Find my equipment

Author: Compare Fitness Equipment

  • Kettlebell, Dumbbell or Barbell? What Three Small Muscle-Activity Studies Show About Pressing Implements

    Kettlebell, Dumbbell or Barbell? What Three Small Muscle-Activity Studies Show About Pressing Implements

    Pressing can be done with a barbell, a pair of dumbbells or a kettlebell. Three small experiments, published in the Journal of Sports Medicine (2013), the International Journal of Exercise Science (2018) and the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2020), compared such implements by measuring muscle activity with surface electromyography (EMG), which records the electrical signal from a muscle. Each tested volunteers. None measured muscle growth or strength gains, and the sections read report no comparison of one brand or model against another. This is general information, not training advice.

    What EMG can and cannot show

    The 2020 authors write that EMG measurements have their limits, so randomized longitudinal studies should be performed to determine the long-term benefits of different exercises. The 2018 authors add that their single-arm load, 25% of the bilateral one-repetition maximum (1RM), may only represent a load appropriate for muscle endurance training. Each study also sampled only some muscles, so a higher reading in one muscle says nothing about the others.

    Overhead press: kettlebell against dumbbell, 21 students

    A woman standing in a gym with two dumbbells pressed overhead
    A woman pressing two dumbbells overhead, shown for illustration only and not a study participant. Credit: Viridiana Rivera / Pexels.

    Dicus and colleagues (2018) asked 21 college-aged participants to perform a one-arm overhead press with a kettlebell and with a dumbbell, each loaded to 25% of the participant’s bilateral 1RM. A metronome set the pace at a two-second lift and a two-second lowering. The authors note that a dumbbell’s mass sits in line with the shoulder joint, whereas the kettlebell’s centre of mass is behind it, which may make the kettlebell less stable.

    Average peak activity in the anterior deltoid, the front of the shoulder, was 63.3% of maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) with the dumbbell and 57.9% with the kettlebell, a statistically significant difference. In the pectoralis major (chest), the figures were 31.0% and 29.5%, with no significant difference. The authors list as limitations that only two muscles were analysed and that technique was checked by visual observation.

    Bench press against dumbbell flyes: 17 trained men

    A man lying on a flat bench with a barbell held over his chest
    A man bench pressing a barbell, shown for illustration only and not a study participant. Credit: Andrea Piacquadio / Pexels.

    Solstad and colleagues (2020) tested 17 resistance-trained men, with an average of 4.8 years of lifting experience, on the barbell bench press and the dumbbell fly, using six-repetition-maximum (6RM) loads and four muscles. Activity in the pectoralis major, anterior deltoid and triceps brachii was higher in the bench press, by 8 to 81 percent across the whole movement and most phases. Activity in the biceps brachii was higher in the flyes, by 57 to 86 percent.

    The loads differed: the total 6RM was 88.5 kg (standard deviation 16.0) for the bench press and 40.5 kg (standard deviation 7.7) for the flyes. The authors concluded that both exercises could be included in training programmes, but that the bench press should be emphasised because of its higher muscle activation overall. They said the flyes might be useful for specific populations and tasks that call for strength and control in a horizontal shoulder flexion position with extended elbows. The sample was only resistance-trained males, so the findings cannot be generalised to other populations.

    The paper says only one earlier study had compared the two exercises. That study, by Welsch and colleagues (2005), found similar activity in the pectoralis major and anterior deltoid, but it measured only two muscles and analysed the average peak over three non-fatigue repetitions. The measures differ, so the two studies are not directly comparable.

    Three dumbbell presses: 24 women with 4.5 kg dumbbells

    Two people lying on adjustable benches pressing dumbbells in a gym
    Two people doing dumbbell presses on benches, shown for illustration only and not study participants. Credit: Fernando Capetillo / Pexels.

    Luczak and colleagues (2013) studied 24 healthy college-aged recreational female athletes, 12 experienced in upper-body weight training and 12 novices. Using 4.5 kg dumbbells in each hand, they performed a flat bench press, a 45-degree incline press and an 85-degree shoulder press while EMG was recorded from the dominant arm. The experienced and novice groups did not differ significantly.

    For the upper trapezius and anterior deltoid, activity was greatest in the shoulder press, then the incline press, then the bench press. The bench and incline presses produced more activity than the shoulder press in the sternal part of the pectoralis major. In the clavicular part, the incline press was highest in the lowering phase, while in the lifting phase the order was bench, then incline, then shoulder press. The authors say the results can only be generalised to healthy, college-aged women, and that future research should consider greater exercise intensity.

    Reading the three together

    The studies compared different things. The 2018 paper matched the absolute load between implements, the 2020 paper used each exercise’s own 6RM, and the 2013 paper used 4.5 kg dumbbells. The participants were college-aged volunteers in 2013 and 2018, and resistance-trained men averaging 22.9 years old in 2020. The papers say nothing about which implement suits a particular home gym, and they cannot show that higher EMG in one muscle produces more strength or size.

    The bottom line

    In these three small studies, a dumbbell produced higher anterior deltoid activity than a kettlebell in a one-arm overhead press at matched load, a barbell bench press produced higher chest, shoulder and triceps activity than dumbbell flyes while flyes produced higher biceps activity, and the order of muscle activity changed with bench angle in dumbbell presses by women using 4.5 kg dumbbells. The authors of each paper limit their conclusions to the samples tested, and the 2020 authors call for longer randomized studies.

    Sources

    • Stability of Resistance Training Implement alters EMG Activity during the Overhead Press, Dicus et al., International Journal of Exercise Science, 2018, read 31 October 2026 (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
    • A Comparison of Muscle Activation between Barbell Bench Press and Dumbbell Flyes in Resistance-Trained Males, Solstad et al., Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 2020, read 31 October 2026 (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
    • Shoulder Muscle Activation of Novice and Resistance Trained Women during Variations of Dumbbell Press Exercises, Luczak et al., Journal of Sports Medicine, 2013, read 31 October 2026 (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

  • Foam Rollers and Massage Guns: What Six Reviews Show About Range of Motion, Strength and Soreness

    Foam rollers and percussive massage guns are marketed as warm-up tools and recovery aids. This article checks those uses against the published abstracts of six systematic reviews, five of them with meta-analyses, issued between 2023 and 2026. It sorts the usual claims into myth and fact and attributes each finding to the review that reported it. The reviews cover studies of exercisers, and the abstracts report no comparison of one roller or gun model against another.

