OCD Rows

[plummy]

Over on Facebook in one of the groups I joined there's a few of us have started to do what we call "OCD" rows. It's basically a bit of fun where the challenge is to hold the exact same SPM, exact same pace and exact same distance per split (and the more splits the better). You choose the pace and SPM to suit but it must be at least 5 splits and more kudos is given for higher numbers.

Initially I did these just for a change but I've found that for timed rows (say 30 mins or 60 mins) or anything 10k+ they really help with the length of time the row takes by pulling your mind away from the "time left" or "distance to go" as you are concentrating so hard on holding a pace and split.

I nailed one yesterday after having missed at least a couple by being 0.1s off on one of the splits. If anyone fancies a bit of a change and a different challenge, feel free to drop your results on here (a photo of the PM screen is ideal) whether you nailed it or missed it by a mile. Merciless good humoured ribbing by missing your target is allowed of course ( ) as well as much fawning and worshipping of a perfect set of scores.

ScreenHunter_10 Aug. 24 18.33.jpg (62.81 KiB) Viewed 9211 times

[Grobi]

Nice one Dave! But what happened to your heart rate?

[plummy]

Nice one Dave! But what happened to your heart rate?

Working on that one - if it stays at zero - I'd be worried. Heartrate variation is unavoidable (and allowable of course)

[CamiCrew]

Ok, first (and unrelated) question... how do you get your name at top right on your PM?

Next -- congrats on this one, having been there online when you had a disruption during a previous OCD attempt. Presumably this time you wore your grumpy undies to keep the neighbors away?

And more to the point -- do you know during the row if you are nailing it? Or do you have to check the Detail after? And is it average split you are watching during the row? Or just keeping each stroke as consistent as possible?

Very fun, Dave. Precision rowing, gotta love it.

[plummy]

Adding your name at the top is just a question of adding your name the the maximum 5 allowed on a logcard (I just have myself and my daughter). I'm pretty sure you can't do it on a PM without one. As soon as you take the card out it says "Goodbye Dave" - which is very polite of it.

No Grumpy undies on I assure you (that might not read too well).

You don't know during the row if you are nailing it (hence me near missing twice) - it's the big reveal at the end when you hit the magnifier symbol.
You definitely have to watch the average split and the overall split - after a while of being on pace the overall split should be quite constant and you can stop paying any attention to that but every time you start a new split the little variances appear and then (hopefully) disappear as the split "matures". It's the split average that keeps your absolute attention and varying your pace (without varying your SPM) that will get you close.
The one thing you can't know is if (for example on my 2:07 average) you are rowing at 2:06.7/2:06.8 etc as the PM will round this up and display 2:07 and only give you the bad news at the end.
Rowpro will display to a decimal point so is a better indicator and you can try and average out say a 2:06.3 stroke by easing off to a 2:07.7 stroke next time.

It really does help the time tick by and throws a different twist into the training. It's just for grins and a change of scenery really.

[Paul Victory]

Nice one Dave! But what happened to your heart rate?

Funny thing. I did a cool down on Saturday night after doing 30 minutes on RowPro. I was interrupted after 16 and a half minutes and ended up doing just over 3800m in total. When I checked my splits my HR was identical at 137 at the end of each of the four splits. Bit strange as there was only 2 meters between the fastest and slowest 5 minute splits (1150/1152/1151).

[billwright]

Had a dabble at this today and as Plummy said, it helps to to make the distance seem to disappear more quickly. I was doing it for 3 x 2k and the best I could do was 3 out of 4 500m splits:

OCD 1.jpg (66.93 KiB) Viewed 9171 times

Bill

[plummy]

Not a bad first try Bill. Quite a short distance, only 4 splits, one wayward SPM and one wayward pace - but pretty good nontheless

[CamiCrew]

I had 90 mins of rowing to get done last night, seat time toward my 1st ever half marathon OTW race this weekend. I decided to row it in 40 min, 30 min and 20 min segments with rest in between. Anything that made the time go faster was fine by me!

I would submit my 40 min segment as my entry to the OCD rowing club, except for one problem. My target was NOT 2:22.1, but 2:22.2! Does it count if I failed consistently? The 30 min piece had the same issue and 1 split off. I included the final 20 min piece (too short really) but was amused the HR nearly cooperated... I had taken my eye off SPM by that point, and the overall split got me too. It was fun -- and it did make the time go fast.



