Barbell row

Movement

What the studies call it

The studies on this page name the exercise the bent-over row, the standing bent-over row or the free-weight bent-over row^1,2,3. A 2026 narrative review of electromyography (EMG) studies names its three main targets: the lats, the back part of the deltoid and the trapezius¹. EMG measures a muscle’s activity by picking up its electrical signals, with sensors on the skin or in the muscle.

What the main muscles do

The latissimus dorsi, or lats, extends (draws backward), adducts and internally rotates the arm at the shoulder^1,4,5. Adduction means moving a limb toward the midline of the body. Internal rotation means turning the arm inward. The deltoid has three parts: front, middle and back, called anterior, middle and posterior⁶. The posterior deltoid extends the arm and rotates it outward⁷.

The trapezius is one of the muscles that position the shoulder girdle (the shoulder blades and collarbones)⁸. Such muscles make the shoulder girdle a steady base, from which other muscles, such as the deltoid, move the arm⁸.

The versions studies have used

The studies on this page tested the row in several forms^1,3,9:

• Standing, or supported on a bench¹.
• With a wide grip, at 150% of shoulder width, or a narrow grip, at 100%¹.
• With more or less shoulder abduction, which means moving the arm away from the body’s midline¹.
• With both arms, or one arm at a time³.
• With fat-grip attachments fixed to an Olympic barbell⁹.

For the bent-over row, the 2026 review found only two primary studies on how technique choices change EMG readings¹. Both looked mainly at grip width or posture¹.

What it loads

The back and shoulder muscles

The review names the latissimus dorsi, the back part of the deltoid and the trapezius as the row’s main targets¹. No muscle of the upper trunk is larger than the latissimus dorsi⁵. In one study of seven healthy men, the standing bent-over row produced large muscle activity across the back². The activity was symmetrical, and it ran from the upper back to the lower back².

Grip width made a difference to lat activity in one study¹. The review reports that study, of 20 active young men, and notes it has not been repeated¹. The men lifted 60% of their one-repetition maximum (1RM), the heaviest weight a person can lift once¹. A wide grip gave greater average lat EMG readings than a narrow grip¹.

Arm position may shift the work between muscles, going by a study of only three people¹. There, greater shoulder abduction favoured the posterior deltoid and upper trapezius, and lowered lat readings¹. This was particularly so with bench support¹. The review reports these as trends in one direction, not statistically significant differences¹.

In the seven-man study, another exercise worked the lats harder². This was the inverted row (pulling the body up toward a bar while hanging beneath it)². It drew more activity from the lats, the upper back and the hip extensors, the muscles that straighten the hip². That was more than both the standing bent-over row and a one-armed cable row².

The lower back

The erector spinae makes up most of the muscle mass of the back⁸. It is the main muscle group that extends the vertebral column (the spine)⁸. The multifidus is a deep muscle running along the spine, between the vertebrae (the bones stacked to form the spine). In the lower back it lies nearer the midline than the erector spinae, and belongs to a different group¹⁰.

Studies have compared how hard these lower-back muscles work in the row and in other exercises^1,2,3:

Comparison	What one study found
Free-weight row against machine row	More erector spinae activity in the free-weight row, with one arm or two, in 15 resistance-trained men3
Two-arm against one-arm free-weight row	12% more erector spinae activity with two arms, in the same 15 men3
Standing bent-over row against inverted and one-armed cable rows	Largest lumbar spine load, and the highest spine stiffness, in the standing bent-over row, in seven healthy men2. Spine stiffness is how strongly the spine resists being bent or twisted
Inverted row against the other two rows	Lower lumbar erector spinae activity, matched by a lower spine load, in the inverted row, in the same seven men2
Bench-supported against standing row	Lower lumbar and thoracic (chest-level) erector spinae readings with bench support, in three people; no difference was statistically significant1

In the seven-man study, the row that produced the largest lumbar load also produced the highest spine stiffness².