    Terms the reviews use

    • Range of motion (ROM): how far a joint can move.
    • Stiffness and passive peak torque: laboratory measures of how much a muscle resists being stretched.
    • Countermovement jump: a standing vertical jump used as a test of explosive performance.
    • Certainty of evidence: the reviewers’ rating of how much confidence the pooled results deserve.

    Myth: a roller or a stretch is an essential warm-up step

    A 2024 systematic review in the Journal of Sport and Health Science pooled 38 studies with 1,134 participants. It compared stretching and foam rolling with other warm-up activities and found no significant difference in range of motion, stiffness or passive peak torque. The authors rated study quality as fair, with low to moderate certainty of evidence, and concluded that there is no need to emphasise stretching or foam rolling to produce short-term gains in those measures. The comparison was against other activities, not against doing nothing.

    Myth: rolling builds more flexibility than stretching

    A 2024 meta-analysis in Sports Medicine looked at training programmes rather than single sessions: 85 studies, 72 on static stretching and 13 on foam rolling. Both methods increased joint range of motion compared with a control condition, with a moderate magnitude, and the overall difference between them was not significant. In programmes of four weeks or less, though, stretching produced a significant change and foam rolling did not. The authors called for more studies of high-volume foam rolling and of female participants, so the roller evidence is thinner than the stretching evidence.

    Myth: a roll before lifting changes your strength

    A 2023 review in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research examined 20 trials of foam rolling during warm-ups in healthy adults or athletes. The meta-analysis found no effect on myofascial tissue stiffness, isometric strength, eccentric torque or rate of force development. Knee extensor concentric torque did increase after rolling. The authors described the certainty of the evidence as low and asked for higher-quality studies.

    Fact, with limits: rolling and soreness the next day

    A 2024 review in the Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies pooled 16 randomised trials with 515 participants, measuring soreness with a visual analogue scale and pressure-pain thresholds. Its authors concluded that rolling after exercise has a certain preventive effect on muscle soreness, tiny immediately afterwards and more obvious beyond 24 hours.

    Massage guns: mixed results in two reviews

    A 2023 systematic review in the Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology screened 281 records and included 11 studies, ten at moderate and one at high risk of bias. It reported that massage guns could improve the flexibility of some muscle groups, and that for strength, balance, acceleration, agility and explosive activities they either brought no improvement or reduced performance. No differences were found in contraction time, perceived exertion or lactate. Its stated conclusion was that massage guns can help improve short-term range of motion, flexibility and recovery-related outcomes, but that their use in strength, balance, acceleration, agility and explosive activities is not recommended.

    A 2026 meta-analysis of 12 randomised trials in Chiropractic and Manual Therapies found that percussive therapy improved countermovement-jump recovery compared with control (low certainty) and lowered creatine kinase, a biochemical marker (very low certainty). It did not clearly improve recovery of maximum voluntary contraction (moderate certainty) or delayed onset muscle soreness (very low certainty). Treatment longer than five minutes per muscle group was associated with larger jump effects and also with higher soreness scores. The authors said these dose findings are preliminary and should not be read as prescriptive thresholds.

    A checklist before buying

    • Check the comparison group: a result against no treatment is a different claim from a result against another warm-up.
    • Check the certainty rating: the massage-gun benefits in the 2026 review were rated low or very low certainty.
    • The abstracts do not compare models or price levels, so they give no basis for choosing between devices.
    • Treat performance claims on packaging as the manufacturer’s claims, not as findings of these reviews.

    For other recovery products, see this site’s reviews of cold plunge tubs and compression garments, and its summary of static stretching reviews.

    The bottom line

    Across these six reviews the findings are mixed. Foam rolling and static stretching programmes both increased range of motion against a control, rolling did not outperform other warm-up activities in an analysis of short-term effects, and neither tool showed a consistent strength or explosive-performance benefit. The massage-gun evidence rests on small numbers of trials, with moderate or high risk of bias in the 2023 review and low or very low certainty for its benefits in the 2026 review.

    Sources

    • Foam rolling and stretching do not provide superior acute flexibility and stiffness improvements compared to any other warm-up intervention: a systematic review with meta-analysis, Journal of Sport and Health Science, 2024 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
    • Static Stretch Training versus Foam Rolling Training Effects on Range of Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Sports Medicine, 2024 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
    • Foam Rolling Acute Effects on Myofascial Tissue Stiffness and Muscle Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2023 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
    • Preventive effect of foam rolling on muscle soreness after exercise: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, 2024 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
    • The Effects of Massage Guns on Performance and Recovery: A Systematic Review, Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology, 2023 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
    • Effects of percussive therapy dosages on recovery from acute exercise-induced muscle damage: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Chiropractic and Manual Therapies, 2026 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

  • Overhead Triceps Extensions and Incline or Preacher Curls: What Three Studies Show About Arm Position and Muscle Growth

    Equipment guides often say that a cable stack should be used overhead for triceps, or that an incline bench or a preacher bench suits curls better, because the position changes how stretched the muscle is. This article summarises the abstracts of three training studies that tested that idea: a 12-week trial of cable triceps extensions in the overhead and neutral arm positions, a 12-week trial of incline against preacher dumbbell curls, and a 9-week trial of the same two curls in women. Two of the three come from the same research group, and all are small. This site’s guide to stretch-mediated hypertrophy reviews the wider idea, and the guide to arm training equipment covers the kit.

    Triceps: overhead against neutral arm position (2023)

    Maeo and colleagues, in the European Journal of Sport Science in 2023, had 21 adults train one arm in the overhead position and the other in the neutral position on a cable machine. Both arms did elbow extensions at 70% of their one-repetition maximum (1RM), 10 repetitions for 5 sets, twice a week for 12 weeks. Loads were raised by 5% of 1RM per session when the previous session was completed without repetition failure, and they rose similarly in both arms, but the weights used were always 34 to 39% lower in the overhead arm. Muscle volume was measured by MRI. The change in the long head of the triceps, which crosses the shoulder as well as the elbow, was 1.5-fold greater in the overhead arm (+28.5% against +19.6%). The side heads grew 1.4-fold more (+14.6% against +10.5%) and the whole triceps +19.9% against +13.9%. The authors concluded that overhead cable extension should be favoured if the aim is to maximise triceps growth, even though lower loads were used.

    Training each arm differently within the same person controls for differences between individuals, which strengthens the comparison, though 21 adults is a small sample.

