Rowing is a demanding endurance sport that requires a high level of aerobic capacity (67%–88% of energy contribution) and anaerobic capacity.1–3 Olympic rowing races, typically contested over 2000 m (except for Los Angeles 2028), require sustained high-intensity effort at ≥85% of maximal oxygen uptake (
Coaches and sport scientists often employ the triphasic model to structure training effectively, which divides training into 3 intensity zones.11–13 Zone 1 (Z1) represents low-intensity training (LIT), with a [BLa] of ≤2 mmol·L−1, targeting aerobic capacity and recovery. Zone 2 (Z2) represents moderate-intensity training (MIT), involves a [BLa] of 2 to 4 mmol·L−1, and focuses on improving lactate threshold and aerobic efficiency. Zone 3 (Z3) represents high-intensity training (HIT), with a [BLa] of > 4 mmol·L−1, to enhance anaerobic power and maximum speed. Managing the balance between these zones through various training intensity distribution (TID) models is essential for optimizing performance in elite rowing.
In endurance sports, 3 primary TID models are generally employed: polarized (POL), pyramidal (PYR), and threshold (THR) models.12,14 Based on a 3-zone intensity framework, the POL model comprises 75% to 80% LIT, 0% to 5% MIT, and 15% to 20% HIT. The PYR model involves 70% to 80% LIT, 10% to 20% MIT, and 5% to 10% HIT. The THR model is defined by <65% LIT, >35% MIT, and <5% HIT.11–13,15 In elite rowing and other endurance sports, POL and PYR models might be superior concerning key endurance variables, such as
In addition to TID, periodization is vital in optimizing the performance of elite endurance athletes.11,24,25 Periodization is a method that allows coaches to divide the training program into smaller periods and manipulate training elements (eg, intensity, duration, frequency, and specificity of training) to maximize performance while mitigating the risks of overtraining and injury.26 Various periodization models are used in rowing, such as traditional linear and reverse,27,28 which involve distinct phases of preparation, competition, and recovery. These periodization strategies are tailored to meet the specific demands of the rowing season and individual needs of athletes.
Past research has explored some elite rowers’ training characteristics, physiological determinants, and performance before major competition, offering a deeper understanding of performance enhancement.10,29–32 However, no previous review has collectively analyzed the training characteristics of elite rowers, including training volume, TID, and periodization, and their impact on physiological determinants and performance. This is important as elite rowers’ training likely influences their performance and subsequent success. Therefore, this study systematically reviewed TID studies for elite rowers to assess the effectiveness (ie, improving physiological determinants and rowing performance) and practicability of various training volumes, TIDs, and periodization models.
Methods
Literature Search
This study used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Protocol.33 The study protocol was preregistered on the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42024569471). A literature search was conducted on September 12, 2024, by 2 independent reviewers (Y.Z. and H.Z.) using PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases.11–13 The keywords searched were: “periodization” OR “training periodization” OR “block periodization” OR “traditional periodization” OR “training modality” OR “training intensity” OR “training volume” OR “training method” OR “training regimen” OR “training load” AND “rowing” OR “rower” OR “oarsman.” Searches were limited to human participants and English language-only publications. Two reviewers (Zhong and Zheng) independently performed the identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion of studies, with disagreement settled by consensus. All records from the literature search were examined by title and abstract to exclude irrelevant records. Studies were selected following the eligibility criteria. Other sources identified additional records (such as manual searches through article reference lists). The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest concerning financial, institutional, and/or personal relationships in this review.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Studies were included in this review using the following criteria: (1) published in English, (2) in a peer-reviewed journal, (3) included youth or adult elite rower(s), (4) with at least 6 weeks of training intervention/analysis, (5) quantified the TID and volume of training, and (6) reported data of physiological determinants or performance. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) older-age division rower(s) or athletes from other sports not associated with competitive rowing, (2) studies of less than 6 weeks and not detailing the training intervention/analysis, (3) outcome variables unrelated to physiological determinants or performance, and (4) studies not describing a specific TID according to the 3 intensity zones, defined by physiological tests.
Data Extraction
In total, 9681 studies were sourced, 48 were fully screened, and 9 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review (Figure 1). The following data were extracted from eligible studies: authors; year of publication; the number of participants; sex; type and duration of the study; phase(s) of the season that study spanned; TID and volume; periodization; physiological determinants, including oxygen uptake metrics, [BLa] metrics, HR metrics, and power output metrics; and rowing performance outcomes.
—PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flowchart illustrating the inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the systematic review.
Citation: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 20, 5; 10.1123/ijspp.2024-0433
Risk-of-Bias Assessment of the Included Studies
The methodological quality of the studies was rated by 2 observers (Zhong and Zheng) using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale for experimental studies,34 the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale35 for observational studies, and Oxford level of evidence36 for experimental and observational studies (Tables 1 and 2). The PEDro scale consists of 11 items related to scientific rigor. Item 1 is rated as yes/no, items 2 to 11 are rated using 0 (absent) or 1 (present), and a score out of 10 is obtained by summation. A score of ≥6 represents the threshold for studies with a low risk of bias.39 As assessors are rarely blinded and participants and investigators cannot be blinded in supervised exercise interventions, the items related to blinding (5–7) were removed from the scale.40 Therefore, the maximum result on the modified PEDro 8-point scale was 7. The qualitative ratings were adjusted to those used in previous exercise-related systematic reviews,40,41 as follows: 6 to 7 = “excellent,” 5 = “good,” 4 = “moderate,” and 0 to 3 = “poor.”