Three studies looked at free-weight exercises and multifidus activity¹¹. One of those studies reported readings for the bent-over row, the deadlift and the back squat¹¹. The row, lifting 45% of body weight, reached about 58% of the muscle’s maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC)¹¹. MVIC is a muscle’s hardest effort while the joint stays still. At 75% of body weight, the deadlift also reached about 58%, and the back squat about 55%¹¹.

The side of the trunk

The external oblique is the outer layer of the three muscle layers on the flanks⁸. The same 15 men did three rows: the free-weight bent-over row, a seated cable row and a machine row³. Rowing one arm at a time activated the external oblique more than rowing with both arms³. The rectus abdominis, the long, flat muscle down the front of the abdomen, showed no significant difference between conditions³.

The grip, forearm and upper arm

One study of 15 resistance-trained men fixed fat-grip attachments to an Olympic barbell⁹. With them, the 1RM fell in each exercise tested, including the bent-over row⁹. In the bent-over row, deadlift and pull-ups, forearm and shoulder EMG rose with the fat grips⁹. Upper-arm EMG fell⁹.

How the body adapts

What training does to the muscles it works

None of the reviews or studies in this section tested the barbell row. A systematic review and network meta-analysis pooled randomised trials in healthy adults¹². A meta-analysis pools the results of several earlier studies to get one combined answer. Every plan it compared, differing in load, sets and sessions per week, beat a non-exercise control group for strength and muscle size¹². Loads over 80% of 1RM gave the largest strength gains, while all plans grew muscle comparably¹².

Myosin is the protein in muscle fibres that makes them contract, and its forms are used to sort fibres into types. A narrative review of how human muscle fibres are typed describes a shift with resistance training¹³. Loads over 70% of 1RM shift type 2X and 2X/2A fibres toward pure type 2A, both fast-contracting kinds¹³. Pure type 1 fibres (slow-contracting) shift less¹³. The review calls the 2X-to-2A change a hallmark adaptation that seems to happen fast, in the first few months¹³.

Two single studies trained muscles the row works^14,15. In one study, 18 healthy young adults did eight weeks of resistance training that got harder over time¹⁴. None had trained regularly for at least two years before¹⁴. Afterwards, lat strength rose in both diet groups, one on a normal and one on a high protein diet¹⁴. The lat’s cross-sectional area (the size of a slice cut straight across it) grew, and so did that of its single fibres¹⁴.

In the same study, the lat’s fibres moved from type 2X toward type 2A myosin¹⁴.

A two-year randomised controlled trial (a study that assigns people to groups by chance) tested back-strengthening exercise¹⁵. The people were healthy white women past menopause¹⁵.

Group	Mean back extensor strength at the start	After two years
27 women doing back exercises	39.4 kg15	66.8 kg15
23 women in the control group	36.9 kg15	49.0 kg15

What happens when training or load stops

Two reviews looked at what happens after resistance training stops, in older or middle-aged and older people^16,17. A meta-analysis of six studies covered adults aged 65 or over¹⁶. Their muscle size had grown with 9 to 24 weeks of training, then fell significantly once training stopped¹⁶. The fall was not significant after 12 to 24 weeks without training, but it was after 31 to 52 weeks¹⁶. The author suggests that longer breaks bring greater loss¹⁶.

A systematic review of 15 randomised controlled trials covered middle-aged and older adults¹⁷. It reports on training that lasted 24 weeks or more, followed by a break at least as long¹⁷. In that case, the benefits of resistance training were still significantly maintained after the break, even at medium or low training intensity¹⁷.

In the single trial of back exercise above, the women stopped the exercise after two years¹⁵. Eight years after that, the trained women’s mean back extensor strength had fallen to 32.9 kg¹⁵. It was still significantly higher than the control group’s 26.9 kg¹⁵.

In one study, taking load away shrank a lower-back muscle group¹⁸. The study used head-down-tilt bed rest, a research set-up in which people lie in bed for weeks with the head slightly below the feet¹⁸. In 24 healthy adults, 60 days of it cut lumbar erector spinae volume by 11.2% on average¹⁸. The exception was at L5/S1, the joint at the base of the spine, where volume rose¹⁸.