    Biceps: incline against preacher dumbbell curls (2026)

    Kobayashi and colleagues, in the Journal of Sports Sciences in 2026, had 21 untrained adults train one arm with incline (shoulder-extended) curls and the other with preacher (shoulder-flexed) curls for 12 weeks, twice a week. Magnetic resonance imaging measured the volume of the biceps brachii, brachialis and brachioradialis, three elbow flexor muscles. The biceps brachii grew more after incline curls (+22.1% against +18.9%), while the brachialis (+17.1% against +21.1%) and brachioradialis (+13.5% against +17.6%), two other elbow flexor muscles, grew more after preacher curls. Total elbow flexor growth did not differ (+17.6% against +19.2%). The authors described small to moderate exercise-specific differences and limited influence of exercise configuration on total growth.

    Biceps: incline against preacher curls in women (2023)

    Zabaleta-Korta and colleagues, in the Journal of Human Kinetics in 2023, assigned 38 healthy women to nine weeks of incline curls or preacher curls (four sets of 12 repetitions to failure, three times a week). Muscle thickness was measured by ultrasound at three sites along the upper arm. No region of the incline group grew significantly from before to after training. At the site nearest the elbow, the preacher group grew significantly (about 2.70 to 2.94 cm). There were no significant growth differences between regions, groups or group-by-region. The authors interpreted this as the preacher curl placing the most strain where the arm muscles are more elongated, and the study did not find growth differences between the groups across regions.

    What the three studies suggest

    • The triceps study gave the clearest result: overhead cable extension produced more growth than the neutral position, using lighter weights.
    • The two biceps studies point in different directions. The 2026 trial found little difference in total growth, with the incline curl favouring the biceps itself and the preacher curl two neighbouring muscles. The 2023 trial in women found growth only in the preacher group at one site.
    • The curl studies enrolled untrained or recreationally trained participants and all three trials ran 9 to 12 weeks, so they say little about experienced lifters or longer periods.
    • Equipment matters mainly for access: overhead triceps work needs a cable stack at a suitable height, and the curl comparison needs an adjustable bench or a preacher pad.

    FAQs

    Should triceps extensions be done overhead?

    In the 2023 trial of 21 adults, overhead cable extension produced greater triceps growth than the neutral position over 12 weeks, even with lower loads. It is one trial, so it is a reason to favour the position, not proof for every lifter.

    Is the preacher curl better than the incline curl?

    The two studies disagree. One found little difference in total growth, and in the women’s trial muscle thickness increased significantly at one site in the preacher group and at none in the incline group.

    The bottom line

    Training in a position that stretches a muscle more gave clearer benefits for the triceps than for the biceps in these three small studies. The overhead cable extension grew more triceps volume than the neutral position over 12 weeks using lighter weights. Incline and preacher curls gave mixed and smaller differences, with total elbow flexor growth similar in the 2026 trial. A cable stack and an adjustable bench cover both positions, but the evidence does not show that one curl setup is clearly superior.

    Sources

    • Triceps brachii hypertrophy is substantially greater after elbow extension training performed in the overhead versus neutral arm position, European Journal of Sport Science, 2023 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
    • Exercise-specific preferential hypertrophy of individual elbow flexor muscles after incline versus preacher dumbbell curl training, Journal of Sports Sciences, 2026 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
    • Regional Hypertrophy: The Effect of Exercises at Long and Short Muscle Lengths in Recreationally Trained Women, Journal of Human Kinetics, 2023 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

  • Do Isolation Exercises Add Anything? What Four Trials and a Review Show About Single-Joint and Multi-Joint Training

    Home gym kit lists often include separate machines or attachments for single-joint “isolation” work such as biceps curls and leg curls, alongside multi-joint lifts such as presses, pulldowns and squats. This article summarises the abstracts of four trials and one review that compared multi-joint (MJ) and single-joint (SJ) exercise selection: two trials in untrained young men, one in trained men, one six-month trial in trained women, and a 2017 review. All five papers list the same researcher, Paulo Gentil, as an author, so they are not fully independent. The trials are small. This site’s guides to exercise order in a home workout and to weekly sets cover related programming questions.

    Trial one: adding arm exercises, untrained men (2013)

    Gentil and colleagues, in Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism in 2013, randomised 29 untrained young men to 10 weeks of multi-joint exercises only (lat pulldown and bench press) or the same exercises plus elbow flexion and extension. Elbow flexor muscle thickness rose 6.5% in the MJ group and 7.04% in the MJ+SJ group, and peak torque rose 10.40% and 12.85%, with no significant difference between groups. The authors concluded that adding single-joint exercises gave no additional benefit in muscle size or strength in untrained young men.

    Trial two: one exercise or the other (2015)

    Gentil, Soares and Bottaro, in the Asian Journal of Sports Medicine in 2015, split 29 untrained young men into two groups for 10 weeks, twice a week. One group trained the elbow flexors only with lat pulldowns (multi-joint) and the other only with biceps curls (single-joint). Muscle thickness increased by 6.10% and 5.83% and peak torque by 10.40% and 11.87%, with no difference between groups. The authors suggested the choice between the two types should rest on practical matters such as equipment availability, movement specificity, preference and time.

    Trial three: trained men (2015)

    De Franca and colleagues, in Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism in 2015, studied 20 men with at least two years of resistance training experience, randomised to eight weeks of multi-joint exercises alone or multi-joint plus single-joint exercises. Both groups increased elbow flexion and extension strength and arm size measures, and the comparison between groups showed no significant difference in any variable. The authors concluded that adding single-joint exercises did not seem to give additional benefits to trained men and suggested multi-joint-only training as a time-efficient approach.

    Trial four: trained women over six months (2021)

    Barbalho and colleagues, in the International Journal of Sports Medicine in 2021, divided 30 trained women into groups doing multi-joint exercises only, single-joint exercises only, or both, for six months. All groups gained strength and muscle thickness. However, the multi-joint and combined groups gained more in the multi-joint lifts than the single-joint group, and had greater increases in muscle thickness in the gluteus maximus, quadriceps and pectoralis major. The single-joint group gained more on the leg curl. The authors concluded that multi-joint exercises seem necessary for optimal results, while single-joint work might be needed for optimal knee flexion strength.

    The 2017 review

    Gentil, Fisher and Steele, in Sports Medicine in 2017, reviewed 23 experimental studies. For the upper and lower limbs, muscle activity of the prime movers did not differ between SJ and MJ exercises. Long-term studies in the upper limbs found no difference in muscle size or strength gains and no additional effect from including SJ exercises in an MJ programme. The authors concluded that people may not need SJ exercises to obtain equivalent results in activation, hypertrophy and strength, and noted that time is a frequently cited barrier to exercise.