Quality of the Intervention Study and Oxford Level of Evidence
| PEDro score | Oxford level of evidence | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Total | ||
| Treff et al32 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1b | |
Abbreviation: PEDro, Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale. Note: 0, item not satisfied; 1, item is satisfied; item 1, eligibility criteria were specified; item 2, subjects were randomly allocated to groups; item 3, allocation was concealed; item 4, the groups were similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators; item 5, measures of at least 1 key outcome were obtained from more than 85% of the subjects initially allocated to groups; item 6, all subjects for whom outcome measures were available received the treatment or control condition as allocated, or where this was not the case, data for at least 1 key outcome were analyzed by “intention to treat”; item 7, the results of between-groups statistical comparisons were reported for at least 1 key outcome; item 8, the study provided both point measures and measures of variability for at least 1 key outcome. Oxford 1b, validating cohort study with good reference standards.
Quality of the Cohort Studies and Oxford Level of Evidence
| Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale | Oxford level of evidence | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selection | Comparability | Outcome | Total | ||||||||
| Study | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||
| Lacour et al29 | * | — | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 8 | 2b |
| Boone et al27 | * | — | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 8 | 2b |
| Jastrzebski and Zychowska38 | * | — | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 8 | 2b |
| Das et al28 | * | — | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 8 | 2b |
| Treff et al37 | * | — | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 8 | 2b |
| Mikulic and Bralic30 | * | — | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 8 | 2b |
| Zhong et al10 | * | — | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 8 | 2b |
| Tran et al31 | * | — | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 8 | 2b |
Note: — indicates no; *, yes; item 1, representativeness of the exposed cohort; item 2, selection of the nonexposed cohort; item 3, ascertainment of exposure; item 4, demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at the start of the study; item 5, comparability of cohorts based on the design or analysis; item 6, assessment of outcome; item 7, follow-up was long enough for outcomes to occur; item 8, adequacy of follow-up of cohorts. Oxford 2b, exploratory cohort study with good reference standards.
Results
Level of Evidence and Quality of Studies
All studies selected for review were considered to have a low risk of bias (PEDro score ≥ 4; Newcastle–Ottawa Scale ≥ 7 stars; Tables 1 and 2), in line with previous systematic reviews.11–13 Also, following the Oxford level of evidence, the experimental studies32 were classified as a 1b level, whereas the observational studies10,27–31,37,38 were a 2b level (Tables 1 and 2).
Characteristics of the Participants
Table 3 presents the characteristics of the participants (n = 82 [64 males and 18 females]) included in the reviewed studies. Only 3 studies28,31,37 included male and female rowers; the remaining included only male participants.27,29,30,32,38,42 Participants in 7 studies reached the world-class level (tier 5), and participants in 2 studies reached the elite level (tier 4).43
Study and Participant Characteristics in the Reviewed Studies
| Study | N (male/female) | Participant information, mean (SD) | Type of design | Study duration |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boone et al27 | 2 (2/0) | Level: Elite Age, y: 26 (3) Height, cm: 186 (0) Weight, kg: 76 (5) | Observational | 29 wk |
| Jastrzebski and Zychowska38 | 9 (9/0) | Level: Elite Age, y: 22 (4) Height, cm: 185 (5) Weight, kg: 74 (2) | Observational | 6 wk |
| Das et al28 | 19 (10/9) | Level: Elite Age y: male 25 (2); female 21 (3) Height, cm: male 183 (5); female 166 (4) Weight, kg: male 75 (5); female 58 (5) | Observational | 17 wk |
| Treff et al37 | 8 (6/2) | Level: Elite Age, y: male 24; female 22 Height, cm: male 189; female 171 Weight, kg: male 83; female 50 | Observational | 30–45 wk |
| Zhong et al10 | 6 (6/0) | Level: Elite Age, y: 28 (3) Height, cm: 193 (2) Weight, kg: 95 (4) | Observational | 44 wk |
| Mikulic and Bralic30 | 2 (2/0) | Level: Elite Age, y: 15 Height, cm: 189 Weight, kg: 93 | Observational | 12 y |
| Tran et al31 | 21 (14/7) | Level: Elite Age, y: male 28 (3); female 32 (3) Height, cm: male 192 (4); female 183 (11) Weight, kg: male 94 (3); female 74 (7) | Observational | 25 wk |
| Lacour et al29 | 1 (1/0) | Level: Elite Age, y: 26 (4) Height, cm: 190 (7) Weight, kg: 89 (7) | Observational | 18 mo |
| Treff et al32 | 14 (10/0) PYR (n = 7), POL (n = 7) | Level: Elite Age, y: PYR 19 (1) POL 21 (2) Height, cm: PYR 193 (2) POL 185 (7) Weight, kg: PYR 93 (3) POL 85 (11) | Experimental | 11 wk |
Abbreviations: PYR, pyramidal; POL, polarized;
Characteristics of the Studies Selected
Of the 9 studies meeting the inclusion requirements, 1 experimental study compared the effects of different TIDs (PYR vs POL) on physiological determinants and performance in elite rowers.32 Eight observational studies described TID patterns in elite rowers over time.10,27–31,37,38 All studies reported training volume, TID characteristics, physiological determinants, and performance.
