What Do you Suppose Would Happen IF....

[RowtheRockies]

.....You did a 2K TT with your PM either flipped up or covered up? Do you think you would perform worse or better. Suppose the only indicator you had was a timer that showed elapsed time so you would no approximately when you are done? Maybe go 10 seconds past your target time just to be sure.

Anyone tried this?

I started contemplating this based on the discussion of mantras and comment on how that damn monitor is always staring you in the face giving instantaneous feedback.

Food for Thought:

1) There has been at least one running study that showed that runners who wore a HR monitor during a race often times underperformed. I think this was attributed to race day anxiety raising HR or something along those lines.

2) Many runners who train with a HR monitor do not wear one in a race.


3) Last year in the Pikes Peak Marathon, I begrudgingly took my wife's advice and did not wear a watch or HR monitor as I usually do. The result, it was the most enjoyable ascent of the 6 that I have run. No anxiety at watching my HR climb, thinking to myself "Oh God, it's to hi, etc." As a result, I decided I will never wear a watch in a race again.

Why should a 2K TT be any different?

I would be interested your thoughts, for some reason I am leary of trying it.

Rich

[ancho]

I never wear a HR monitor during races, as a matter of lately I hardly ever use one, maybe just for tough erg workouts, and to study the HR afterwaords, I don't look at it while I'm performing.

My best 10k race (39:07) was done without any watch, just pushing hard from the start. At km 5 I asked another competitor what time we were doing, and I thought I wouldn't be able to finish. The rest just felt great.

Regarding a 2k on the erg, I don't know if I'd be able to pace well without the monitor.
Knowing me, I suppose it would result in some kind of "fly and die"...

Anyway, I think it's an interesting proposal, maybe one day I'll try.

[jjpisano]

Rich:

I'd be lost without the monitor. I don't regularly use a heart rate monitor - though I am curious more often these days about where my heart rate is.

When I first restarted using the rowing machine 6 years ago, I worked on habit formation only. For nearly a whole year I didn't use a monitor. I just worked on getting on the rowing machine 3 days per week for 20 minutes at a time. I was way out of shape and easy rowing for 60 minutes per week was definitely a step in the right direction and I wasn't about to ask too much of myself.

Once I got the habit down I ordered the PM2 from Concept2 and the rest is history. I've been staring at those numbers ever since. I couldn't even imagine pulling a 2k without a monitor. I'm always asking myself "Can I keep this up for so many more meters?" I feel like I'm always on the edge during a 2k. Wonder if I could recreate that feeling without a clue where I'm at. I think it would be psychological torture.

[RowtheRockies]

Ancho and Jim,

You are probably right. I have gotten so use to staring at that little box. For me however, staring at the monitor and seeing how much time or distance I have left in a TT is psychological torture. It seems like time slows way down and I sometimes question whether I can hold the pace for the remaining time left and psyche myself out. I have handled down on half of my 2K attempts and I know it is mental.

Rich

[TomR]

Rich--

Insofar as I know, an all-out 2k is a bitch, no matter what tricks you try to conjure. But please have a go at a monitor-free 2k and tell us how it goes.

I've heard people say they close their eyes during a 2k, but I'm sure they peek frequently enough to know how they're doing. I have tried closing my eyes and am always disappointed to find out how little distance I have covered when I next take a look.

Tom

[PaulS]

I've observed a number of these, and prescribed them to others, performance on the "Blind" TT has nearly always exceeded perception/expectation.

Before the electronic PM's all that was available was a distance display, rate and effort were all a matter of feel. Several of the Top performers in recent history report doing much of the race with their eyes closed.

IMO, it's a matter of focus, and focusing specifically on the task at hand, can help performance a lot.

Whatever your target is, just tell your brain at the start, "I have to perform as hard as I can for the next X:XX!", close your eyes and go. The brain is a remarkable device, and can set you up very well to work at a high level. Trust it.

Another way to try this is to put in your Target Time as a Timed Interval, have a clock to watch so you know when you are done, flip up the monitor and go, you will end with a total number of meters under or over the goal, and can work with that easily.

[jbell]

my team recently did this with 6k's. Almost everyone resulted in a PB. But the only thing, like ancho said, was that most people fly and died. My projected after 2000m was 21:38. Needless to say I fly and died but ended with a respectable 22:08.

[mcj22]

This is what I've seen done. It is a good way to simulate the boat with a cox and keeps you from getting too close to fly and die.

[stargazertechie]

If I'm doing 500m sprints and I get bored, I usually flip up my monitor and I put on a preset playlist on my ipod. I've got 20' playlists, 5'on 5'off playlists, 2k playlists. This way I have a bit of a feeling how far I've gone, and how much longer I need to go, but I dont stare at the monitor. I've PR'd several times when not looking at my monitor. I find it easier to not know how much longer.

[michaelb]

The standard warm down after an online race is a 2k, with the closest person to 9 minutes "winning", so you have to hold a steady 2:15 pace.