    What this means for equipment

    • For the upper body, the trials found similar arm gains with and without added curls and extensions, in both untrained and trained men, over 8 to 10 weeks.
    • The one longer trial, in trained women, found multi-joint training produced larger increases in muscle thickness in some large muscle groups than single-joint work alone, while leg curl strength favoured single-joint training.
    • The samples were small and all five papers share an author, so the findings are suggestive. For most lifts a cable stack or leg curl machine is a convenience rather than a requirement, although leg curl strength favoured single-joint training.

    This site’s guide to cable machines and functional trainers covers what that equipment adds.

    FAQs

    Are curls and triceps extensions necessary if presses and pulldowns are done?

    In the 2013 and 2015 trials in men, adding them did not produce significantly greater arm gains over 8 to 10 weeks, although the samples were small.

    Do single-joint exercises have any advantage?

    In the trial of trained women, the single-joint group gained more on the leg curl, and the 2017 review noted that studies of the lumbar extensors tended to support single-joint work.

    The bottom line

    Four small trials and a review found that adding single-joint exercises to multi-joint programmes gave similar arm strength and size gains in men over 8 to 10 weeks, and that multi-joint work gave larger muscle thickness gains in some large muscle groups in a six-month trial in women. Single-joint training was linked to better leg curl strength. Because all five papers share an author and the samples are small, the evidence is suggestive rather than settled; it points towards building a programme around multi-joint lifts first and treating isolation equipment as optional, with the exception of leg curl strength, which favoured single-joint training.

    Sources

    • Effect of adding single-joint exercises to a multi-joint exercise resistance-training program on strength and hypertrophy in untrained subjects, Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 2013 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
    • Single vs. Multi-Joint Resistance Exercises: Effects on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy, Asian Journal of Sports Medicine, 2015 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
    • The effects of adding single-joint exercises to a multi-joint exercise resistance training program on upper body muscle strength and size in trained men, Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 2015 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
    • The Effects of Resistance Exercise Selection on Muscle Size and Strength in Trained Women, International Journal of Sports Medicine, 2021 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
    • A Review of the Acute Effects and Long-Term Adaptations of Single- and Multi-Joint Exercises during Resistance Training, Sports Medicine, 2017 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

  • Skipping Ropes for Fitness: What Two Meta-Analyses and an Eight-Week Trial Show About Cardio Fitness, Strength and Session Length

    A skipping rope is a simple piece of cardio equipment, and it is often promoted as a complete workout. This article summarises the abstracts of three studies: a 2022 systematic review with meta-analysis of jump rope training, a 2023 meta-analysis in children aged 10 to 12, and a 2025 randomised trial in young adults. Most of the controlled evidence comes from children and adolescents, so the results cannot be assumed to apply to older adults. This site’s guide to HIIT and steady-state cardio at home covers other cardio options.

    Study one: a 2022 meta-analysis

    Singh and colleagues, in the Journal of Sports Sciences in 2022, pooled 21 studies of moderate to high quality with 1,021 healthy participants, each comparing a jump rope programme with an active or traditional control group. Eighteen studies were in participants whose mean age was under 18, and the programmes lasted from 6 to 40 weeks. Compared with active or passive controls, jump rope training improved resting heart rate, body mass index, fat mass, cardiorespiratory endurance, lower- and upper-body maximal strength, jumping, range of motion and sprinting, with effect sizes from 0.23 to 1.19. No significant effects were found for blood pressure, waist-hip circumference, bone or lean mass, or muscle endurance. The authors described the benefits as small to moderate. Heterogeneity between studies was wide in some outcomes (the abstract gives an I-squared range of 0 to 76.9%).

    Study two: a 2023 meta-analysis in 10 to 12 year olds

    Zhao and colleagues, in the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine in 2023, searched five databases and analysed 15 randomised controlled trials with 1,048 children aged 10 to 12, comparing jumping rope with regular physical education lessons. Jumping rope did not show a significant advantage in body morphology. In physical function, boys improved more in vital capacity and girls in resting heart rate. In physical performance, boys improved more in speed, upper-body and lower-body strength, muscular endurance and agility, and girls improved more in coordination and balance. Boys saw a minimal improvement in flexibility, while girls showed no significant difference. Subgroup analyses suggested an association between sessions of more than 40 minutes, twice a week for 8 to 12 weeks, and larger effects in this age group; the authors recommended at least 40 minutes once or twice a week for 8 to 12 weeks.

    Study three: an eight-week trial in young adults

    Phongchin and colleagues, in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2025, randomly assigned 59 healthy adults (29 women, average age 21.7 years) to high-intensity interval rope skipping (nine 2-minute bouts at 80% of maximum heart rate with 1-minute active recovery, three times a week), moderate continuous rope skipping (30 minutes at 70% of maximum heart rate, five times a week) or a non-exercise control group for eight weeks. Both exercise groups improved maximal oxygen uptake, a measure of cardiorespiratory fitness (about 48 and 47 mL/kg/min after training against 44 and 42 before), compared with a control group at about 40. Body composition did not differ between or within groups, and enjoyment, measured with the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale after the first and final sessions, did not differ between the two exercise groups. The authors concluded that interval skipping could be a time-efficient alternative for people with limited time.

    What the studies can and cannot tell you

    • Skipping showed small to moderate gains in fitness measures in the pooled youth data, and a clear gain in cardiorespiratory fitness in a trial of young adults.
    • Effects on body composition were inconsistent: the 2022 review found small improvements in fat mass and body mass index, the 2023 review found no advantage in body morphology, and the 2025 trial found no difference.
    • The comparisons were with other activities or no exercise, not with other equipment such as an exercise bike or rowing machine, so none of them shows skipping is better or worse than another cardio machine.
    • Almost all of the pooled participants were young. The 2025 trial lasted eight weeks, so long-term results are unknown.

    For buying, the studies say nothing about rope type, length or weight, so a rope that suits the user’s height and training surface is a matter of preference.

    FAQs

    Does jump rope training build muscle?

    The 2022 meta-analysis found improvements in maximal strength but no significant effect on lean mass, and the studies were mostly in young people.

    Is interval skipping better than steady skipping?

    In the 2025 trial the two approaches improved cardiorespiratory fitness by similar amounts and gave comparable enjoyment, so the interval version was described as time-efficient, not superior.