Training Characteristics
Training Volume
Training volume varied significantly across reviewed studies (Table 4), with 8 studies reporting 10 to 31 hours per week, the most common being 14 to 20 hours per week.27,28,30–32,37,38 Four studies documented the number of weekly training sessions, ranging from 9 to 15.29,30,32,37 In addition, 3 studies provided data on rowing distances, with reported weekly distances ranging from 94.5 to 239 km.10,27–29 All studies reported training modalities, including rowing training, strength training, and nonspecific endurance training.
Training Characteristics of Elite Rowers in the Reviewed Studies
| Study | TID (Z1: Z2: Z3, % in h) | Volume (duration or rowed distance per week) | Modality | Season phase | Periodization |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boone et al27 | WS (PYR): N/A PP: 79.4–81.2: 15.4–16.8: 3.4–3.8 CP1: 75.2–75.8: 18.1–18.5: 6.1–6.3 CP2: 74.5–75.2; 16.2–16.6; 8.6–8.9 | Duration: PP: 15:3–15.5 h CP1: 14.7–14.8 h CP2: 14.5 h Distance: PP: 124–128 km CP1: 132–134 km CP2: 135–136 km | Rowing training (58.5%), strength training (13.4%), and nonspecific endurance training (running and cycling 28.1%) | PP and CP1 | Traditional periodization (2020–2021, 39 wk) PP (Nov–Mar): 15: 22 h:min·wk−1 CP1 (Mar–May): 14: 44 h:min·wk−1 CP2 (May–July): 14: 30 h:min·wk−1 |
| Jastrzebski and Zychowska38 | PP (PYR):72: 25: 3 | Duration: 10.2 h | Ergometer rowing training, strength training, nonspecific endurance training (running and swimming), and team sports (recreation). No specific percentages or weekly sessions | PP | / |
| Das et al28 | WS (PYR): N/A PP1 (PYR): 80: 19: 1 PP2 (PYR): 63: 23: 14 PP3 (PYR): 50: 31: 19 | Duration: 31 h Distance: 239 km | Rowing training, nonspecific endurance training (jogging), and resistance training. No specific percentages or weekly sessions | WS | Reverse periodization (2017, 17 wk) PP1 (weeks 1–4): 24–28 h·wk−1 PP2 (weeks 5–10): 28–35 h·wk−1 PP3 (weeks 11–17): 30–35 h·wk−1 |
| Treff et al37 | WS (PYR): 84: 8: 7 | Duration: 14 (6.2) h | Rowing training (54%), nonspecific endurance training (running, spinning, cycling, cross-country skiing, etc, 30%), resistance training (13%), and other (stretching, yoga, etc, 3%) | WS | Periodization strategy is not sure (2018–2019, 30–45 wk) PP1 (Nov–Mar); PP2 (Mar–May); CP (May–July–Sep) |
| Zhong et al10 | WS (PYR): 87.0: 8.4: 4.6 PP1 (POL): 87.9: 6.0: 6.2 PP2 (PYR): 83.0: 11.8: 5.3 CP1 (PYR): 89.3: 5.5: 5.2 CP2 (POL): 91.2: 4.2: 4.5 | Duration: 20.6 (5.4) h PP1: 21.1 (5.8) PP2: 21.1 (5.6) CP1: 89.3: 19.6 (5.4) CP2: 91.2: 21.1 (5.9) | Rowing training (67.5%), nonspecific endurance training (0.4%), strength training (16.9%), and warm-up and flexibility (15.2%) | WS | Periodization is not used. (2018–2019, 44 wk) PP1 (Oct–Dec): 21.1 h·wk−1 PP2 (Dec–Apr): 21.1 h·wk−1 CP1 (Apr–July): 19.6 h·wk−1 CP2 (July–Aug): 21.1 h·wk−1 |
| Mikulic and Bralic30 | WS (POL): 80–85: 0: 15–20 | Duration: 24 h | The training consisted of 12 sessions per week, on average, including 9 endurance-based sessions and 3 strength-based sessions performed in the weight room. Endurance-based training consisted of 70% rowing training and 30% cross-training. | WS | Periodization is not used. The training routines during preparatory and competition periods over the last monitored phase were consistent. |
| Tran et al31 | WS (THR): N/A PP2 (THR): 21.6: 76.1: 1.4 CP1 (THR): 32.3: 64.8: 3.8 | Duration: PP2: 19.3 h CP1: 18.0 h | Rowing training (68%), nonspecific training (32%), including resistance training, stationary cycling, road cycling, running, general conditioning (eg, yoga), and swimming | WS | Traditional periodization (2011–2012, 25 wk) PP2 (Oct–Dec): 19.3 h·wk−1 CP1 (Jan–Mar): 18.0 h·wk−1 |
| Lacour et al29 | WS (THR): 55: 38: 7 | Distance: 119–142 km | The training consisted of 9.2 sessions per week, on average, including 6.7 rowing training, 0.9 running or cross-country skiing, and 1.6 endurance strength-training sessions per week | WS | / |
| Treff et al32 | PP (PYR): 94: 3: 2 PP (POL): 93: 1: 6 | Duration: PYR: 15.5 h POL: 16.5 h | Rowing: boat and ergometer rowing training (58%); strength: resistance training, machine based or weight lifting (19%), nonspecific endurance training, including running, cycling, swimming, etc (15%); and other: stretching, stability training, etc (7%) | PP | / |
Training-Intensity Distribution
Among the 8 observational studies reviewed, 5 identified a PYR model of TID,10,27,28,37,38 2 reported a THR model,29,31 and 1 reported a POL model30 (see Figure 2). The one experimental study compared the effects of the PYR and POL models.32 All 3 TID models were associated with significant improvements in physiological determinants and performance. The 3 studies also associated PYR and THR with the most unchanged or decreased physiological determinants and performance.31,32,37 The TID models in the 3 studies had a common feature: The sum of Z2 and Z3 did not reach 20%, or Z1 did not reach 50%. Furthermore, variations in TID were observed across different training phases. Four studies reported TID at different phases.10,27,28,31 In 2 studies,10,31 the TID of the rowers became increasingly polarized as they transitioned from the preparation phase (PP) to the competitive phase (CP). Two other studies reported that the TID of rowers exhibited a greater emphasis on Z2 training, as they transitioned from the PP to the CP.27,28
—Training-intensity distribution reported in the included studies. CP indicates competition period; PP, preparation period; POL, polarized; PYR, pyramidal; Z1, zone 1; Z2, zone 2; Z3, zone 3.
