Table of Contents
Summary
When it comes to cardio workouts, two of the most popular options are rowing and running. Both exercises are effective for improving heart health, burning calories, and building endurance, but they offer very different experiences. While running is a classic go-to for outdoor enthusiasts and endurance athletes, rowing is a low-impact, full-body workout that has been gaining popularity, especially for those looking for a more joint-friendly option.
In this article, we’ll compare rowing and running across various factors—cardio benefits, muscle engagement, impact on joints, and weight loss potential—to help you determine which exercise fits your fitness goals and lifestyle. Whether you're an avid runner or new to rowing, this guide will help you make an informed decision about which workout is best for you.
Cardiovascular Benefits: Rowing vs. Running
Both rowing and running offer excellent cardiovascular benefits, making them highly effective for improving heart health and boosting endurance. However, the way each exercise impacts your cardio system differs slightly, and the right choice depends on your fitness goals and preferences.
Running: High-Intensity Cardio for Endurance
Running is a high-impact exercise that quickly raises your heart rate, making it ideal for building cardiovascular endurance. Whether you're running sprints or going for long-distance runs, this workout forces your heart to work hard, improving your cardiovascular fitness over time. Running at moderate intensity burns around 600-800 calories per hour, depending on your speed, weight, and terrain.
Rowing: Full-Body Cardio with Low Impact
Rowing, on the other hand, is a low-impact workout that engages more muscle groups than running, providing a total-body workout while still elevating your heart rate. Because rowing recruits muscles in the legs, core, and upper body, it offers a balanced cardiovascular workout while also strengthening various muscle groups. On average, rowing burns about 500-700 calories per hour at moderate intensity, though the total can increase with higher intensity intervals.
Which is Better?
If you're looking for an endurance-focused workout that builds cardiovascular capacity quickly, running might have the edge. However, rowing provides a more balanced cardio workout that is easier on the joints, making it an excellent choice for those looking for a full-body approach or those with joint issues.
Muscle Engagement: Full-Body vs. Lower-Body Focus
One of the key differences between rowing and running is how they engage your muscles. While both exercises are excellent for cardiovascular health, the way they activate and strengthen different muscle groups varies significantly.
Rowing: A Full-Body Workout
Rowing is a true full-body workout. With each stroke, you engage your legs, core, back, arms, and shoulders. About 60% of the effort in rowing comes from your legs, particularly your quads and glutes, while your core stabilizes your body and transfers power to your upper body. The final pull engages your upper back, biceps, and forearms. This makes rowing one of the few cardio workouts that also serves as strength training, helping you build muscle while improving endurance.
Running: A Lower-Body Focus
Running primarily engages the lower body, with the majority of the work done by your quadriceps, hamstrings, calves, and glutes. While your core helps with stability, running does not engage the upper body as much as rowing. It’s a great way to tone and strengthen your legs and improve lower-body endurance, but it doesn’t provide the same level of upper-body engagement as rowing.
Which is Better?
If you're looking for an efficient way to work your entire body while improving cardio fitness, rowing is the better option. It’s particularly useful if you want to build muscle strength while burning calories. However, if your focus is on improving lower-body endurance or preparing for a running event, then running may be the more suitable choice.
Impact on Joints: Low-Impact Rowing vs. High-Impact Running
One of the biggest differences between rowing and running is how each exercise affects your joints. While both are effective cardio workouts, the impact on your knees, ankles, and hips can vary greatly, making the right choice highly dependent on your physical condition and fitness level.
Rowing: Low-Impact and Joint-Friendly
Rowing is a low-impact exercise, meaning it’s gentler on your joints. Each rowing stroke is smooth and controlled, with little to no pounding on the knees, ankles, or hips. This makes rowing an ideal option for individuals who are recovering from injuries, dealing with joint pain, or simply looking for a high-intensity workout without the high impact. The smooth, repetitive motion also reduces the risk of overuse injuries, making rowing a safe choice for most fitness levels.
