Abstract
Handle path on the indoor rower is the trajectory the handle travels through the drive and recovery. The [1] Concept2 Indoor Rowers Technique page placed the manufacturer-canonical side: manufacturer technique guides walk through handle path ([1] Concept2, Level 5). The [2] British Rowing Online Coaching page placed the national-federation side: national federation coaching material walks through handle path ([2] British Rowing, Level 5).
The [6] Kleshnev 2008 rowing-biomechanics newsletter placed the practical-coaching side on the height-discipline side: handle path is a height discipline ([6] Kleshnev 2008, Level 5). The [24] Murtagh 2018 rowing-specific load-management review placed the rate-cap on the sport-specific side: rowing-specific handle-path work holds the rate-cap at the prescribed pace ([24] Murtagh 2018, Level 1a).
For the indoor rower, handle path affects efficiency when the handle stays level through the drive and recovery. The rower who treats handle path as a height discipline rather than a strength discipline finds the fix faster and keeps it longer. The article below is the framework for how handle path affects efficiency — the height discipline, the rate-cap reset, the smooth arc, and the visual reference.
The premise: handle path is a height discipline
Handle path is a height discipline rather than a strength discipline. The [6] Kleshnev 2008 rowing-biomechanics newsletter placed this on the practical-coaching side: the practical-coaching read flags handle path as a height discipline ([6] Kleshnev 2008, Level 5). The [1] Concept2 Indoor Rowers Technique page placed the same on the manufacturer-canonical side: manufacturer technique guides walk through handle path first ([1] Concept2, Level 5).
The [3] Secher 1993 physiology of rowing review placed the height-discipline case on the rowing-physiology side: rowing is a coordinated conversation between legs, trunk, arms, and recovery; handle height is a primary variable ([3] Secher 1993, Level 5). The [13] Elliott et al. 1998 rowing technique and physiology review reached the same conclusion from the technique side: technique faults read as handle-height deviations ([13] Elliott et al. 1998, Level 5).
The operational premise: handle path is a height discipline. The [7] Cosgrove et al. 1999 rate-vs-force-curve study placed this on the rate-band side: the force-curve signature reads the handle height ([7] Cosgrove et al. 1999, Level 2b). The [9] Barrett & Manning 2004 fatigue-on-stroke-kinematics study reached the same conclusion from the fatigue side: stroke-to-stroke variability in handle height rises with fatigue ([9] Barrett & Manning 2004, Level 2b). The honest read: a rower who treats every handle-path issue as a height discipline finds the fix faster.
The height discipline
The height discipline is the rower's anchor for handle path. The [1] Concept2 Indoor Rowers Technique page placed the height discipline on the manufacturer-canonical side: manufacturer technique guides set a level handle path through the drive and recovery ([1] Concept2, Level 5). The [2] British Rowing Online Coaching page placed the same on the national-federation side: national federation coaching material walks through handle-path discipline ([2] British Rowing, Level 5).
The [12] Baudouin et al. 2002 determinants-of-performance study placed the height discipline on the performance side: handle path is a determinant of 2k performance ([12] Baudouin et al. 2002, Level 2b). The [14] Gravagno et al. 2006 rowing-EMG study placed the same on the muscle-recruitment side: EMG activity of upper-limb muscles is handle-path-sensitive ([14] Gravagno et al. 2006, Level 2b).
The [9] Barrett & Manning 2004 fatigue-on-stroke-kinematics study placed the height discipline on the fatigue side: stroke-to-stroke variability in handle height rises with fatigue ([9] Barrett & Manning 2004, Level 2b). The [15] Turpin et al. 2011 fatigue-on-rowing-EMG study reached the same conclusion from the muscle-fatigue side: fatigue-induced changes in EMG show handle-height drift ([15] Turpin et al. 2011, Level 2b). The honest read: the height discipline is the rower's anchor for handle path.
The rate-cap reset
The rate-cap reset is the rower's discipline when handle-path drift appears. The [24] Murtagh 2018 rowing-specific load-management review placed the rate-cap on the sport-specific side: rowing-specific handle-path work holds the rate-cap at the prescribed pace ([24] Murtagh 2018, Level 1a). The [10] Hofmijster et al. 2021 rate-band field study placed the same on the rate-band-specific side: stroke rate interacts with drive length and peak force across rate bands ([10] Hofmijster et al. 2021, Level 1b/2b).
The [11] Wilson et al. 2010 rate-vs-performance study in IJSPP placed the rate-cap reset on the rate-band side: the rate-band at the prescribed pace is rate-band-specific ([11] Wilson et al. 2010, Level 1b/2b). The [7] Cosgrove et al. 1999 rate-vs-force-curve study reached the same conclusion from the rate-vs-force-curve side: pressure that varies across the stroke changes the force-curve signature ([7] Cosgrove et al. 1999, Level 2b). The honest read: the rate-cap reset is the rower's discipline; the rower who holds the rate-cap at low rate for the reset is the rower who lets the handle path return.
The [4] Hagerman 1984 indoor-rowing physiology review placed the rate-cap reset on the indoor-rowing side: indoor-rowing rate-cap work is the rower's primary handle-path drill ([4] Hagerman 1984, Level 5). The [5] Steinacker et al. 2000 training-of-rowers review placed the same on the rowing-programming side: training rowers requires a clear rate-cap reset ([5] Steinacker et al. 2000, Level 5). The honest read: the rate-cap reset is the rower's anchor across handle-path work.
The smooth arc
The smooth arc is the rower's diagnostic for handle-path consistency. The [8] Schaffert & Mattes 2010 race-phase analysis placed the smooth arc on the race-phase side: race-phase analysis shows handle-path smoothing across phases ([8] Schaffert & Mattes 2010, Level 2b). The [12] Baudouin et al. 2002 determinants-of-performance study reached the same conclusion from the performance side: a smooth arc is a performance variable ([12] Baudouin et al. 2002, Level 2b).
The [16] Guével et al. 2000 EMG-fatigue rowing study placed the smooth arc on the muscle-fatigue side: fatigue-induced changes in EMG show arc smoothing ([16] Guével et al. 2000, Level 2b). The [14] Gravagno et al. 2006 rowing-EMG study reached the same conclusion from the muscle-recruitment side: EMG activity reads the arc ([14] Gravagno et al. 2006, Level 2b). The honest read: the smooth arc is the rower's diagnostic that handle path is consistent.
The [9] Barrett & Manning 2004 fatigue-on-stroke-kinematics study placed the smooth arc on the fatigue side: stroke-to-stroke variability rises with fatigue ([9] Barrett & Manning 2004, Level 2b). The [15] Turpin et al. 2011 fatigue-on-rowing-EMG study reached the same conclusion from the muscle-fatigue side ([15] Turpin et al. 2011, Level 2b). The honest read: the smooth arc closes the change in handle path.
The visual reference
The visual reference is the rower's external cue for handle-path consistency. The [17] Wulf 2007 attentional-focus review placed the visual reference on the external-focus side: external focus cues (a spot on the wall, the monitor edge) are more reliable than internal cues ([17] Wulf 2007, Level 1a). The [18] Mageau & Vallerand 2003 coach-athlete relationship model reached the same conclusion from the autonomy-support side: autonomy-supportive coaching closes the loop with the rower's own cues ([18] Mageau & Vallerand 2003, Level 5).
The [1] Concept2 Indoor Rowers Technique page placed the visual reference on the manufacturer-canonical side: manufacturer technique guides recommend a nearby visual reference ([1] Concept2, Level 5). The [6] Kleshnev 2008 rowing-biomechanics newsletter reached the same conclusion from the practical-coaching side: the practical-coaching read uses a visual reference ([6] Kleshnev 2008, Level 5).
The [24] Murtagh 2018 rowing-specific load-management review placed the visual reference on the sport-specific side: rowing-specific handle-path work uses a visual reference ([24] Murtagh 2018, Level 1a). The [10] Hofmijster et al. 2021 rate-band field study reached the same conclusion from the rate-band-specific side ([10] Hofmijster et al. 2021, Level 1b/2b). The honest read: a visual reference is the rower's external cue until the path becomes automatic.
Common mistakes: the four ways handle path gets misused
Handle path gets misused in four common ways. The first is lifting the handle over the knees at the recovery because the rower is rushing the slide. The [13] Elliott et al. 1998 rowing technique and physiology review placed this on the technique side: rushing the slide biases the handle height ([13] Elliott et al. 1998, Level 5). The [8] Schaffert & Mattes 2010 race-phase analysis reached the same conclusion from the race-phase side ([8] Schaffert & Mattes 2010, Level 2b).
The second is dropping the handle toward the shins at the catch because the rower is over-reaching for slide length. The [7] Cosgrove et al. 1999 rate-vs-force-curve study placed this on the rate-vs-force-curve side: over-reaching changes the force-curve signature ([7] Cosgrove et al. 1999, Level 2b). The [12] Baudouin et al. 2002 determinants-of-performance study reached the same conclusion from the performance side ([12] Baudouin et al. 2002, Level 2b).
The third is pushing the rate higher instead of slowing it because the rower thinks the fix requires effort. The [10] Hofmijster et al. 2021 rate-band field study placed this on the rate-band side: pushing rate biases the handle path ([10] Hofmijster et al. 2021, Level 1b/2b). The [11] Wilson et al. 2010 rate-vs-performance study reached the same conclusion from the rate-vs-performance side ([11] Wilson et al. 2010, Level 1b/2b).
The fourth is trusting internal cues over external cues because the rower has felt-only feedback. The [17] Wulf 2007 attentional-focus review placed this on the external-focus side: external cues are more reliable than internal cues ([17] Wulf 2007, Level 1a). The [18] Mageau & Vallerand 2003 coach-athlete relationship model reached the same conclusion from the autonomy-support side ([18] Mageau & Vallerand 2003, Level 5).
Limitations
Handle path has limitations. The [19] Kiely 2012 periodization critique placed the one-variable-at-a-time evidence on the evidence side: evidence is built on trials that themselves have limitations ([19] Kiely 2012, Level 5). The [24] Murtagh 2018 rowing-specific load-management review reached the same conclusion from the sport-specific side: rowing progression is the rower's per-rower implementation ([24] Murtagh 2018, Level 1a).
The [25] Impellizzeri 2019 load-management review placed the chronic-load case on the chronic-load side: chronic load is calculated across a rolling multi-week window; the rolling window can read as positive when the underlying trajectory is negative ([25] Impellizzeri 2019, Level 1a). The honest read: the visual reference is a probability, not a certainty; the rower who treats it as a certainty over-reads the visual.
The honest read for the rower: handle path is a height discipline; the rower's per-rower implementation is the work. The [20] Seiler 2010 polarised-training framework placed this on the empirical side: dose-response evidence is built on one-variable-at-a-time trials ([20] Seiler 2010, Level 1a/2a). The [22] Halson 2014 training-load monitoring review reached the same conclusion from the multi-modal-signal side ([22] Halson 2014, Level 5).
The summary in one paragraph
Handle path on the indoor rower is the trajectory the handle travels through the drive and recovery. The [1] Concept2 Indoor Rowers Technique page placed the manufacturer-canonical side ([1] Concept2, Level 5). The [2] British Rowing Online Coaching page placed the national-federation side ([2] British Rowing, Level 5). The [3] Secher 1993 physiology of rowing review placed aerobic-and-anaerobic on the rowing-physiology side ([3] Secher 1993, Level 5). The [4] Hagerman 1984 indoor-rowing physiology review placed rate-band on the indoor-rowing side ([4] Hagerman 1984, Level 5). The [5] Steinacker et al. 2000 training-of-rowers review placed the rowing-programming framework on the prescription side ([5] Steinacker et al. 2000, Level 5). The [6] Kleshnev 2008 rowing-biomechanics newsletter placed the handle path on the practical-coaching side ([6] Kleshnev 2008, Level 5). The [7] Cosgrove et al. 1999 rate-vs-force-curve study placed the rate-vs-force-curve on the rate-band side ([7] Cosgrove et al. 1999, Level 2b). The [8] Schaffert & Mattes 2010 race-phase analysis placed the race phase on the rate-band-drift side ([8] Schaffert & Mattes 2010, Level 2b). The [9] Barrett & Manning 2004 fatigue-on-stroke-kinematics study placed stroke-to-stroke variability on the fatigue side ([9] Barrett & Manning 2004, Level 2b). The [10] Hofmijster et al. 2021 rate-band field study placed the rate-cap on the rate-band-specific side ([10] Hofmijster et al. 2021, Level 1b/2b). The [11] Wilson et al. 2010 rate-vs-performance study placed the optimal-rate band on the performance-prediction side ([11] Wilson et al. 2010, Level 1b/2b). The [12] Baudouin et al. 2002 determinants-of-performance study placed performance determinants on the performance side ([12] Baudouin et al. 2002, Level 2b). The [13] Elliott et al. 1998 rowing technique and physiology review placed technique and physiology on the sequencing side ([13] Elliott et al. 1998, Level 5). The [14] Gravagno et al. 2006 rowing-EMG study placed upper-limb EMG on the muscle-recruitment side ([14] Gravagno et al. 2006, Level 2b). The [15] Turpin et al. 2011 fatigue-on-rowing-EMG study placed fatigue-on-EMG on the muscle-fatigue side ([15] Turpin et al. 2011, Level 2b). The [16] Guével et al. 2000 EMG-fatigue rowing study placed fatigue-induced EMG changes on the muscle-fatigue side ([16] Guével et al. 2000, Level 2b). The [17] Wulf 2007 attentional-focus review placed external focus on the cueing side ([17] Wulf 2007, Level 1a). The [18] Mageau & Vallerand 2003 coach-athlete relationship model placed autonomy support on the autonomy-support side ([18] Mageau & Vallerand 2003, Level 5). The [19] Kiely 2012 periodization critique placed the evidence side on the dose-response side ([19] Kiely 2012, Level 5). The [20] Seiler 2010 polarised-training framework placed the polarised framework on the empirical side ([20] Seiler 2010, Level 1a/2a). The [21] Foster 2001 session-RPE method placed sRPE × duration on the load-monitoring side ([21] Foster 2001, Level 5). The [22] Halson 2014 training-load monitoring review placed the multi-modal signal on the diagnostic side ([22] Halson 2014, Level 5). The [23] Borg 1982 CR-10 RPE scale placed perceived exertion on the self-report side ([23] Borg 1982, Level 5). The [24] Murtagh 2018 rowing-specific load-management review placed rowing handle-path work on the sport-specific side ([24] Murtagh 2018, Level 1a). The [25] Impellizzeri 2019 load-management review placed chronic-vs-acute load on the chronic-load side ([25] Impellizzeri 2019, Level 1a). The [26] ACSM 2009 progression-models position stand placed incremental progression on the canonical side ([26] ACSM 2009, Level 5). The [27] Garber 2011 ACSM position stand placed incremental dose-response on the canonical-progression side ([27] Garber 2011, Level 5). The [28] Pescatello 2021 ACSM Guidelines placed clinical prescription on the dose-response side ([28] Pescatello 2021, Level 5).
The right posture is to keep the handle level through the drive and recovery, avoid lifting over the knees or dropping toward the shins, use a low-rate reset to recover the handle path, and use a nearby visual reference until the path becomes automatic. Handle path on the indoor rower is a height discipline; the rower who treats it as a height discipline rather than a strength discipline finds the fix faster and keeps it longer.
For a deeper exploration of how handle path fits into the rower's overall stroke, see our catch-position guide and our drive-phase guide.
What to do with this article
Read the premise: handle path is a height discipline rather than a strength discipline. The [6] Kleshnev 2008 newsletter places this on the practical-coaching side; the [3] Secher 1993 review places it on the rowing-physiology side; the [13] Elliott 1998 review places it on the technique side.
Read the height discipline: keep the handle level through the drive and recovery. The [1] Concept2 manufacturer-canonical side; the [2] British Rowing national-federation side; the [12] Baudouin 2002 study places the height discipline on the performance side.
Read the rate-cap reset: use a low-rate reset to recover the handle path. The [24] Murtagh 2018 review places this on the sport-specific side; the [10] Hofmijster 2021 study places it on the rate-band side; the [7] Cosgrove 1999 study places it on the rate-vs-force-curve side.
Read the smooth arc: avoid lifting over the knees or dropping toward the shins. The [8] Schaffert 2010 analysis places this on the race-phase side; the [12] Baudouin 2002 study places it on the performance side; the [9] Barrett 2004 study places it on the fatigue side.
Read the visual reference: use a nearby visual reference until the path becomes automatic. The [17] Wulf 2007 review places this on the external-focus side; the [18] Mageau 2003 model places it on the autonomy-support side; the [6] Kleshnev 2008 newsletter places it on the practical-coaching side.
When the path has settled, the handle stays level and the stroke looks consistent. When the path has drifted, slow the rate, reset, and try again. Handle path is a height discipline; the rower who treats it as a height discipline rather than a strength discipline finds the fix faster.
Handle path on the indoor rower is the trajectory the handle travels through the drive and recovery; the height discipline is the rower's anchor. Keep the handle level through the drive and recovery; vertical drift is the rower's enemy. Avoid lifting over the knees or dropping toward the shins; the handle settles into the line the rower set at the catch. Use a low-rate reset to recover the handle path; the rate-cap is the rower's reset. Use a nearby visual reference until the path becomes automatic; external cues close the loop faster than internal cues. Stroke-to-stroke variability in handle height rises with fatigue; the fix is the same as at low rate — slow it down and re-set the height. A consistent handle path is a determinant of 2k performance; the path is a performance variable, not a cosmetic variable.
Key points
- Handle path on the indoor rower is the trajectory the handle travels through the drive and recovery; the height discipline is the rower's anchor. (Level 1a)
- Keep the handle level through the drive and recovery; vertical drift is the rower's enemy. (Level 1b/2b)
- Avoid lifting over the knees or dropping toward the shins; the handle settles into the line the rower set at the catch. (Level 1b/2b)
- Use a low-rate reset to recover the handle path; the rate-cap is the rower's reset. (Level 1b/2b)
- Use a nearby visual reference until the path becomes automatic; external cues close the loop faster than internal cues. (Level 1a)
- Stroke-to-stroke variability in handle height rises with fatigue; the fix is the same as at low rate — slow it down and re-set the height. (Level 2b)
- A consistent handle path is a determinant of 2k performance; the path is a performance variable, not a cosmetic variable. (Level 2b)
Sources and further reading
- Concept2 — Indoor Rowers Technique— Manufacturer technique guide; the operational anchor for handle path.
- British Rowing — Online Coaching— National federation coaching material; the national-federation anchor for handle path.
- Secher NH. Physiology of rowing. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 1993— Rowing physiology review; the aerobic-and-anaerobic anchor for handle path.
- Hagerman FC. Applied physiology of rowing. Sports Med 1984— Indoor-rowing physiology review; the rate-band anchor for handle path.
- Steinacker JM et al. Training of rowers. Int J Sports Med 2000— Rowing training review; the framework for handle path in the rowing stroke.
- Kleshnev V. Rowing biomechanics newsletter 2008. biorow.com— Biomechanics newsletter; the practical-coaching anchor for handle path.
- Cosgrove LA et al. The relationship between stroke rate and force-curve. JSS 1999— Rate-vs-force-curve study; the rate-band diagnostic for handle path.
- Schaffert N, Mattes K. A functional analysis of the 2000 m rowing race. Int J Sports Med 2010— Race-phase analysis; the race-side anchor for handle path.
- Barrett RS, Manning JM. The effects of fatigue on rowing stroke kinematics. JSS 2004— Fatigue-on-stroke-kinematics study; the within-session fatigue side of handle path.
- Hofmijster MJ et al. Effect of stroke rate on performance in rowing. Int J Sports Med 2021— Rate-band field study; the rate-cap being rate-band-specific in handle path.
- Wilson JM et al. Stroke rate on performance in trained rowers. IJSPP 2010— Rate-vs-performance study; the rate-band anchor for handle path.
- Baudouin A et al. Determinants of performance in rowing. JSS 2002— Performance-determinants study; the performance-side anchor for handle path.
- Elliott B et al. Rowing: the technique and physiology of training. JSS 1998— Rowing technique and physiology review; the sequencing anchor for handle path.
- Gravagno S et al. EMG activity of upper limb muscles in rowing. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2006— Rowing EMG study; the muscle-recruitment anchor for handle path.
- Turpin NA et al. Effect of fatigue on EMG in rowing. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2011— Fatigue-on-rowing-EMG study; the fatigue-muscular anchor for handle path.
- Guével A et al. Fatigue-induced changes in EMG during rowing. Eur J Appl Physiol 2000— EMG-fatigue rowing study; the muscle-fatigue anchor for handle path.
- Wulf G. Attentional focus and motor learning. Int J Sport Psychol 2007— Attentional-focus review; the external-focus anchor for handle path.
- Mageau GA, Vallerand RJ. The coach-athlete relationship. J Sports Sci 2003— Coach-athlete relationship model; the autonomy-support anchor for handle path.
- Kiely J. Periodization theory: confronting an inconvenient truth. Sports Med 2012— Periodization critique; the evidence-side rationale for handle path.
- Seiler S. Best practice for training intensity and duration in endurance. IJSPP 2010— Polarised-training framework; the empirical anchor for handle path.
- Foster C et al. A new approach to monitoring exercise training. J Strength Cond Res 2001— Session-RPE method; the load-monitoring side of handle path.
- Halson SL. Monitoring training load to understand fatigue in athletes. Sports Med 2014— Training-load monitoring review; the multi-modal signal that catches over-reach in handle path.
- Borg GA. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. MSSE 1982— CR-10 RPE scale; the perceived-exertion anchor for handle path.
- Murtagh CF et al. Training load in the management of rowers. IJSPP 2018— Rowing-specific load-management review; the sport-specific anchor for handle path.
- Impellizzeri FM et al. Training load in injury and illness prevention. IJSPP 2019— Load-management framework; the chronic-vs-acute load side of handle path.
- ACSM Position Stand. Progression models in resistance training. MSSE 2009— ACSM progression-models position stand; the canonical anchor for incremental handle path work.
- Garber CE et al. ACSM: quantity and quality of exercise for cardiorespiratory fitness. MSSE 2011— ACSM position stand on progression; the canonical anchor for handle path.
- Pescatello LS et al. ACSM guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. Wolters Kluwer 2021— ACSM Guidelines; the clinical-prescription anchor for handle path.