Citation: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 20, 5; 10.1123/ijspp.2024-0433
Periodization
Five studies described the periodization strategies employed by elite rowers.10,27,28,30,31 The traditional linear periodization model, which emphasizes building an aerobic base with higher volume and lower intensity training before transitioning to higher intensity training as the competition approaches, was the most commonly used by 2 studies. One study documented a reverse periodization model whereby training intensity and volume increased from the PP to the CP.28 Two studies reported no use of periodization strategies, characterized by unchanged training structures during PP and CP.10,30 The PP typically spanned between 2.5 and 5 months,10,27,28,30,31,37 followed by a precompetitive phase of ∼2 months10,27,28,30,31,37 (see Figure 3). Three studies distinguished between domestic competition (CP1), lasting ∼3 months, and major competition (CP2), lasting ∼2.5 months.10,27,37 Overall, training volume decreased by roughly ∼1 hour from the PP to the CP, with the TID shifting progressively toward a more polarized or threshold-oriented distribution. Traditional linear periodization, reverse periodization, and no use of periodization were all associated with improved physiological determinants and performance.10,27,28,30 In contrast, one study also associated traditional linear periodization with unchanged or decreased outcomes for most physiological determinants and performance.31
—Phase-distribution characteristics of elite rowers before major competition. The numbers within the bars represent the number of weeks for that phase. CP indicates competition period; PP, preparation period.
Citation: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 20, 5; 10.1123/ijspp.2024-0433
Physiological Determinants and Performance
The performance metrics reported across the studies included time trials over various distances (6000 m [D6000 m], 2000 m [D2000 m], 500 m [D500 m], and 100 m [D100 m]) along with key physiological determinants (Table 5). These determinants included oxygen uptake (oxygen uptake at 4 mmol·L−1 lactate threshold [
Physiological Characteristics and Outcomes and Performance Derived From the Training Implementation at Each Study
| Study | HRmax or [BLa] | Power output, W | Performance (time) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boone et al27 | / | Ppeak ↑ (16 W); P2[BLa] ↑ (6 W); P4[BLa] ↑ (21 W). No P value and ES | / | |
| Jastrzebski and Zychowska38 | [BLa]max ↑ (3%, 3 mmol·L−1, P = .018) | P4[BLa] ↑ (4%, 11 W, P < .001) | / | |
| Das et al28 | / | [BLa]peak → (male ↑ 8%, 1.25 mmol·L−1, P > .05; female ↑ 12%, 1.7 mmol·L−1, P > .05) | / | D2000 m ↑ (male ↑ 2%, 7.5 s, P > .005; female ↑ 3%, 17.6 s, P < .001) |
| Treff et al37 | / | P2[BLa] ↓ (6%, 17 W, P = .027); P4[BLa] ↓ (5%, 14 W, P = .031); P2000 m → (no specific data, P > .05) | D2000 m → (only T1 and T2, ↑ 0.7%, 2.9 s, P > .05) | |
| Zhong et al10 | / | / | P2[BLa] → (↑ 4%, 12 W, P = .225); P4[BLa] → (↑ 3%, 10 W, P = .098); Final-step ↑ MPO (1%, 3 W, P = .039) | D2000 m ↑ (2%, 6.4 s, P = .02); D5000 m ↑ (1%, 13.4 s, P = .02) |
| Mikulic and Bralic30 | HRmax ↓ (3%, 5 beats, no P value) | MMW ↑ (29%, 118 W, no P value); P2000 m ↑ (28%, 119 W, no P value); P6000 m ↑ (33%, 115 W, no P value) | D2000 m ↑ (28%, 96.8 s, no P value); D6000 m ↑ (33%, 360.2 s, no P value) | |
| Tran et al31 | / | P2[BLa] → and final-step MPO → (no specific data); P4[BLa] ↑ only for female (+9 W; ES = 0.22) | D100 m ↓ (1.3%, 0.2 s, no P value); D500 m, 2000 m, 6000 m → (–0.4% to 0.7%, ES range = –0.11 to 0.50) | |
| Lacour et al29 | / | Ppeak ↑ (5%, 25 W, no P value); P2000 m (2%, 9 W, no P value) | ||
| Treff et al32 | / | P2000 m → (↑ 2%, 7 W in PYR, P > .05; ↑ 1%, 6 W in POL, P > .05); P2[BLa] → (↑ 2%, 7 W in PYR, P > .05; → 0%, 0 W in POL, P > .05); P4[BLa] → (↑ 1%, 5 W in PYR, P > .05; ↓ 0.2%, 1 W in POL, P > .05) | D2000 m → (↓ 0.4%, 1.8 s in PYR, P > .05; ↓ 0.5%, 2.2 s in POL, P > .05) |
Abbreviations: [BLa], blood lactate concentration; [BLa]max, maximal [BLa]; [BLa]peak, peak [BLa]; D100 m, duration of 100-m time trial; D500 m, duration of 500-m time trial; D2000 m, duration of 2000-m time trial; D6000 m, duration of 6000-m time trial; ES, effect size; HRmax, maximal heart rate; MMW, maximal minute power; MPO, mean power output; Ppeak, peak power obtained in the incremental test; P2[BLa], power output at 2 mmol·L−1 of [BLa]; P2000 m, mean power output sustained during the 2000-m all-out tests; P4[BLa], power output at 4 mmol·L−1 of [BLa]; P6000 m, mean power output sustained during the 6000-m all-out tests; POL, polarized;
Concerning oxygen uptake, 6 studies reported changes in
For power output, 6 studies reported changes in P4[BLa],10,27,31,32,37,38 5 reported changes in P2[BLa],10,27,31,32,37 4 reported changes in P2000 m,29,30,32,37 and 2 reported changes in peak power.27,29 In addition, 1 study documented changes in power at
Regarding performance metrics, 6 studies reported changes in D2000 m,10,28,30–32,37 2 reported changes in D6000 m,30,31 and 1 reported changes in D5000 m,10 D500 m, and D200 m.31
Discussion
This systematic review examined elite rowers’ TID, volume, periodization, physiological determinants, and performance characteristics. The primary findings of this review are that (1) elite rowers display a wide range of weekly training volumes, with evidence suggesting that even lower training volumes can be sufficient for maintaining or improving physiological determinants; (2) the PYR model is the most commonly used TID strategy throughout the training season; (3) traditional linear periodization models are typically employed, with a gradual reduction in training volume and a progressive polarization of TID as athletes transition from the PP to the CP; (4) TIDs characterized by a combination of Z2 and Z3 training composing ∼20% or more of total training, along with over 50% Z1 training, tend to have the most significant positive effects on performance improvements; and (5) the impact of training volume, TID, and periodization models on performance improvements may be independent, suggesting that the optimal combination of these elements could yield the greatest performance benefits.