    The bottom line

    Two meta-analyses, mostly in children, and one eight-week trial in young adults found that skipping improved measures such as cardiorespiratory fitness, strength and jumping, with small to moderate effects, but no consistent change in body composition. Interval and steady-paced skipping produced similar fitness gains in the trial. The evidence is limited to young people and short programmes, and it does not compare a rope with other cardio equipment.

    Sources

    • Jump rope training effects on health- and sport-related physical fitness in young participants: A systematic review with meta-analysis, Journal of Sports Sciences, 2022 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
    • Jumping Rope Improves the Physical Fitness of Preadolescents Aged 10-12 Years: A Meta-Analysis, Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 2023 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
    • Effects of high-intensity interval rope-skipping on cardiorespiratory fitness, body composition, and enjoyment in young adults, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2025 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

  • Sumo or Conventional Deadlift? What Four Studies Show About Technique, Muscle Activity and Who May Lift More

    The sumo deadlift uses a wide stance with the hands inside the knees. The conventional deadlift uses a narrow stance with the hands outside. Lifters often ask which suits them. This article summarises the abstracts of four studies: a video analysis of powerlifters, a muscle-activity study of football players, a study of body proportions and strength in novices, and a 2025 comparison of joint movement and muscle activity in experienced lifters. The studies describe how the two styles differ; none shows that one style builds more muscle or produces better long-term results. This site’s guides to the trap bar and straight bar deadlift and to barbell specifications cover related choices.

    Study one: how the technique differs (2000)

    Escamilla and colleagues, in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise in 2000, filmed 12 sumo and 12 conventional lifters at a national powerlifting championship. The sumo group used a much wider stance (70 cm against 32 cm), turned the feet out more (42 degrees against 14), held the bar with hands closer together and had more upright trunk and thigh positions. The knees and hips extended about 12 degrees more in the conventional group. Vertical bar distance, mechanical work and predicted energy expenditure were roughly 25 to 40% greater in the conventional group. Ankle and knee moments differed between styles, but hip moments did not differ significantly. The authors attributed the differences to technique.

    Study two: muscle activity (2002)

    Escamilla and colleagues, in the same journal in 2002, recorded muscle activity from 16 muscles in 13 collegiate football players performing both deadlifts at a 12-repetition-maximum load, with and without a lifting belt. Overall activity in the vastus medialis, vastus lateralis (two quadriceps muscles) and tibialis anterior was significantly greater in the sumo deadlift, while the medial gastrocnemius (calf) was more active in the conventional deadlift. The belt condition produced greater rectus abdominis activity and less external oblique activity. The authors concluded that athletes may choose either style depending on which muscles they consider most important.

    Study three: body proportions (2019)

    Cholewa and colleagues, in the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine in 2019, studied 47 people (28 men and 19 women) with no deadlift experience. After instruction in both styles, they tested a one-repetition maximum (1RM) in each, in random order. There was no significant difference between sumo and conventional 1RM overall. The only significant link between body measurements and the ratio of sumo to conventional strength was with the ratio of sitting height to total height (r = 0.297), which led the authors to suggest that sumo may be slightly advantageous for novices with longer torsos and conventional for those with shorter torsos. Repetitions to failure at 60% of 1RM were higher in women than men for both lifts.

    Study four: joints and muscles in experienced lifters (2025)

    Hanen and colleagues, in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology in 2025, tested 30 experienced male lifters performing both styles at 85% of 1RM. The sumo style showed greater range of movement in the frontal and transverse planes at the hip and knee, whereas the conventional style involved greater hip flexion and ankle dorsiflexion. The conventional deadlift produced higher hip extension moments, and the biceps femoris (a hamstring) showed greater activation in the conventional deadlift. The vastus lateralis was more active in the sumo style during the first phase of the lift. Tibialis anterior and erector spinae thoracis activation were greater in the conventional lift. The authors concluded that the conventional lift targets the posterior chain, particularly the hip extensors, while the sumo lift emphasises the anterior chain and mediolateral stabilisation.

    What the studies add up to

    • The styles differ in stance, joint angles and distance the bar travels, the 2002 study found higher vastus medialis and vastus lateralis activity overall in sumo; the 2025 study found higher vastus lateralis activity in sumo during the first phase only, and higher hamstring activity and hip extension moments in conventional.
    • In novices, neither style produced a clearly higher 1RM overall, and the relationship with torso length was weak (r = 0.297).
    • Three of the four studies used experienced or athletic lifters, and the 2019 study used novices of both sexes, so evidence for other groups is thin.
    • Muscle activity is not the same as muscle growth, and none of the studies compared training results over weeks.

    For equipment, the studies describe no difference in kit between the two styles: both used a barbell and plates.

    FAQs

    Which deadlift style lets people lift more?

    In the novice study, 1RM did not differ significantly between styles overall. Torso length explained only a small part of the difference between individuals.

    Does one style involve more work?

    In the 2000 powerlifting analysis, vertical bar distance, mechanical work and predicted energy expenditure were roughly 25 to 40% greater in the conventional group.

    The bottom line

    Sumo and conventional deadlifts differ in stance, joint angles and muscle emphasis, with higher vastus lateralis activity in sumo in two studies (in the 2025 study during the first phase only) and higher hamstring and hip-extension demands in conventional in the most recent. The four studies do not show that either style is better for strength or muscle gain, and body proportions explained only a small part of who lifted more in novices. The practical choice is whichever style a lifter can perform well with the equipment and space available.

    Sources

    • A three-dimensional biomechanical analysis of sumo and conventional style deadlifts, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 2000 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
    • An electromyographic analysis of sumo and conventional style deadlifts, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 2002 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
    • Anthropometrical Determinants of Deadlift Variant Performance, Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 2019 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
    • Biomechanical analysis of conventional and sumo deadlift, Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 2025 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

  • Incline Bench Angle: What Four Studies Show About Upper-Chest Activity, Shoulder Involvement and Eight-Week Muscle Growth

    Adjustable benches are sold on the idea that a raised backrest shifts work to the “upper chest”. This article summarises the abstracts of four studies of bench angle: three that measured muscle electrical activity (electromyography, or EMG) at different angles and one eight-week training trial. EMG shows how active a muscle is during a lift, not how much it will grow, and all four studies are small. The studies used healthy adults, mostly men; none was designed to compare equipment brands. This site’s guide to weight benches covers adjustment and stability, and the guide to bench press grip width covers another variable.