Once somebody suggesting doing the row blind, and so we all covered our PMs for the row after the start. Since you can't see the monitor, you have no idea how far you have gone or when you finish. I row at 10 mps, and I figured that at 2:15 pace I would be either at 10mps or a bit "long", so I counted 200 strokes and stopped. My finish time was 8:59 and some change. I watched the other boats continue to row "blind" for another 30 secs or more.

They all thought I cheated.

[Mike Caviston]

I would expect one to perform better in a race without a HR monitor, since the monitor is likely to provide more misinformation than useful information. But regarding performance on the erg, the monitor (PM2/3) provides invaluable information that will lead to better performance than rowing blind. This assumes one knows how to correctly interpret and process the information being provided. There are plenty of examples (I’ve seen some myself) of individuals improving on a particular test piece by flipping the monitor up, but I suggest this is treating the symptom rather than treating the problem. More experience dealing with the psychological pressures of high performance helps considerably. I’ve never heard of anyone sustaining long-term improvement without using the monitor. I’m skeptical of reports of world-class performances done with eyes closed; I bet, for example, Rob Waddell peaked often enough to keep a sense of what the monitor was saying.

My personal experiments with rowing blind tell me I’m pretty good at judging pace/rate/time/distance without the monitor, but I’m better with. For example, doing a 60’ Wolverine Plan Level 4 row seeing only the elapsed time, I can come pretty close to my overall target for meters within a specified number of strokes. But there’s a lot more variation around the mean. For blind submaximal workouts, I have a slight bias towards overperforming my goal. For 1-2K sprints, I underperform, that is, slower than expected based on recent training. (In all honesty, I don’t do this often enough to state categorically that I couldn’t equal my best performance without the monitor – but I sure do doubt it.)

Mike Caviston

[RowtheRockies]

After giving this some thought I decided that rowing completely blind would probably result in me flying and severely dying so I tried a 2K with the HR and Meters to go blocked out with tape. The only thing I watched was Avg Watts so I could make sure I stayed on line with my target. I also watched total time elapsed.

I found that this really worked well for me. For me, the meters to go produces a lot of anxiety because it does not seem to tick down as quickly as I think it should. In my mind, time elapsed is much easier for me to quantify and relate to how far I have to go. For some reason 3:37 to go, seems much more doable than 1000M.

As it turned out, my time was .4 seconds faster than my last 2K but my Avg. HR was 3 beats less. I wasn't trying for an all out effort just attempting to equal my last 2K time and not handle down as I have a habit of doing. I think that only watching Avg. Watts and Time elapsed is a good approach for me. I felt much more relaxed and was confident all the way through the 2K that I would finish the distance and hold the pace.


Rich

[citiusaltiusfortius9]

I was erging this morning and decided at 1000 meters to do a blind 2k at about 70% preassure so I set the meters and watched a clock until about eight minutes. When I checked to see my time I realized I had finished in 7:50.2 seconds which is by no means PB but it is better than I had expected for 70% preasure. When I have a moniter I tend to stop at about 1:58, convincing myself that I still have a real row and a run later and I don't want to tire myself. I haven't really been hitting 70% I guess.

I think everyone should try to do one "blind" workout every week, watch the time if you want, do pyramids or timed peices. It also helps for mental prep for a race, if you can do it blind it takes more mental focus. I've heard of people racing blind (with a cox keeping them informed of how they are on their target)

-sara

[jjpisano]

I tried a 2K with the HR and Meters to go blocked out with tape. The only thing I watched was Avg Watts so I could make sure I stayed on line with my target. I also watched total time elapsed.

I found that this really worked well for me. For me, the meters to go produces a lot of anxiety because it does not seem to tick down as quickly as I think it should. In my mind, time elapsed is much easier for me to quantify and relate to how far I have to go. For some reason 3:37 to go, seems much more doable than 1000M.

As it turned out, my time was .4 seconds faster than my last 2K but my Avg. HR was 3 beats less. I wasn't trying for an all out effort just attempting to equal my last 2K time and not handle down as I have a habit of doing. I think that only watching Avg. Watts and Time elapsed is a good approach for me. I felt much more relaxed and was confident all the way through the 2K that I would finish the distance and hold the pace.


Rich

Rich:

Nicely done.

I like that you watched average watts rather than pace per 500m. During many of my workouts I watch watts and count down with meters to go and after I break my pace pretty close to the end - not quite hitting my goal, I retrospectively can't believe I broke with only 3:45 to go or some such short time like that. 3:45 seems like such a short time, I think I should be able to hold a pace and a level of intensity for that amount of time.

I've been attempting to do 5k's at 246w (~1:52.5/500m pace) & @ 23 s/m. I've been breaking with 1k to go. I usually end up paddling 250m then wind it back up for the last 750m @ 246w & @ 23 s/m.

Yesterday, I managed not to break in the last 1k but I bent and ended at 245.2w @ 23 s/m, which translates to a 18:45.9 for a 5k. That improved my 5k personal best time for the season.

[RowtheRockies]

Jim,

Nicely done on the 5K! I am envious. Yes I agree, 3:45 seems like nothing. About the length of a commercial break. On the other hand, 1000 Meters seems much more daunting.

Rich