Training Volume
The included studies revealed a significant variation in the training duration of elite rowers, ranging from 10 to 31 hours per week.10,27,28,30,31,37,38 Across these studies, the most commonly reported training volume was between 14 and 20 hours per week. Additional studies excluded from this review due to lack of physiological data also reported weekly training volumes ranging from 13 to 22 hours, which aligned with our findings.44–48 Interestingly, evidence suggests that as little as 10 hours of weekly training may be sufficient to maintain and improve
Training-Intensity Distribution
Observational studies reflect the actual training regimens of elite athletes, whereas experimental studies tend to modify them to varying degrees. Among the observational studies reviewed, the PYR model was the most frequently employed by elite rowers, followed by THR and POL models. Furthermore, some excluded studies indicated that elite rowers predominantly used the PYR model44–46,48,49 without mention of POL or THR models. These findings highlight the widespread use of the PYR model in elite rowing training, which may reflect its perceived effectiveness in practice. Previous research has also highlighted that a high volume of Z1 training (as seen in PYR and POL models) benefits endurance athletes in disciplines such as swimming, cycling, and running.11–13
However, notable variations exist within some PYR models employed by elite rowers. Although they adhere to the PYR model (eg, PYR structures [Z1-Z2-Z3, % in hours] such as 72-25-3 vs 87-8-5), their structure differences (15% in Z1 and 17% in Z2) could elicit different adaptations in physiological determinants and performance. Moreover, when the distributional differences between different models (eg, PYR vs POL) are minimal, the effects on physiological and performance adaptations tend to be insignificant. For instance, Treff et al32 compared the effects of 2 different yet structurally similar models over 11 weeks (PYR 94-3-2 vs POL 93-1-6) and found no significant differences in performance or physiological adaptations between groups. These minimal differences in model structures suggest that the models are largely similar, which may explain why such slight variations are unlikely to result in significant differences in physiological determinants and performance. However, it is important to recognize that the 3 models commonly employed in sports science are conceptual frameworks created by researchers that are imperfect but need to be continuously validated and optimized. Given the relatively small differences in structure between these models, it could be argued that the current framework may not be sensitive enough to guide training plans with high precision. In rowing training, Z1 training aims to improve rowing technique, enhance aerobic capacity, and increase training variety.50 Training at Z2 aims to strengthen lactate tolerance by improving muscle-specific lactate clearance, which helps enhance the athlete’s endurance capacity during competition.51 Training at Z3 focuses on boosting the athlete’s maximal power output, anaerobic capacity, and ability to sustain all-out exercise while also simulating competitive conditions.50
The 8 included observational studies reported TID in different formats, depending on the research objectives. These included TID data across different phases (eg, an entire season or specific phases)10,27,28,31 and for individual athletes or the entire team.52 Among these approaches, the most commonly used method was reporting the TID of the entire season for all athletes due to its simplicity and comparability. However, it is important to recognize that this averaging approach may introduce bias, limiting the ability of readers to extrapolate the findings into alternative formats. For example, in Treff et al’s study, 2 participants followed a POL model and 6 followed a PYR model, but the overall data only represented the PYR model. Similarly, when different TID models are used during various phases of the season, reporting only the entire season’s TID could obscure other relevant TID patterns.10 These different reporting formats, aside from the season phase, the time remaining before major competitions (eg, Olympic games), and the training objectives, also partially explain the variations in the TID of these elite rowers. Therefore, we strongly recommend that future research report overall seasonal TID and phase-specific TID data to provide a more comprehensive understanding of training practices.10
Across reviewed studies, the PYR model demonstrated consistent and significant improvements in certain physiological determinants and performance (eg, Ppeak, P6000 m,
In addition to adaptation differences within the same models, we identified differences and commonalities across different models. For instance, all 3 models significantly improved athletes’