    Study one: four angles in 2010

    Trebs and colleagues, in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research in 2010, had 15 healthy men perform a chest press at 0 degrees (flat), 28, 44 and 56 degrees at 70% of their one-repetition maximum (1RM) for each angle. Activity of the clavicular head of the pectoralis major (the upper portion) was significantly greater at 44 degrees than at 0 degrees or 28 degrees, and greater at 56 degrees than at 0 degrees. Activity of the sternocostal head (the larger, lower portion) was greatest on the flat bench. The anterior deltoid, a shoulder muscle, was significantly more active at 28, 44 and 56 degrees than flat. The authors concluded that performing both flat and incline presses seems necessary to recruit the muscles involved.

    Study two: bench angles in 2016

    Lauver and colleagues, in the European Journal of Sport Science in 2016, compared a free-weight barbell bench press at 0, 30, 45 and -15 degrees in 14 resistance-trained men at 65% of 1RM. Across the whole lifting phase the upper pectoralis showed no difference between conditions, but during the 26-50% portion of the lift both the 30 and 45 degree angles produced greater activity than flat or decline. Lower pectoralis activity was greater at -15, 30 and 0 degrees than at 45 degrees. The authors supported using a flat bench for both heads of the pectoralis and noted that inclines of 30 or 45 degrees gave greater activity at certain moments in the lift.

    Study three: five angles in 2020

    Rodriguez-Ridao and colleagues, in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health in 2020, tested 30 trained adults at five angles (0, 15, 30, 45 and 60 degrees) at 60% of 1RM. Upper pectoralis activity was highest at 30 degrees. The middle and lower portions were more active at 0 degrees. The anterior deltoid was most active at 60 degrees, and the triceps showed similar activity at all angles. The authors concluded that 30 degrees produces greater activation of the upper pectoralis, and that inclines above 45 degrees increase deltoid activity and reduce pectoralis performance.

    This study and the 2010 one disagree on where upper-chest activity peaks, with 30 degrees in one and 44 degrees in the other. The two studies used different participants, loads and protocols.

    Study four: eight weeks of training

    Chaves and colleagues, in the International Journal of Exercise Science in 2020, randomly assigned 47 untrained men to a horizontal bench press group, an incline bench press group or a combination group. Training was once a week for eight weeks with equal numbers of sets. Isometric strength rose by about 10 to 11 kg in each group, with no difference between groups. Muscle thickness changes differed at only one of three sites, the second intercostal space, where the incline group had the greatest increase compared with the horizontal and combination groups. Changes in EMG amplitude differed between groups at only one of four sites. The authors concluded that horizontal and incline presses, or a combination, can give similar changes in general strength.

    What the four studies can and cannot tell you

    • Upper-chest activity tended to be higher on moderate inclines than flat in three studies, but the angle at which it peaked differed (30 degrees in one, 44 degrees in another, and both 30 and 45 degrees at certain moments of the lift in a third).
    • The flat bench gave the highest or similar activity for the larger lower portion of the chest in the studies that measured it.
    • Shoulder (anterior deltoid) activity rose on steeper inclines, and one study reported more at 60 degrees.
    • The only training trial found a small difference in growth at one measurement site after eight weeks, in untrained men lifting once a week. It does not show what happens in trained lifters over a longer period.

    For buying a bench, the practical point is modest: an adjustable bench lets a lifter use both flat and inclined angles, which is the approach the 2010 authors favoured, but the evidence does not show that one angle is far superior.

    FAQs

    Is 30 degrees the best incline angle?

    No single angle is established as best. One study found upper-chest activity highest at 30 degrees, but another found it greater at 44 degrees than at 28 degrees, and a third found similar levels at 30 and 45 degrees.

    Does a steeper bench shift more work to the shoulders?

    In two of the studies, anterior deltoid activity was higher on inclines than on the flat bench, and the 2020 study reported the highest level at 60 degrees.

    The bottom line

    Four small studies suggest that moderate inclines raise activity in the upper part of the pectoralis major, that the flat bench works the lower part more and that steep inclines bring in the shoulders. An eight-week trial in untrained men found similar strength gains with flat and incline pressing and a small difference in muscle thickness at one site. These were muscle-activity and training studies, not equipment comparisons, so they cannot rank benches; they do show that flat and inclined positions emphasise different parts of the chest, and no single angle is established as best.

    Sources

    • An electromyography analysis of 3 muscles surrounding the shoulder joint during the performance of a chest press exercise at several angles, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2010 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
    • Influence of bench angle on upper extremity muscular activation during bench press exercise, European Journal of Sport Science, 2016 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
    • Effects of Horizontal and Incline Bench Press on Neuromuscular Adaptations in Untrained Young Men, International Journal of Exercise Science, 2020 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
    • Effect of Five Bench Inclinations on the Electromyographic Activity of the Pectoralis Major, Anterior Deltoid, and Triceps Brachii during the Bench Press Exercise, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

  • Fat Grip Attachments and Thick Bars: What Three Small Studies Show About Strength, Muscle Activity and Grip Training

    Thick-handled bars and rubber “fat grip” sleeves that clip onto a standard barbell or dumbbell are sold as a way to build a stronger grip and harder-working arms. This article summarises the abstracts of three small studies: an acute study of two bar diameters, an acute study of a fat grip attachment across several lifts, and an eight-week training study in golfers. The standard Olympic bar in the first study was 28 mm (1.1 inches) thick, and this site’s guide to barbell specifications covers bar dimensions. None of the three studies are large enough to settle the question.

    Study one: 28 mm bar against 51 mm bar

    Fioranelli and Lee, in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research in 2008, compared a standard Olympic bar (28 mm, called THIN) with a larger fat bar (51 mm, or 2 inches, called THICK). Eighteen healthy men performed a unilateral isometric bench press, pushing against a fixed position, with each bar at two elbow angles, about 45 and 90 degrees. They also held 80% of maximum effort for 10 seconds while electromyography recorded the activity of the pectoralis major (chest) and the forearm flexors.

    Maximum voluntary contraction did not differ between bars, although it was greater at the second joint angle. Muscle activity in the forearm muscles at both angles, and in the pectoralis at the first angle, was greater with the thin bar. The authors concluded that their data did not support the idea that bar diameter influences performance in an isometric bench press, and that the higher activity with the thin bar suggested greater neuromuscular activation with a standard Olympic bar than with a fat bar. They added that the findings should be confirmed in other resistance exercises.

    Study two: fat grip attachments across five exercises

    Krings and colleagues, in the same journal in 2021, tested Fat Gripz attachments on 15 resistance-trained men, in a randomised comparison against an ordinary Olympic barbell. The men found their one-repetition maximum (1RM) for the deadlift, bent-over row, upright row and concentration curl, and completed as many pull-ups as they could, with and without the attachments. Electromyography measured eight upper-limb muscles.

