-2 days, I would think the benefits to overall conditioning far outweigh the additional muscle mass (pun intended).

I think Becthel's position is the point that I'm making. Nobody is going to argue being lighter is better over the short-term. However, I think to succeed on a more consistent basis with a higher volume, overall conditioning certainly matters. 

TheBirdman Friedman wrote:

I think Becthel's position is the point that I'm making. Nobody is going to argue being lighter is better over the short-term. However, I think to succeed on a more consistent basis with a higher volume, overall conditioning certainly matters. 

You are right that a having a higher work capacity does allow you to put more effort into something in the same amount of time, so that you can learn a route faster, and give yourself more chances to succeed. And yes, being dehydrated certainly isn't a sound long term strategy. The question is how much does general physical conditioning help w/ climbing specific conditioning/recovery. The last time I've used a rowing machine was in college; my sense is the motion doesn't have the range of core stability requirement (considering it's seated w/ both legs) of even hiking w/ a pack, something that comes in handy w/ climbing.

reboot wrote:

You are right that a having a higher work capacity does allow you to put more effort into something in the same amount of time, so that you can learn a route faster, and give yourself more chances to succeed. And yes, being dehydrated certainly isn't a sound long term strategy. The question is how much does general physical conditioning help w/ climbing specific conditioning/recovery. The last time I've used a rowing machine was in college; my sense is the motion doesn't have the range of core stability requirement (considering it's seated w/ both legs) of even hiking w/ a pack, something that comes in handy w/ climbing.

I mean core strength is pretty critical in rowing to efficiently transfer the force from your legs to the oar. I can't imagine running is measurably better in this regard. If core strength or stability is limiting your climbing, you should dedicate some movements to directly work on that, instead of worrying how much core work your aerobic training is doing. As far as aerobic training I would say do whatever version you like, enough of it to stay in whatever shape you need, and make sure it doesn't get in the way of more important things recovery-wise.

SteveMarshall wrote:

I mean core strength is pretty critical in rowing to efficiently transfer the force from your legs to the oar.

Yes, it does require specific core strength, but its range is nothing like kettlebell swing, overhead squat, any type of martial arts training, etc. After all, your hip is seated on something that glides on a rail.

I can't imagine running is measurably better in this regard. If core strength or stability is limiting your climbing, you should dedicate some movements to directly work on that, instead of worrying how much core work your aerobic training is doing. 

Running on a treadmill probably isn't. IME, things that resembles the core+lower body motion of climbing are things one really can't doing enough of, especially as a non pro.

As far as aerobic training I would say do whatever version you like, enough of it to stay in whatever shape you need, and make sure it doesn't get in the way of more important things recovery-wise.

Arguably, though if that's the case, rowing is a poor choice w/ it's pulling motion in that it both interferes w/ the upper body muscle groups of climbing and trains the wrong pulling motion. An exercise bike probably fits the bill the best.

Bechtel is an advocate for developing/maintaining a decent standard of whole body strength, but NO WHERE does he advocate adding bulk to your legs.

To gain bulk you need to eat in a surplus of calories and lift to failure to effect hypertrophy. If you're really concerned about not putting on muscle mass simply do heavier lifts for less reps (85% of 1 rep max or more) and not to failure. Note that science on this seems to be changing, there are quite a few more recent studies that showed hypertrophy doesn't have as much of link to rep ranges as originally thought, going to failure seems to be more of a trigger. 

Alex Milde wrote:

If you are rowing properly roughly 80% of your power comes from your legs. This, combined with the fact that you are only taking 20-30 strokes per minute ( as opposed to over 100 strides per minute in running out cycling) make it feel more like weight lifting, and lead to significant muscle gains in your legs. Since this is largely useless muscle for climbing purposes, I've found I climbed harder after I stopped rowing, even though I was in worse overall shape. But that also might be because I was spending way more time actually climbing, so who knows. Just my conclusions as a rower and a climber.

EDIT erg = rowing machine

"Properly" in the above context = training for actual rowing. There's no reason you have to generate that much of your force from the legs. You won't row as fast as you could but that's not the point if you're trying to get better at climbing.

Kevin Spear wrote: Is there anyone who can recommend the best product among the ones listed here?
https://rainydayfitness.com/best-rowing-machines/ 

Man, that article sounds like it was written by a third grader who has only ever looked at the pictures online. But anyway, Concept2 is the standard and has been since ergs were invented. Get the model D, the model E is exactly the same thing it just sits about 6" higher so people at health clubs don't fall over trying to sit on the thing. Plus you can't adjust the monitor height. The only other one I've heard of on there is the water rower. It's cool, the pickup feels a little bit more like you're on the water, but there's not enough run to feel right. I don't think anyone actually uses them for any sort of training. Really the best one out there is the Row Perfect RP3, but that costs 3x as much as a C2. Just get a model D, it'll last forever and you'll get a good workout.

^ Ah, just realized you're the author of that article. How the hell did you end up on a climbing forum spraying about this shit?

OMG That little twist there at the end was FABULOUS!