Similarly, another study using the PYR model (84-8-7) reported no improvements in most performance and physiological outcomes.37 Notably, this study only analyzed training activities above or equal to the first lactate threshold, disregarding 31% of Z1 training volume (classified as Z1 in other studies), effectively reducing the actual Z2 to Z3 ratio to 10%. One study reported that the sum of training volume in Z2 and Z3 in the PYR model did not exceed 20% but still elicited significant improvements in some physiological determinants and performance.10 It is important to note that the TID reported in this study is the TID of rowing training not the TID of all training volumes, which only represents 67% of the total training volume, so it does not apply to this hypothesis.10 Other models with total training volume in Z2 and Z3 approaching or exceeding 20% consistently improved most performance and physiological outcomes. In a study employing the THR model, despite reaching 20% in Z2 and Z3, the training volume in Z1 was only 21.6% to 32.3%, resulting in no significant improvements in certain performance and physiological metrics (eg, P2[BLa], final-step MPO, D500 m, D2000 m, and D6000 m).
Periodization
Five studies provided data on periodization strategies, including traditional linear and reverse periodization. These findings align with those reporting linear periodization approaches in competitive distance runners.11 Two studies did not use a periodization strategy but showed significant improvements in physiological determinants and performance,10,30 as did studies that used the periodization strategy.27,31 This suggests that no single periodization strategy was superior to the others in terms of performance and physiological outcomes. This may be partly attributed to the inherent complexity of periodization in elite sport where multiple approaches may be similarly effective.
Athletes’ TID typically varies across different phases of the whole season to optimize performance at competition time. For instance, one study found that even when no specific periodization strategy was employed throughout the season, athletes’ TID still varied around the competition dates,10 highlighting the natural adaptation of TID in relation to key performance moments. In a traditional linear periodization model, a significant amount of Z1 training would typically occur in the PP, with more Z3 training introduced as the CP approaches. Two studies adhered to a more polarized strategy as they transitioned from the PP to CP.10,31 This strategy reduces overall training volume while polarizing the TID. Importantly, this approach does not necessarily imply using the PYR model during the PP and the POL model during the CP; instead, it could also reflect the progressive polarization of a single model, such as PYR or THR, throughout the season.31 This strategy improved performance in well-trained endurance runners,52 emphasizing the probable importance of Z2 and Z3 training for elite rowers.
Nevertheless, athletes using the THR model experienced only modest improvements in a limited number of physiological determinants when employing a traditional linear periodization approach, with no improvement in performance outcomes.31 In contrast, athletes using the PYR model demonstrated significant improvements in P2[BLa] with the same linear periodization approach,27 whereas those using the THR model did not.31 These results underscore the TID model’s significant and independent impact on the periodization strategy’s efficacy. This suggests that the contributions of various training elements, such as training volume, TID, and periodization, are likely distinct and interact in a complex manner. Therefore, integrating multiple optimized training elements may offer a more comprehensive approach to enhancing performance and physiological outcomes.
Limitations
This study has the following limitations. First, the number of studies that met the inclusion criteria was limited, and some studies were excluded because they did not report physiological indicators. Second, only one experimental study in this population was found, and the rest of the studies reviewed followed an observational approach. Therefore, most results indicate the outcomes of using different TID approaches, periodization models, or training volume. Third, there is wide variation in training characteristics, such as differences in volume and TID, across these 9 studies. Fourth, individual differences in training responses and the athletes’ training history should be acknowledged as potential sources of variability. It is well established that world-class athletes often exhibit smaller performance gains in response to training blocks than those at elite levels. Fifth, only a few of the included studies provided detailed TIDs across different phases of the season, limiting the ability to capture the fluidity of TID throughout the entire season. Finally, some studies reported only a limited number of variables or used noncomparable reporting methods, so some variables lacked sufficient evidence to verify their effectiveness because multiple factors could influence the success of a single case.
Practical Applications
This review suggests that a weekly training volume of 10 hours may be sufficient to maintain and improve elite rowers’ physiological determinants and performance. Implementing a flexible, seasonal TID model wherein the combined training in zones 2 and 3 approached or exceeded 20%, and zone 1 training comprised more than 50%, optimizes performance and physiological outcomes. For TID planning across different phases, the PYR or THR models may be suitable during the PP, with TID becoming progressively more polarized as athletes transition toward competition. Future research should prioritize reporting comprehensive TID and training volume data to facilitate comparisons across studies and enhance understanding of effective training strategies. Furthermore, more experimental studies are needed comparing the effects of different TID and periodization models on physiological determinants and performance.