    • With the attachments, 1RM strength fell significantly in each exercise, and the maximum number of pull-ups was significantly lower.
    • Muscle activity rose significantly in the forearm and shoulder muscles but fell significantly in the upper arm muscles during the deadlift, bent-over row and pull-ups.
    • There was no difference in muscle activity for the upright row or the concentration curl.

    The authors suggested that the differences may relate to the muscle length positions involved. They concluded that although fat grips may increase neuromuscular activation, the loss of strength may lead to lighter training loads that may not be ideal for building muscular strength.

    Study three: eight weeks of fat grip training in golfers

    Cummings and colleagues, in the same journal in 2018, noted that earlier research on fat grips was mostly acute. They randomly assigned 10 Division I male golfers to two groups of five: one performed every lift and repetition with fat grips and the other used normal-diameter bars. Both followed an eight-week periodised resistance programme three days a week. Outcomes included swing speed, ball speed, driving distance and carry, maximum pull-ups, grip strength in each hand and 1RM trap-bar deadlift.

    The fat grip group showed significant increases in ball speed, carry, drive distance and left-hand grip strength. The authors concluded that in a population such as low-handicap collegiate golfers, fat grip training may help golf-specific performance after eight weeks of periodised training, and that coaches may use it with athletes who need adequate grip strength.

    What the three studies show together

    • In two acute studies, the thicker grip did not raise strength, and in the second it lowered maximal strength in every exercise tested.
    • Muscle activity was not uniformly higher: it depended on the muscle, the exercise and the study, with the forearms and shoulders more active in one study and the thin bar giving more activity in another.
    • The only training study found gains in a sport-specific outcome and one measure of grip strength, but it involved five golfers per group.

    What the studies cannot show

    The samples were small: 18 men, 15 men and 10 golfers. All participants were men, and the third study involved a specialised group of athletes. The training study measured golf performance and grip strength, not general strength or muscle growth, so it cannot show how fat grips affect gym progress in the general population. The second study found that thick grips reduced the load that could be lifted, which the authors linked to lighter training loads. This site’s guide to grip strength training equipment covers other ways to train the grip.

    What this means when buying equipment

    A fat grip attachment is a cheap accessory, but the evidence supports it as a grip-focused tool, not as a general strength or muscle-building upgrade. The first two studies found no strength advantage from a thicker grip, and in one study strength was lower. Buyers who want a specific grip challenge could try attachments on lighter loads, while others may get more from the standard bar or from other grip work.

    Frequently asked questions

    Do fat grips make the arms work harder?

    Not consistently. In the 2021 study they increased forearm and shoulder activity but reduced upper-arm activity in some lifts, and in the 2008 study the thin bar produced greater forearm and chest activity.

    Do fat grips reduce the weight a person can lift?

    In the 2021 study, one-repetition maximum was significantly lower in every exercise tested when the attachments were used.

    The bottom line

    Three small studies found that thicker grips did not increase strength and lowered it in the largest acute test, that muscle activity changed in ways that varied by muscle and exercise, and that eight weeks of fat grip training improved some golf and grip measures in five golfers. Fat grips are best treated as a specialised grip tool rather than a general upgrade.

    Sources

  • Standing or Seated Calf Raise? What Two Training Trials Show About Knee Position, Muscle Length and Partial Repetitions

    Calf-raise machines come in two common forms: a standing version, where the knees are straight, and a seated version, where the knees are bent under a pad. Buyers of a home gym or a multi-station machine often have to choose which to fit in. This article summarises the abstracts of two training trials on the calf raise, one comparing standing and seated positions and one testing partial repetitions beyond failure. Both used untrained volunteers and measured muscle size with imaging, so they show what happened in those groups over 10 to 12 weeks and do not rank particular machines.

    Trial one: standing against seated, one leg each

    Kinoshita and colleagues, in Frontiers in Physiology in 2023, started from the point that the calf muscle group, the triceps surae, is relatively unresponsive to resistance training in terms of growth. They compared two positions: standing with the knee extended, where the gastrocnemius calf muscle is lengthened, and seated with the knee bent to 90 degrees, where it is shortened.

    Fourteen untrained adults trained one leg in each position, at 70% of their one-repetition maximum, doing 10 repetitions a set, five sets a session and two sessions a week for 12 weeks. Magnetic resonance imaging before and after measured the volume of each calf muscle and of the whole triceps surae. The abstract reports:

    • Muscle volume rose significantly in all three muscles and in the whole triceps surae for both legs, except for the gastrocnemius muscles of the seated leg.
    • The increases were greater for the standing leg in the lateral gastrocnemius (12.4% against 1.7%), the medial gastrocnemius (9.2% against 0.6%) and the whole triceps surae (5.6% against 2.1%).
    • The soleus, another calf muscle, grew by a similar amount in both legs (2.1% against 2.9%).

    The authors concluded that standing calf raises were far more effective than seated ones for enlarging the gastrocnemius, and therefore the whole triceps surae, and that the similar soleus result together with this suggests that training at long muscle lengths promotes growth. This is a single trial of 14 people, so it is a reasoned suggestion rather than a settled rule; the same idea is discussed more broadly in this site’s guide to stretch-mediated hypertrophy.

    Trial two: partial repetitions beyond failure

    Goli and colleagues published a 2026 trial in the International Journal of Exercise Science that asked whether extending calf-raise sets with partial repetitions in the more dorsiflexed part of the range, the lower, stretched part of the movement, would increase muscle growth. Sixteen untrained men (average age about 25) completed 10 weeks of unilateral standing calf raises twice a week. One leg did traditional sets of 10 to 14 repetitions to full-range momentary failure, four to six sets a session. The other did half as many sets to full-range failure, followed by partial-range repetitions to a second failure, two to three sets a session. Total volume-load was equated, and muscle thickness of the gastrocnemius was measured by ultrasound.

    After training, both approaches produced equivalent changes in muscle thickness, about 8% in each. Per set, however, the partial-repetition approach was more efficient (0.16% compared with 0.08%). The authors concluded that under volume-load-equated conditions the two methods seem to evoke similar changes in gastrocnemius thickness after 10 weeks in untrained young men, and that adding longer-length partial repetitions allows more volume-load per set. Broader evidence on full and partial ranges is summarised in this site’s guide to range of motion in strength training.