Progressive overload

A 2026 position stand describes progressive overload as the need to increase the stimulus placed on the muscle throughout a training programme¹⁹.

Programmes that raised the row’s 1RM

A 7-week trial split 30 rugby players, experienced in resistance training, into two groups by chance²⁰. One did strongman training and one did traditional training, twice a week²⁰. Strongman is a heavy-lifting strength sport. The two programmes used exercises matched for similar movements, with equal loading²⁰. Strongman training was linked to large gains in 1RM bent-over row strength compared with traditional training²⁰.

In another trial, 17 women were randomly assigned to isokinetic training or a control group that did not exercise²¹. Isokinetic machines hold a limb to a fixed speed. For 6 weeks, twice a week, the women did 5 sets of 6 to 10 repetitions of an isokinetic chest press and seated row²¹. They did not train the barbell row; its 1RM was a test²¹. Bent-over row 1RM rose from 40.4 to 45.5 kg on average, and only in the training group²¹.

Setting the load by bar speed

One study tested 14 men and 14 women at 30% to 100% of 1RM²². With each sex’s data pooled, bar speed and relative load fitted a straight line²². Another study tested 20 young and 20 middle-aged resistance-trained men at 20% to 80% of 1RM²³. Estimating their 1RM from bar speed with reference minimum speed thresholds was off by 14.9% to 19.9% in the young men²³. In the middle-aged men it was off by 8.6% to 18.2%, and the authors conclude the 1RM needs to be tested directly²³.

Range of motion

One study used the prone barbell row, done lying face-down on a bench²⁴. Sixteen resistance-trained men did a 10-repetition maximum over the full range, the upper half or the lower half²⁴. That is the heaviest load a person can lift 10 times. Lat EMG was significantly higher in the upper half than in the other two ranges²⁴. The authors judged the effect of range medium in size and inconsistent, and suggest it has limited impact on overall muscle activity²⁴.

Rest, effort and pairing

Four studies tested the row alongside other upper-body exercises^25,26,27,28:

• Rest length. Fourteen experienced weight-trained men did 3 sets at their 8-repetition maximum in six exercises, including a barbell row lying on a bench²⁵. In every exercise, 1-minute rests gave significantly fewer total repetitions than 3-minute rests²⁵.
• Rest or order. In 16 recreationally trained men, rest length affected repetitions in the bench-lying row more than exercise order did²⁶.
• Load and effort. Fourteen young men with lifting experience did five exercises, including the bent-over row, at 50% and at 70% of 1RM²⁷. Their rating of perceived exertion (a score for how hard effort feels) was higher at 70%²⁷. It rose from set to set at 70% but not at 50%²⁷.
• Pairing. Eleven recreationally training men alternated the bent-over row and bench press for five sets²⁸. Resting 60 seconds after each lift gave significantly lower perceived exertion than doing both back to back, then resting 120 seconds²⁸. Set and total volume did not differ significantly²⁸.

Connections

The muscles it works

• The latissimus dorsi, named by a review as a main target¹.
• The back part of the deltoid, also named as a main target¹.
• The trapezius, the third main target the review names¹.
• The erector spinae, more active in the free-weight row than a machine row³.
• The multifidus, which one study found about as active in the bent-over row as in the deadlift, both near 58% of its maximal effort¹¹.
• The external oblique, more active when rowing one arm at a time³.

What the evidence does not yet show

Many findings on this page come from single studies of 3 to 20 people^1,2,3. The 2026 review found only two studies on how technique changes muscle activity in the bent-over row¹.