Running: High-Impact, Greater Stress on Joints
Running, on the other hand, is a high-impact exercise. Every time your foot strikes the ground, your joints absorb the shock, which can lead to stress on the knees, ankles, and hips, especially if you run frequently or on hard surfaces like concrete. For individuals with a history of joint issues, or those prone to overuse injuries like runner's knee, running can be more taxing. However, running on softer surfaces, like grass or a treadmill, can reduce the impact to some extent.
Which is Better?
If joint health is a concern or you're recovering from an injury, rowing is the better option due to its low impact and minimal stress on the joints. However, if you're injury-free and enjoy the challenge of running, it's an excellent way to improve cardiovascular endurance—just be mindful of the surfaces you run on and consider cross-training to reduce joint strain.
Weight Loss: Which Is More Effective?
Both rowing and running are excellent exercises for burning calories and supporting weight loss. The effectiveness of each workout, however, depends on factors like intensity, duration, and individual preferences.
Running: High Calorie Burn at Higher Speeds
Running, particularly at higher intensities or over longer distances, can burn a significant amount of calories in a relatively short time. On average, a 155-pound person running at 6 mph (10 minutes per mile) burns approximately 600-700 calories per hour. Running also boosts your metabolism, helping you burn calories after the workout through excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC), especially during HIIT running sessions or sprint intervals.
Rowing: Full-Body Calorie Burn and Afterburn
Rowing provides an impressive full-body calorie burn, engaging major muscle groups from your legs to your upper body. For a 155-pound person, moderate-intensity rowing burns around 500-600 calories per hour, with higher intensities pushing that number higher. Similar to running, rowing also benefits from the afterburn effect (EPOC) when you perform high-intensity interval rowing. Additionally, rowing’s full-body engagement helps build lean muscle mass, which in turn can enhance your resting metabolic rate over time.
Which is Better?
When it comes to sheer calorie burn, running may edge out rowing if you’re running at a fast pace. However, rowing engages more muscle groups, which can lead to more sustainable long-term fat loss as you build muscle and improve your metabolism. For those seeking a low-impact option with full-body engagement, rowing is a great alternative for weight loss.
Endurance and Strength Development
Both rowing and running are excellent for endurance building, but they differ when it comes to how they develop strength and cardio endurance. Understanding these distinctions can help you choose which workout better aligns with your goals.
Rowing: Cardio with Strength Training Benefits
Rowing provides a unique combination of cardiovascular endurance and strength building. Since rowing engages 84% of the body’s muscles, including the legs, core, and upper body, each stroke helps improve both muscle strength and stamina. This dual benefit makes rowing particularly effective for people looking to build lean muscle while increasing their cardio capacity. The repeated drive and recovery phases challenge your quads, glutes, back, and arms, while your core stabilizes the motion, offering a full-body strength workout along with improved endurance.
Running: Focused on Cardiovascular Endurance
Running is primarily an endurance-focused exercise, excellent for building aerobic capacity over time. Whether you're running long distances or incorporating sprints, running trains your heart and lungs to work efficiently, increasing your VO2 max and overall stamina. However, running does not provide significant strength-building benefits outside of the lower body. It targets the legs and core, but does little to build muscle in the upper body.
Which is Better?
If you’re looking to improve total body strength while also building endurance, rowing is the better option as it combines the two seamlessly. However, if your primary goal is to build aerobic endurance for long-distance events or marathons, running may be more suitable. For balanced fitness, combining both exercises or alternating between them is an ideal approach.
Row or Run? The Best Cardio Depends on Your Goals
Ultimately, both rowing and running are excellent cardio workouts, but the best choice depends on your individual fitness goals and physical condition.
If you're looking for a full-body workout that builds both strength and endurance while being gentle on the joints, rowing is the ideal choice.
If your goal is to boost aerobic endurance quickly or train for distance events, running may offer a more direct path with its focus on the lower body and cardiovascular health.
Both exercises offer impressive calorie burn and can contribute to weight loss when paired with the right intensity and consistency. In the end, the best workout is the one that keeps you engaged, motivated, and injury-free. You can also alternate between the two for a balanced fitness regimen that covers all bases!
Avoid common mistakes that could derail your progress by reading our article on Common Rowing Mistakes and How to Avoid Them.