    Reading the two together

    • Knee position appeared to matter in the first trial: the standing position produced far larger gastrocnemius growth, while the soleus responded similarly either way.
    • The second trial used standing calf raises only, so it says nothing about seated machines.
    • In both, the participants were untrained, and each person served as their own comparison, with one leg per condition.

    What the trials cannot show

    Neither abstract compared brands, machine designs or plate-loaded and selectorised versions. Both trials involved small groups and relatively short periods. The first measured muscle volume; the second measured muscle thickness; neither reported jumping, running or other performance results. The findings apply to the muscle-size outcomes measured, and to the ranges of load and volume used.

    What this means when comparing equipment

    For a buyer whose aim includes bigger calves, the first trial gives a reason to favour a set-up that allows a standing, straight-knee calf raise over a seated machine alone. The second suggests that adding a few partial repetitions at the stretched end is an option that does not need extra equipment. This site’s guide to leg and glute equipment covers which machines load the lower body.

    Frequently asked questions

    Is the seated calf raise a waste of time?

    Not on the trial’s own figures. Seated training still produced significant growth in the soleus, and the whole triceps surae grew by 2.1%, but it produced far less gastrocnemius growth than the standing version.

    Do partial repetitions grow calves faster?

    In the second trial, they produced the same overall growth for equated volume-load, with better growth per set. That is a single trial of 16 untrained men.

    The bottom line

    One 12-week trial found standing calf raises produced much more gastrocnemius growth than seated ones in 14 untrained adults, while the soleus responded similarly; a 10-week trial in 16 untrained men found that adding partial repetitions past failure produced similar growth to full-range training when volume-load was equal, with more growth per set. Both are small, so a station allowing a standing calf raise is a reasonable priority, without treating the results as final.

    Sources

  • Stroke Rate on a Rowing Machine: What Three Studies of Rowers Show About Power, Technique and Foot-Stretcher Position

    The monitor on a rowing machine shows stroke rate, usually as strokes per minute (spm), next to power and pace. Buyers comparing machines often ask what rate to row at, and whether adjusting the foot-stretcher (the footplate) changes the stroke. This article summarises the abstracts of three studies on ergometer rowing. All three involved trained rowers, so they say little about beginners, and none tested a particular brand or model.

    Study one: stroke rate and intensity in 12 competitive rowers

    Ettema and colleagues studied twelve competitive male rowers on an ergometer, in a paper published in Sports Biomechanics in 2025. Each rowed at three intensities and three stroke rates, including a self-chosen rate, while force and movement were recorded and used to estimate joint powers. The abstract reports strong effects of intensity and stroke rate on most measures, including drive length, drive time, drive velocity, recovery time and work per stroke. These effects were hardly reduced when only the preferred combinations of rate and intensity were considered.

    The authors found that stroke rate was mostly regulated by changing recovery time, while drive time and its forces were mostly affected by intensity. They concluded that with a fixed resistance, work rate is mostly steered through stroke rate: work per stroke is set for a given power requirement, and any further large change in rate is made mainly by modifying the recovery. The forces during the drive were largely independent of intensity and stroke rate, although that resemblance was strongest at the rower’s preferred rate.

    Study two: 20, 28 and 34 strokes per minute in 24 rowers

    Duchene and colleagues studied 24 high-level rowers, also in Sports Biomechanics in 2025. They performed maximal-intensity one-minute bouts at 20, 28 and 34 spm on a RowPerfect3 ergometer, with power measured at the handle, legs, trunk and arms, and trunk movement and muscle activation recorded.

    • Power at the handle was higher at higher stroke rates in the first half of the drive, because of higher power at each body segment.
    • The higher trunk power came before a delayed trunk extension, but without a significant increase in the activation of the erector spinae (back muscles), which the authors interpret as underlining the role of core stability in transferring force at a higher rate.
    • The authors suggest that rowing at a low stroke rate can be a strategy to work on earlier trunk extension, while training at a higher rate produces a technique closer to competition with greater neuromuscular activation and maximal power.

    Study three: foot-stretcher position in 11 college rowers

    Engstrom and colleagues, in PLOS ONE in 2023, noted that the effect of equipment set-up on the rowing stroke has received limited attention. They modified an ergometer so that the height and angle of the foot-stretcher could be adjusted, and tested seven foot-stretcher positions at 22, 26 and 32 spm in eleven college-level rowers. Movement patterns at each major joint were compared between conditions.

    Stroke rate was found to affect the movement patterns of all joints, and the timing of events during the stroke. The effect of foot-stretcher position was limited to the ankle and hip, and it did not affect timing. The authors concluded that while some limited changes to technique can be caused by altering the foot-stretcher, the changes were largely compensated for by the rowers and are generally smaller than the differences between stroke rates.

    What the three have in common

    • Stroke rate changes the stroke more than the foot-stretcher position did in the third study.
    • At a set resistance, the first study found that the recovery time is what mostly changes when stroke rate changes.
    • Higher rates raised power in the first half of the drive in the second study, at maximal effort.

    What the studies cannot show

    All three used competitive, high-level or college rowers. Nothing in the abstracts tests casual exercisers, and no study ranked ergometers against each other. The studies did not measure calories, fitness gains over time or how the readings on different consoles compare, so they cannot say which stroke rate is best for a general fitness goal. Damper and resistance choices are covered in this site’s guides to rowing machine damper settings and choosing a rowing machine.

    What this means when comparing machines

    For a buyer, the practical points are modest. A monitor that displays stroke rate alongside power is showing a variable that these studies treat as central to how the stroke is performed. A machine with an adjustable foot-stretcher offers a set-up option, but the third study suggests that rowers largely adapt to changes, so fine adjustment is unlikely to transform the stroke. Comfort and ease of adjustment are practical considerations rather than findings of these studies.

    Frequently asked questions

    Does a higher stroke rate always mean more power?

    Not on this evidence. In the second study, handle power was higher at higher rates in the first half of the drive in maximal one-minute bouts by high-level rowers, but that does not describe every rower or every effort.

    Does foot-stretcher position change the stroke a lot?

    In the third study, its effect was limited to the ankle and hip, did not alter timing, and was largely compensated for by the rowers.

    The bottom line

    Three studies of trained rowers found that stroke rate has larger effects on technique than foot-stretcher position does, that a rower at a fixed resistance changes rate mainly by altering recovery time, and that higher rates raise handle power early in the drive at maximal effort. They do not show which rate suits a beginner or which machine is better.

    Sources

Shopping regionLocal retailers, prices and availability