Conclusions
Training duration for elite rowers varies significantly across different studies. Although 10 hours of training per week may be sufficient to maintain and enhance performance and physiological metrics, many coaches prescribe 14 to 20 hours per week for their athletes. The PYR model is the most commonly used seasonal TID strategy, followed by the THR and POL models. There is no conclusive evidence that any particular TID or periodization model has a clear advantage. However, TID models alone may not fully explain training adaptations in elite rowers; the specific distribution of training intensities (eg, the combined training in zones 2 and 3 approached or exceeded 20%, and zone 1 training comprised more than 50%) appears to be important for driving significant improvements in performance and physiological outcomes. Training adaptations appear consistent across similar structures, irrespective of the specific TID model used, provided that the distribution aligns with the proportion.
Acknowledgments
This paper is supported by the National Social Science Fund of China (grant number: 24BTY097).
References
- 1.↑
Pripstein LP, Rhodes EC, McKenzie DC, Coutts KD. Aerobic and anaerobic energy during a 2-km race simulation in female rowers. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1999;79(6):491–494. doi:
- 2.
de Campos Mello F, de Moraes Bertuzzi RC, Grangeiro PM, Franchini E. Energy systems contributions in 2,000 m race simulation: a comparison among rowing ergometers and water. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2009;107(5):615–619. doi:
- 3.↑
Secher NH, Vaage O, Jensen K, Jackson RC. Maximal aerobic power in oarsmen. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1983;51(2):155–162. doi:
- 4.↑
Steinacker JM, Lormes W, Lehmann M, Altenburg D. Training of rowers before world championships. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30(7):1158–1163. doi:
- 5.↑
Lawton TW, Cronin JB, McGuigan MR. Strength, power, and muscular endurance exercise and elite rowing ergometer performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(7):1928–1935. doi:
- 6.↑
Fischer M, Secher NH. Results for world rowing federation and Olympic events 1893–2019. Res Sports Med. 2022;30(1):101–107. doi:
- 7.↑
Bourdin M, Messonnier L, Hager JP, Lacour JR. Peak power output predicts rowing ergometer performance in elite male rowers. Int J Sports Med. 2004;25(5):368–373. doi:
- 8.
Ingham SA, Whyte GP, Jones K, Nevill AM. Determinants of 2,000 m rowing ergometer performance in elite rowers. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002;88(3):243–246. doi:
- 10.↑
Zhong Y, Zheng H, Weldon A, et al. Training volume, intensity, and performance of world-class Chinese rowers prior to the 2019 world championships: a case study. Int J Sports Sci Sci Coach. 2024;10:559. doi:
- 11.↑
Casado A, González-Mohíno F, González-Ravé JM, Foster C. Training periodization, methods, intensity distribution, and volume in highly trained and elite distance runners: a systematic review. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2022;17(6):820–833. doi:
- 12.↑
Galán-Rioja M, Gonzalez-Ravé JM, González-Mohíno F, Seiler S. Training periodization, intensity distribution, and volume in trained cyclists: a systematic review. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2023;18(2):112–122. doi:
- 13.↑
González-Ravé JM, Hermosilla F, González-Mohíno F, Casado A, Pyne DB. Training intensity distribution, training volume, and periodization models in elite swimmers: a systematic review. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2021;16(7):913–926. doi:
- 14.↑
Seiler S. What is best practice for training intensity and duration distribution in endurance athletes? Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2010;5(3):276–291. doi:
- 15.↑
Campos Y, Casado A, Vieira JG, et al. Training-intensity distribution on middle- and long-distance runners: a systematic review. Int J Sports Med. 2022;43(4):305–316. doi:
- 16.↑
Neal CM, Hunter AM, Brennan L, et al. Six weeks of a polarized training-intensity distribution leads to greater physiological and performance adaptations than a threshold model in trained cyclists. J Appl Physiol. 2013;114(4):461–471. doi:
- 17.↑
Stöggl T, Sperlich B. Polarized training has greater impact on key endurance variables than threshold, high intensity, or high volume training. Front Physiol. 2014;5:33. doi:
- 18.↑
Billat VL, Demarle A, Slawinski J, Paiva M, Koralsztein JP. Physical and training characteristics of top-class marathon runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33(12):2089–2097. doi:
- 19.
Esteve-Lanao J, San Juan AF, Earnest CP, Foster C, Lucia A. How do endurance runners actually train? Relationship with competition performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(3):496–504. doi:
- 20.
Steinacker JM, Lormes W, Kellmann M, et al. Training of junior rowers before world championships. Effects on performance, mood state and selected hormonal and metabolic responses. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2000;40(4):327–335. PubMed ID: 11297003
- 21.
Schumacher YO, Mueller P. The 4000-m team pursuit cycling world record: theoretical and practical aspects. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;34(6):1029–1036. doi:
- 22.
