Width or thickness? The direct comparison shows how pull-ups and rowing challenge your back muscles differently and how you can make the most of both.
For a strong and muscular back, a single movement pattern is not enough. Although both pull-ups and rowing target the broad back muscle (latissimus dorsi), the upper back, the rear delts, and the arm flexors, according to a report by the specialist portal Boxrox, the two exercises challenge these muscles in completely different ways. If you want to achieve the best results for strength and muscle building, you should know the subtle differences.
Pull-ups are a vertical pulling exercise. You hang from a bar and pull your own body weight upwards. Electromyography studies show particularly high activity in the lats and biceps. Since it is a closed kinetic chain – your hands remain fixed to the bar – the exercise is ideal for controlling your own body weight in space. It is excellent for building the visual width of your back.
Rowing, on the other hand, is a horizontal pulling movement. Here, you pull the weight towards your torso. In addition to the lats, this variation primarily targets the muscles between your shoulder blades, such as the middle trapezius and the rhomboids. Rowing is therefore the first choice when it comes to the depth and thickness of the upper back. Furthermore, the weight can be adjusted much more precisely in rowing than in pull-ups, making continuous progression easier.
For recreational athletes, this means: neither of the two exercises is universally better. While pull-ups maximize vertical pulling strength, training volume is easier to manage with rowing – especially with chest-supported variations that relieve the lower back after heavy squats or deadlifts. For complete back development, a combination of both movement patterns is the most effective way.
Your takeaway: Use pull-ups for back width and rowing for back thickness to optimally balance your training.
This article was generated automatically with AI from the sources listed above and has not been editorially reviewed.