Sources

1. Di Fonza D, Di Claudio G, Colantuono G, Persichini L, Cerulo N, Sangregorio B, Buonsenso A, Fiorilli G, Calcagno G, di Cagno A (2026). Electromyographic Analysis of Latissimus Dorsi Activation During Common Resistance Training Exercises: A Narrative Review.. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology. doi:10.3390/jfmk11030315 PMID 42647355
2. Fenwick CM, Brown SH, McGill SM (2009). Comparison of different rowing exercises: trunk muscle activation and lumbar spine motion, load, and stiffness.. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181942019 PMID 19197209
3. Saeterbakken A, Andersen V, Brudeseth A, Lund H, Fimland MS (2015). The Effect of Performing Bi- and Unilateral Row Exercises on Core Muscle Activation.. International Journal of Sports Medicine. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1398646 PMID 26134664
4. Lehane KM, Faust T, Romeo AA, Erickson BJ (2025). Approach to diagnosing and treating tears of the latissimus dorsi and teres major.. JSES Reviews, Reports, and Techniques. doi:10.1016/j.xrrt.2025.05.015 PMID 41179423
5. Hovsepian JM, Cartaya MA, Glaser J, Oehler N, Solovyov I, Abi Mansour C, Avila JC, Vogt S (2026). Surgical anatomy, biomechanics and clinical outcomes of latissimus dorsi transfer for irreparable rotator cuff tears: a review.. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. doi:10.1186/s13018-026-07200-9 PMID 42661214
6. Vohra A, Paul B, Saunders P, Galal Y, Yao S, Hui C, Lederman E, McKee M, Shah A (2024). Anatomic variations of the deltoid muscle insertion: a cadaveric study.. JSES International. doi:10.1016/j.jseint.2024.01.013 PMID 38707574
7. Stokey PJ, Kaur S, Lee A, Behrens K, Ebraheim N (2024). Anatomy and Deficiency of the Deltoid Muscle: A Review of Literature.. Orthopedic Reviews. doi:10.52965/001c.115352 PMID 38562147
8. Betts JG, Young KA, Wise JA, Johnson E, Poe B, Kruse DH, Korol O, Johnson JE, Womble M, DeSaix P (2022). Anatomy and Physiology 2e. OpenStax. Link
9. Krings BM, Shepherd BD, Swain JC, Turner AJ, Chander H, Waldman HS, McAllister MJ, Knight AC, Smith JW (2021). Impact of Fat Grip Attachments on Muscular Strength and Neuromuscular Activation During Resistance Exercise.. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000002954 PMID 30694963
10. Willard FH, Vleeming A, Schuenke MD, Danneels L, Schleip R (2012). The thoracolumbar fascia: anatomy, function and clinical considerations.. Journal of Anatomy. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7580.2012.01511.x PMID 22630613
11. Oliva-Lozano JM, Muyor JM (2020). Core Muscle Activity During Physical Fitness Exercises: A Systematic Review.. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. doi:10.3390/ijerph17124306 PMID 32560185
12. Currier BS, Mcleod JC, Banfield L, Beyene J, Welton NJ, D'Souza AC, Keogh JAJ, Lin L, Coletta G, Yang A, Colenso-Semple L, Lau KJ, Verboom A, Phillips SM (2023). Resistance training prescription for muscle strength and hypertrophy in healthy adults: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.. British Journal of Sports Medicine. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2023-106807 PMID 37414459
13. Plotkin DL, Roberts MD, Haun CT, Schoenfeld BJ (2021). Muscle Fiber Type Transitions with Exercise Training: Shifting Perspectives.. Sports (Basel). doi:10.3390/sports9090127 PMID 34564332
14. Paoli A, Pacelli QF, Cancellara P, Toniolo L, Moro T, Canato M, Miotti D, Neri M, Morra A, Quadrelli M, Reggiani C (2016). Protein Supplementation Does Not Further Increase Latissimus Dorsi Muscle Fiber Hypertrophy after Eight Weeks of Resistance Training in Novice Subjects, but Partially Counteracts the Fast-to-Slow Muscle Fiber Transition.. Nutrients. doi:10.3390/nu8060331 PMID 27258300
15. Sinaki M, Itoi E, Wahner HW, Wollan P, Gelzcer R, Mullan BP, Collins DA, Hodgson SF (2002). Stronger back muscles reduce the incidence of vertebral fractures: a prospective 10 year follow-up of postmenopausal women.. Bone. doi:10.1016/s8756-3282(02)00739-1 PMID 12052450
