Rowing machine vs Recumbent bike

I vote for rowing over bike.
I row at the end of my workouts every other time; great conclusion to my weight training.

Another rower vote here too.

I've got a LeMond RevMasterPro spin bike (Original MSRP $1399; bought it for $1k used) and a Concept 2 - Model D rower (purchased new from Concept2 for $900 plus $45 shipping).

Hardly ever use the spin bike since I got the rower. The rower is more comfortable and gives me a better (full upper & lower body) workout than the spin bike (lower body only) can. I also find rowing much less boring. Hard to explain but I'm more "involved" mentally while rowing and time just passes more quickly.

I should just sell the spin bike but I don't need the money; spent extra money on a seat and clipless pedals & shoes that I'll never get back; I do still use it on occasion; it doesn't take up too much room; and, I think it looks pretty just sitting there - like a piece of art.

LOL!

OP: You have to decide for yourself whether you'd rather ride a recumbant outdoors or just use a rower in the house. There is also the option of buying an electronic recumbant bike machine that you can use indoors but that's likely to be much more expensive than a bike.

The better choice for you obviously will be the one YOU can afford andwill enjoy using most. Only you can answer that.

As suggested, you should try one out at a gym (there are lots of Concept2 rowers out there) b4 making the decision.

The only "problem" you may have with a rower is its size. My Concept2 occupies a dedicated 3x9 ft space behind a 7 ft sofa in my family room just off the kitchen. The location in my house actually makes it more likely for me to use it because I'm always in the kitchen and its always staring me in the face.

If you don't have that much room to dedicate to it, It can be stored vertically in less space and moved temporarily for use in an appropriate space (like a hallway) but then you'd have to move and set it up b4 each use; not a big deal but certainly less convenient than just leaving it in place.

Just something else to consider b4 you make a choice.

Which do you think you're going to use more?
It sounds like you already have a bike and you like to ride it so if I were in your position I would get a bike trainer and see how it goes. Even a mid-range smart trainer is going to be far less expensive than a Concept2 rowing machine. There are various ways to make biking inside more enjoyable to staring at a wall (Zwift, TV, etc). If I were you I would see if you can get to a gym with a rowing machine and try it out a handful of times before buying one.

I personally prefer the bike inside to rowing but I'm also a recreational cyclist and part of the reason I bike inside is because I want to perform better outside. I also just don't have money for a rowing machine. I do like to use the rowing machine at the gym for a change of pace every so often, but really I prefer the bike.

Pros for rowing:
You're engaging more than primarily your legs
You may or may not expend more calories for the same amount of time and perceived or actual effort
You likely won't deal with the potential discomfort of a saddle

Cons for rowing:
It's expensive
There's a much steeper learning curve in terms of actually rowing with good form
It takes up more space storage wise, even if you store it vertically

Pros for bike trainer:
If you already have a bike it's far cheaper (and even if you don't it's cheaper to buy an inexpensive bike and trainer than a Concept2 rower)
There are more options in terms of good brands of trainers
Takes up a very small footprint in terms of storage
There's no learning curve
It's ridiculously easy to find lots of bike workouts, including free ones (I suspect this may be true for rowing as well)
Using things like Zwift and Trainerroad can be fun and engaging for a lot of people

Cons for bike trainer:
Your core and upper body aren't doing nearly as much work
If your butt and nether regions aren't used to a saddle it's going to not be terribly fun for the first while but it does get better

If the question is whether to get a Concept 2 rowing machine or a commercial quality spin bike ... get both!!

But first drop in at a gym that has these things and see what you'd like.

Unless you have a recumbent bike, a recumbent indoor bike does almost nothing that carries over outside

Concept2 rowing machine all the way.
(WaterRower an acceptable second place )

But I'm biased cause I've been rowing since 1999, primarily on the water, top-level coxing, and now umpiring...

It does have a steeper learning curve in terms of doing it right (so, so many people in gyms do it SO BADLY WRONG that it's likely to damage the machine as well as their backs) but it's a much better workout IMO, particularly over a recumbent bike.

Of course, it depends what look you're going for as well. Stringy cardio-monster cyclist look, or well muscled rower look?

