Introduction: The Concept 2 (C2) rowing ergometer is used worldwide for home-based training, official competitions, and performance assessment in sports and science. Previous studies reported a disparate underestimation of mechanical power output positively related to an unclearly defined stroke variability. The aim of this study was to quantify the accuracy of the C2 while controlling for the potentially influencing variables of the rowing stroke by using a test rig for air-braked rowing ergometers and thus excluding biological variability.

Methods: A unique motorized test rig for rowing ergometers was employed. Accuracy was assessed as the difference in mechanical power output between C2 and a reference system during steady (i.e., minimal variations of stroke power within a series of 50 spacemark, no -strokes) and unsteady simulated rowing (i.e., persistent variations during measurement series) while manipulating the stroke variables shape, force, or rate.

Results: During steady simulated rowing, differences between C2 and the reference system ranged 2.9–4.3%. Differences were not significantly affected by stroke shapes (P = 0.153), but by stroke rates ranging 22–28 min⁻¹ (P < 0.001). During unsteady simulated rowing with alterations of stroke force and rate, mean differences of 2.5–3.9% were similar as during steady simulated rowing, but the random error increased up to 18-fold. C2 underestimated mechanical power output of the first five strokes by 10–70%. Their exclusion reduced mean differences to 0.2–1.9%.

Conclusion: Due to the enormous underestimation of the start strokes, the nominal accuracy of the C2 depends on the total number of strokes considered. It ranges 0.2–1.9%, once the flywheel has been sufficiently accelerated. Inaccuracy increases with uneven rowing, but the stroke shape has a marginal impact. Hence, rowers should row as even as possible and prefer higher stroke rates to optimize C2 readings. We recommend external reference systems for scientific and high-performance assessments, especially for short tests designs where the start strokes will have a major impact.

Purpose: The effects of two different high-intensity training methods on 2,000 m rowing ergometer performance were examined in a feasibility study of 24 national-level rowers aged 18–27 years (17 males, 2,000 m ergometer time trial 6:21.7 ± 0:14.6 (min:s) and seven females, 2,000 m ergometer 7:20.3 ± 0:12.1. Habitual training for all participants was ~12–16 h per week).

Methods: 16 high-intensity ergometer sessions were completed across two 3-week periods. Participants were allocated into two groups according to baseline 2,000 m time. High-intensity interval session-sprint-interval session (HIIT-SIT) completed eight HIIT (8 × 2.5 min intervals; 95% of 2,000 m wattage) followed by eight SIT (three sets of 7 × 30 s intervals; maximum effort). SIT-HIIT completed eight SIT sessions followed by eight HIIT sessions. Both a 2,000-m time trial and a progressive incremental test finishing with 4 min “all-out” performance were completed before and after each 3-week phase.

Results: Both groups showed similar improvements in 2,000 m time and 4 min “all-out” distance after the first 3 weeks (2,000 m time: HIIT-SIT: −2.0 ± 0.6%, mean ± 90% CL, p = 0.01; SIT-HIIT: −1.5 ± 0.3%, p = 0.01) with no significant difference between groups. HIIT-SIT demonstrated the greatest improvements in submaximal heart rate (HR) during the progressive incremental test with eight sessions of HIIT showing a greater reduction in submaximal HR than eight sessions of SIT. The net improvement of 16 high-intensity sessions on 2,000 m time was −2.5% for HIIT-SIT (−10.6 ± 3.9 s, p = 0.01) and − 2.2% for SIT-HIIT (−9.0 ± 5.7 s, p = 0.01) and for 4 min “all-out” performance was 3.1% for HIIT-SIT (36 ± 25 m, p = 0.01) and 2.8% for SIT-HIIT (33 ± 27 m, p = 0.01).

Conclusion: Eight sessions of high-intensity training can improve 2,000 m ergometer rowing performance in national-level rowers, with a further eight sessions producing minimal additional improvement. The method of high-intensity training appears less important than the dose.

Background: Little is known about the anthropometric and physiological profiles of lower-ranking athletes who aspire to rise to the pinnacle of their profession.

Aim: The aim of this study was to create anthropometric and physiological profiles of Hungarian male rowers of different age categories (15–16, 17–18, and over 18 years), sports rankings and career lengths.

Materials and Methods: Anthropometric and physiological profiles were created for 55 juniors, 52 older juniors and 23 seniors representing seven of the largest Hungarian rowing clubs. One-way independent analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare arithmetic means.

Results: Rowers in older age categories were significantly taller (185.0 ± 5.0 cm vs. 183.0 ± 7.3 cm vs. 178.7 ± 7.2 cm) and heavier (81.1 ± 8.8 kg vs. 73.7 ± 8.4 kg vs. 66.8 ± 12.3 kg) than their younger peers, with significantly higher BMI values and larger body dimensions. Compared to younger athletes, rowers in older age categories also covered 2,000 m significantly faster (6.6 ± 0.3 min vs. 6.9 ± 0.4 min vs. 7.5 ± 0.5 min) while developing significantly more power (372.2 ± 53.0 W vs. 326.8 ± 54.5 W vs. 250.6 ± 44.6 W). Similarly, seniors and older juniors had higher values of maximal oxygen uptake and force max (by 6.2 and 7.0 ml/kg/min, and by 263.4 and 169.8 N). Within the older juniors, internationally ranked rowers had significantly greater body height (+ 5.9 cm), body mass (+ 6.1 kg), sitting height (+ 2.7 cm), arm span (+ 7.9 cm), limb length (+ 3.73 cm) and body surface area (+ 0.21 m²). They also rowed 2,000 m significantly faster (–0.43 min, p < 0.001) and had significantly higher values of power (+ 58.3 W), relative power (+ 0.41 W/kg), jump height (+ 4.5 cm), speed max (+ 0.18 m/s) and force max (+ 163.22 N).

Conclusion: The study demonstrated that potential differences in anthropometric and physiological profiles are more difficult to capture in non-elite rowers, and that the final outcome may be determined by external factors. Therefore, athletes with superior aptitude for rowing are more difficult to select from among lower-ranking rowers, and further research is needed to determine specific training requirements to achieve the maximum rowing performance.