16. Grgic J (2022). Use It or Lose It? A Meta-Analysis on the Effects of Resistance Training Cessation (Detraining) on Muscle Size in Older Adults.. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. doi:10.3390/ijerph192114048 PMID 36360927
17. Yang Y, Chen SC, Chen CN, Hsu CW, Zhou WS, Chien KY (2022). Training Session and Detraining Duration Affect Lower Limb Muscle Strength Maintenance in Middle-Aged and Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity. doi:10.1123/japa.2020-0493 PMID 34510028
18. De Martino E, Hides J, Elliott JM, Hoggarth MA, Zange J, Lindsay K, Debuse D, Winnard A, Beard D, Cook JA, Salomoni SE, Weber T, Scott J, Hodges PW, Caplan N (2022). The Effects of Reconditioning Exercises Following Prolonged Bed Rest on Lumbopelvic Muscle Volume and Accumulation of Paraspinal Muscle Fat.. Frontiers in Physiology. doi:10.3389/fphys.2022.862793 PMID 35774286
19. Currier BS, D'Souza AC, Singh MAF, Lowisz CV, Rawson ES, Schoenfeld BJ, Smith-Ryan AE, et al (2026). American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Resistance Training Prescription for Muscle Function, Hypertrophy, and Physical Performance in Healthy Adults: An Overview of Reviews.. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000003897 PMID 41843416
20. Winwood PW, Cronin JB, Posthumus LR, Finlayson SJ, Gill ND, Keogh JW (2015). Strongman vs. traditional resistance training effects on muscular function and performance.. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000629 PMID 25627449
21. Ratamess NA, Beller NA, Gonzalez AM, Spatz GE, Hoffman JR, Ross RE, Faigenbaum AD, Kang J (2016). The Effects of Multiple-Joint Isokinetic Resistance Training on Maximal Isokinetic and Dynamic Muscle Strength and Local Muscular Endurance.. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. PMID 26957924
22. Nieto-Acevedo R, Romero-Moraleda B, Montalvo-Pérez A, García-Sánchez C, Marquina-Nieto M, Mon-López D (2023). Sex Differences in the Load-Velocity Profiles of Three Different Row Exercises.. Sports (Basel). doi:10.3390/sports11110220 PMID 37999437
23. Fernandes JFT, Dingley AF, Garcia-Ramos A, Perez-Castilla A, Tufano JJ, Twist C (2021). Prediction of One Repetition Maximum Using Reference Minimum Velocity Threshold Values in Young and Middle-Aged Resistance-Trained Males.. Behavioral Sciences (Basel). doi:10.3390/bs11050071 PMID 34067058
24. Fischer J, Burger C, Seguel JM, Rodoplu C, Paternoster FK, Tilp M, Konrad A (2025). Impact of different ranges of motion in the prone barbell row on muscle excitation.. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2025.103025 PMID 40513198
25. Miranda H, Fleck SJ, Simão R, Barreto AC, Dantas EH, Novaes J (2007). Effect of two different rest period lengths on the number of repetitions performed during resistance training.. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. doi:10.1519/R-21026.1 PMID 18076244
26. Miranda H, Simão R, dos Santos Vigário P, de Salles BF, Pacheco MT, Willardson JM (2010). Exercise order interacts with rest interval during upper-body resistance exercise.. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d8ea61 PMID 20508461
27. Lins-Filho Ode L, Robertson RJ, Farah BQ, Rodrigues SL, Cyrino ES, Ritti-Dias RM (2012). Effects of exercise intensity on rating of perceived exertion during a multiple-set resistance exercise session.. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31822602fa PMID 22233796
28. Zhao H, Yamaguchi S, Okada J (2020). Effects of rest interval array on training volume, perceived exertion, neuromuscular fatigue, and metabolic responses during agonist-antagonist muscle alternative training.. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness. doi:10.23736/S0022-4707.19.10365-9 PMID 31974337

Every source the library cites

Changes

• October 23, 2026 Added a Progressive overload section.
• September 29, 2026 Tidy pass: minor review findings fixed, glosses aligned with the reviewed glossary.
• September 29, 2026 Added a figure showing where it sits, links to the exercise pages that load it, and tighter wording in a few places.