But the most important factor? If you won't use it regularly, it doesn't matter what you buy. It has to be something you enjoy using or it'll just gather dust.

sijomial wrote: »

cs2thecox wrote: »

Of course, it depends what look you're going for as well. Stringy cardio-monster cyclist look, or well muscled rower look?

I do hope the bold was said in jest?
Both cyclists and rowers come in all shapes and sizes.

Mostly, yes
Although based on my mental image of the top-level pros, and road cycling rather than track (sorry, should have said that bit).
Much more of a spread in top level road cycling admittedly, given the variance in specialist disciplines within something like the Tour peleton e.g. Cav compared to Froome.

What's amused me somewhat over the years is watching many of the rowers I know try and transition to triathlon or cycling once they quit rowing. The favoured term used amongst the people I know is "Fraggling down" (based on the pipecleaner arms and legs of the Fraggles in Fraggle Rock in the 1980s/90s).

beverlyems wrote: »

I'm looking to invest in a piece of equipment at home. This is my year of no excuses. It's at home I will use it. I'm looking to get max caloric burn from the workout, overall weight loss, and tone and build muscles. Any experience using either or both machines? Which did you prefer? Pros and cons? **Note: I've never used a rowing machine before but I do love canoing. I used to ride my bike with regularity, but the weather keeps me from it most days. I think I would enjoy using either machine.

I primarily cycle, but if I was going to buy a piece of stationary equipment I would opt for the rower as I have my bike already as well as an indoor trainer so I can set it up in my living room if/when the weather won't permit me to be outside (or I'm just being a wuss in the cold).

As max calorie burn goes, it's not the machine...it's your level of effort and duration that are going to make the difference. I'm not a particularly seasoned rower, but I am a fairly seasoned cyclist...at the go, I'd be able to burn more calories cycling than rowing due to the fact that I would simply be able to go harder and longer on a bike given my experience level.

If you go the bike route, I'd recommend purchasing a good entry level bike and an indoor trainer so you have options to be inside or ride outside. I probably wouldn't opt for a recumbent bike...if it wasn't my bike and indoor trainer, it would be a spin bike.

JoRocka wrote: »

IMHO a recumbent bike is useless. I never feel like they do ANYTHING for me.

I would get an actual spin bike OR a rower- I think I'd use a spin bike more- but if I go to the gym- I get on the rower over the bike.

But I think recumbent bikes are pretty much pointless.

IMHO, your humble opinion is ignorant, arrogant and thoughtless.

My wife has dementia and constant nerve pain, which leads to depression and loss of interest in any physical activity, which then deepens the depression and enervation. She went from having an exceptional memory, teaching history and psychology for 50 years to having almost zero short term memory and total sedentary lifestyle.
At the behest of her memory doctor, we purchased a fairly basic recumbent stationary bike, with good adjustment of resistance and complete statistics. Her use of that bike was the key to rebuilding muscle tone and interest in further exercises. She now has classes 5 days a week, mostly in water aerobics, plus time on the recumbent bike. Very, very far from being worthless, in our experience.

I use it a fair amount myself, especially while watching TV. Not as good as my Nordic Track ski machine, but much nicer for TV watching.

There is a very wide range of participants on this site, all of us making choices to keep ourselves more fit and more healthy. None of these efforts are worthless, no matter what your arrogant opinion is.
Wake up and smell the coffee.

sgt1372 wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

[
Chris Hoy and his stringy cardio-monster look....

There's no point in getting into a p*ssing match about this BUT there's NO WAY this guy developed this body just cycling.

Not saying that a rower could either but between the 2, if you just row or cycle, there is no doubt that rowing will give you a better "overall" body workout, even though the cals burned each at the same level of effort is about the same.

Whether rowing is "better" workout in terms of muscle development, fat burning and/or fitness is debatable but I think that developing a body like the one pictured would require A LOT more work than just rowing or cycling.

Well of course he didn't get that development just from cycling!!
You should see him doing squats.

Because he was a cyclist in events where short bursts of power were paramount. Because not all cyclists are the same or cycle the same. Because if you cycle (or row) it doesn't mean you ONLY cycle or row. Because if you cycle or row you don't have one type of body.
Oh look - everyone in The Netherlands looks exactly the same because they all cycle......

You row and do weights, I cycle and do weights. Neither you or I are "cardio monster stringy" or whatever ludicrous and rude statement was used.