Torvik P, Solli GS, Sandbakk Ø. The training characteristics of world-class male long-distance cross-country skiers. Front Sports Act Living. 2021;3:641389. doi:
- 23.↑
Sperlich B, Matzka M, Holmberg HC. The proportional distribution of training by elite endurance athletes at different intensities during different phases of the season. Front Sports Act Living. 2023;5:1258585. doi:
- 24.↑
Sharma AP, Saunders PU, Garvican-Lewis LA, et al. Training quantification and periodization during live high train high at 2100 m in elite runners: an observational cohort case study. J Sport Sci Med. 2018;17(4):607–616. PubMed ID: 30479529
- 25.↑
Stellingwerff T. Case study: nutrition and training periodization in three elite marathon runners. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2012;22(5):392–400. doi:
- 27.↑
Boone J, Caen K, Lievens M, Bourgois G, Colosio AL, Bourgois JG. Physical preparation of a world-class lightweight men’s double sculls team for the Tokyo 2020 Olympics. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2022;17(12):1741–1747. doi:
- 28.↑
Das A, Kaniganti US, Shenoy SJ, Majumdar P, Syamal AK. Monitoring training load, muscle damage, and body composition changes of elite Indian rowers during a periodized training program. J Sci Sport Exerc. 2023;5(4):348–359. doi:
- 29.↑
Lacour JR, Messonnier L, Bourdin M. Physiological correlates of performance. case study of a world-class rower. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2009;106(3):407–413. doi:
- 30.↑
Mikulic P, Bralic N. Elite status maintained: a 12-year physiological and performance follow-up of two Olympic champion rowers. J Sports Sci. 2018;36(6):660–665. doi:
- 31.↑
Tran J, Rice AJ, Main LC, Gastin PB. Profiling the training practices and performances of elite rowers. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2015;10(5):572–580. doi:
- 32.↑
Treff G, Winkert K, Sareban M, Steinacker JM, Becker M, Sperlich B. Eleven-week preparation involving polarized intensity distribution is not superior to pyramidal distribution in national elite rowers. Front Physiol. 2017;8:515. doi:
- 33.↑
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350:g7647. doi:
- 34.↑
de Morton NA. The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials: a demographic study. Aust J Physiother. 2009;55(2):129–133. doi:
- 35.↑
Wells GA, Wells G, Shea B, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses. Cochrane Methods Methodology; 2014.
- 36.↑
Medicine CfE-B. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine: Levels of Evidence. University of Oxford; 2024. Accessed August 8, 2024. https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/oxford-centre-for-evidence-based-medicine-levels-of-evidence-march-2009
- 37.↑
Treff G, Leppich R, Winkert K, Steinacker JM, Mayer B, Sperlich B. The integration of training and off-training activities substantially alters training volume and load analysis in elite rowers. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):17218. doi:
- 38.↑
Jastrzebski Z, Zychowska M. Effects of 6-week specific low-intensity training on selected aerobic capacity parameters and HSPA1A, HSPB1, and LDHb gene expression in high-level rowers. Genet Mol Res. 2015;14(3):7538–7547. doi:
- 39.↑
Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Elkins M. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther. 2003;83(8):713–721. PubMed ID: 12882612
- 40.↑
Baz-Valle E, Fontes-Villalba M, Santos-Concejero J. Total number of sets as a training volume quantification method for muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review. J Strength Cond Res. 2021;35(3):870–878. doi:
- 41.↑
Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low- vs. high-load resistance training: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(12):3508–3523. doi:
- 42.↑
Ingham SA, Carter H, Whyte GP, Doust JH. Physiological and performance effects of low- versus mixed-intensity rowing training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(3):579–584. doi:
- 43.↑
McKay AKA, Stellingwerff T, Smith ES, et al. Defining training and performance caliber: a participant classification framework. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2022;17(2):317–331. doi:
- 44.↑
Plews DJ, Laursen PB, Buchheit M. Day-to-day heart-rate variability recordings in world-champion rowers: appreciating unique athlete characteristics. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12(5):697–703. doi:
- 45.
Plews DJ, Laursen PB, Kilding AE, Buchheit M. Heart-rate variability and training-intensity distribution in elite rowers. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2014;9(6):1026–1032. doi:
- 46.↑
Main LC, Dawson B, Grove JR, Landers GJ, Goodman C. Impact of training on changes in perceived stress and cytokine production. Res Sports Med. 2009;17(2):112–123. doi:
- 47.
Messonnier L, Aranda-Berthouze SE, Bourdin M, Bredel Y, Lacour JR. Rowing performance and estimated training load. Int J Sports Med. 2005;26(5):376–382. doi:
- 48.↑
Guellich A, Seiler S, Emrich E. Training methods and intensity distribution of young world-class rowers. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2009;4(4):448–460. doi:
- 49.↑
Sitkowski D, Klusiewicz A, Pokrywka A, Jankowski W, Malczewska-Lenczowska J. Relationships between changes in hematological adaptations and exercise capacity in Olympic rowers after a period of reduced training loads. J Hum Kinet. 2023;86(1):155–164. doi:
- 50.↑
Fiskerstrand A, Seiler KS. Training and performance characteristics among Norwegian international rowers 1970–2001. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2004;14(5):303–310. doi:
- 51.↑
Philp A, Macdonald AL, Carter H, Watt PW, Pringle JS. Maximal lactate steady state as a training stimulus. Int J Sports Med. 2008;29(6):475–479. doi:
- 52.↑
Filipas L, Bonato M, Gallo G, Codella R. Effects of 16 weeks of pyramidal and polarized training intensity distributions in well-trained endurance runners. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2022;32(3):498–511. doi:
