Int J Sports Med 2015; 36(11): 900-905
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1398646
Training & Testing
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

The Effect of Performing Bi- and Unilateral Row Exercises on Core Muscle Activation

A. Saeterbakken
1   Faculty of Teacher Education and Sport, Sogn og Fjordane University College, Sogndal, Norway
V. Andersen
1   Faculty of Teacher Education and Sport, Sogn og Fjordane University College, Sogndal, Norway
A. Brudeseth
1   Faculty of Teacher Education and Sport, Sogn og Fjordane University College, Sogndal, Norway
H. Lund
1   Faculty of Teacher Education and Sport, Sogn og Fjordane University College, Sogndal, Norway
M. S. Fimland
2   Department of Public Health and General Practice, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
3   Hysnes Rehabilitation Center, St. Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

accepted after revision 02 January 2015

Publication Date:
02 July 2015 (online)


The purpose of the study was to compare core muscle activation in 3 different row exercises (free-weight bent-over row, seated cable row and machine row) performed unilaterally and bilaterally, at matched effort levels. 15 resistance-trained men (26.0±4.4 years, 81.0±9.5 kg, 1.81±0.07 m) performed the exercises in randomized order. For erector spinae and multifidus, EMG activities in unilateral machine- and cable row were 60–63% and 74–78% of the bilateral performance (P≤0.036). For external oblique, the EMG activities recorded during bilateral exercises were 37–41% of the unilateral performance (P≤0.010). In unilateral cable- and machine rows, the EMG activities in external oblique and multifidus were 50–57% and 70–73% of the free-weight row (P≤0.002). In bilateral free-weight row, EMG activity in erector spinae was greater than bilateral machine- (+34%, P=0.004) and unilateral free-weight rows (+12%, P=0.016). For rectus abdominis there were no significant differences between conditions. In conclusion, 1) free-weight row provided greater EMG activity in erector spinae (bilaterally and unilaterally) and multifidus (unilaterally) than machine row; 2) unilateral performance of exercises activated the external oblique more than bilateral performance, regardless of exercise; and 3) generally bilateral performance of exercises provided higher erector spinae and multifidus EMG activity compared to unilateral performance.

  • References

  • 1 Anonymous . American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41: 687-708
  • 2 Baechle TR, Earle RW. National Strength & Conditioning Association (U.S.). Essentials of strength training and conditioning. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2008
  • 3 Behm DG, Drinkwater EJ, Willardson JM, Cowley PM. The use of instability to train the core musculature. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2010; 35: 91-108
  • 4 Behm DG, Leonard AM, Young WB, Bonsey WAC, MacKinnon SN. Trunk muscle electromyographic activity with unstable and unilateral exercises. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19: 193-201
  • 5 Colado JC, Pablos C, Chulvi-Medrano I, Garcia-Masso X, Flandez J, Behm DG. The progression of paraspinal muscle recruitment intensity in localized and global strength training exercises is not based on instability alone. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011; 92: 1875-1883
  • 6 Comfort P, Pearson SJ, Mather D. An electromyographical comparison of trunk muscle activity during isometric trunk and dynamic strengthening exercises. J Strength Cond Res 2011; 25: 149-154
  • 7 Ekstrom RA, Donatelli RA, Carp KC. Electromyographic analysis of core trunk, hip, and thigh muscles during 9 rehabilitation exercises. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2007; 37: 754-762
  • 8 Farina D. Interpretation of the surface electromyogram in dynamic contractions. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2006; 34: 121-127
  • 9 Fenwick CM, Brown SH, McGill SM. Comparison of different rowing exercises: trunk muscle activation and lumbar spine motion, load, and stiffness. J Strength Cond Res 2009; 23: 350-358
  • 10 Garcia-Vaquero MP, Moreside JM, Brontons-Gil E, Peco-Gonzalez N, Vera-Garcia FJ. Trunk muscle activation during stabilization exercises with single and double leg support. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2012; 22: 398-406
  • 11 Goodman CA, Pearce AJ, Nicholes CJ, Gatt BM, Fairweather IH. No difference in 1RM strength and muscle activation during the barbell chest press on a stable and unstable surface. J Strength Cond Res 2008; 22: 88-94
  • 12 Hamlyn N, Behm DG, Young WB. Trunk muscle activation during dynamic weight-training exercises and isometric instability activities. J Strength Cond Res 2007; 21: 1108-1112
  • 13 Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. Ethical standards in sport and exercise science research: 2014 update. Int J Sports Med 2013; 34: 1025-1028
  • 14 Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Disselhorst-Klug C, Rau G. Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2000; 10: 361-374
  • 15 Kohler JM, Flanagan SP, Whiting WC. Muscle activation patterns while lifting stable and unstable loads on stable and unstable surfaces. J Strength Cond Res 2010; 24: 313-321
  • 16 Koyama Y, Kobayashi H, Suzuki S, Enoka RM. Enhancing the weight training experience: a comparison of limb kinematics and EMG activity on three machines. Eur J Appl Physiol 2010; 109: 789-801
  • 17 McBride JM, Larkin TR, Dayne AM, Haines TL, Kirby TJ. Effect of absolute and relative loading on muscle activity during stable and unstable squatting. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2010; 5: 177-183
  • 18 Norwood JT, Anderson GS, Gaetz MB, Twist PW. Electromyographic activity of the trunk stabilizers during stable and unstable bench press. J Strength Cond Res 2007; 21: 343-347
  • 19 Nuzzo JL, McCaulley GO, Cormie P, Cavill MJ, McBride JM. Trunk muscle activity during stability ball and free weight exercises. J Strength Cond Res 2008; 22: 95-102
  • 20 Oliver GD, Stone AJ, Plummer H. Electromyographic examination of selected muscle activation during isometric core exercises. Clin J Sport Med 2010; 20: 452-457
  • 21 Prieske O, Muehlbauer T, Mueller S, Krueger T, Kibele A, Behm DG, Granacher U. Effects of surface instability on neuromuscular performance during drop jumps and landings. Eur J Appl Physiol 2013; 113: 2943-2951
  • 22 Saeterbakken AH, Fimland MS. Muscle activity of the core during bilateral, unilateral, seated and standing resistance exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol 2012; 112: 1671-1678
  • 23 Saeterbakken AH, van den Tillaar R, Fimland MS. A comparison of muscle activity and 1-RM strength of three chest-press exercises with different stability requirements. J Sports Sci 2011; 29: 533-538
  • 24 Saeterbakken AH, van den Tillaar R, Seiler S. Effect of core stability training on throwing velocity in female handball players. J Strength Cond Res 2011; 25: 712-718
  • 25 Sale D, MacDougall D. Specificity in strength training: a review for the coach and athlete. Can J Appl Sport Sci 1981; 6: 87-92
  • 26 Santana JC, Vera-Garcia FJ, McGill SM. A kinetic and electromyographic comparison of the standing cable press and bench press. J Strength Cond Res 2007; 21: 1271-1277
  • 27 Schick EE, Coburn JW, Brown LE, Judelson DA, Khamoui AV, Tran TT, Uribe BP. A comparison of muscle activation between a Smith machine and free weight bench press. J Strength Cond Res 2010; 24: 779-784
  • 28 Willardson JM. Core stability training: applications to sports conditioning programs. J Strength Cond Res 2007; 21: 979-985
  • 29 Winter DA, Fuglevand AJ, Archer SE. Crosstalk in surface electromyography: Theoretical and practical estimates. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 1994; 4: 15-26