A few observations --

-- SPM is very forgiving, just can't forget about it
-- The top split (Session Average) gets more forgiving as time passes
-- The bottom split (Stroke Average?) is brutally unforgiving
-- There is forgiveness at the top of intervals
-- There is zero forgiveness at the bottom of intervals

I will have to try the solid hour. And, yes, pick up the pace... but I liked the idea of all those 2s!

[plummy]

Wow - the lady's a machine!! (a little slip on the 20 mins for one split though ) Missing the overall target is not an issue because you become tied to the first split anyway - get that one wrong and they all have to equally wrong to line up.

Very impressive indeed.

[Paul Victory]

Very impressive Barbara. It's actually impossible to get 2:22.2 average with 5 minute splits. 1055m is 2:22.18 per 500m, which is rounded down to 2:22:1. 1054m is 2:22.31 pace So you got as close to all 2s as is humanly possible.

[CamiCrew]

Ahhh Paul, you fabulous person! You made my day I should have known there would be highly complicated (ahem) MATH involved! Now you have me wondering if aiming for impossible splits could improve the chances of achieving possible splits. But, that will make my head hurt so I'll leave it for another day and say, again, thanks, as I was pretty surprised at all those .1's.

[redshell]

That's impressive Barbara!

and good luck with the half marathon OTW race this weekend

[Richard Lindner]

Thought I'd nailed this one but RowPro thought different

[plummy]

Had the above all under control last week but my heart rate was heading for the limiter so bailed out (it was supposed to be a 10k) - could have been a picture of perfection

ScreenHunter_10 Sep. 17 11.42.jpg (36.92 KiB) Viewed 8982 times

Whereas last night's effort was a ruddy shambles...

ScreenHunter_11 Sep. 17 11.42.jpg (48.33 KiB) Viewed 8982 times

[Paul Victory]

2:03 pace for a 10k is pretty challenging for an OCD row! I thought the whole purpose of these rows was to keep you focused during low slow distance rows.

[plummy]

Nah! - the purpose is to try and nail a perfect set of identical scores (excluding heart rate). The more reps the better (as it's more difficult) but going beyond 8 reps takes the PM screen over to a second page which is harder to record photographically).

I'm not sure if the above is any indicator of form/technique/power though, as I do remember struggling to keep 2:06 @ 26SPM many many many moons ago.

[Paul Victory]

Nah! - the purpose is to try and nail a perfect set of identical scores (excluding heart rate). The more reps the better (as it's more difficult) but going beyond 8 reps takes the PM screen over to a second page which is harder to record photographically).

I'm not sure if the above is any indicator of form/technique/power though, as I do remember struggling to keep 2:06 @ 26SPM many many many moons ago.

Yes, but surely it's tough enough trying to nail a set of identical scores without doing it at a close to maximal pace. Or are you just a glutton for punishment? (Actually, I think we all know the answer to that question )

[plummy]

Keeping the pace down and easing back slowly as I haven't shifted this chest infection quite yet (although definitely got it on the run now) so thought I'd try a steady 6k. Still not quite nailing these splits (annoyed with the 2:11.9 as it was just a simple over-correction on the last 2 strokes of the split - (grrr!). The other was just sloppy.

ScreenHunter_12 Dec. 07 13.51.jpg (66.38 KiB) Viewed 8789 times

[CamiCrew]

Glad you're back Mr. Plumb. These OCD things, however... Ridiculously frustrating.

[strider77]

Really nice OCD rows Dave and Barbara =D> =D>

[plummy]

They certainly are Barbara

ScreenHunter_12 Dec. 10 08.18.jpg (46.38 KiB) Viewed 8767 times

[CamiCrew]

Plummy I took Paul Vs advice to go for time versus distance since I also needed to fit in crazy bear #18. Is an OCD row even possible with an exact HM, assuming 8 or fewer splits? I tried your method of 7x3000 meter splits with the 97 left over, but 97 meters is awfully quick for me to get right, and can it even work mathematically with the other splits?

Paul touched on how the PM rounds distance vs time but I'm still not clear how you know a given target pace is achievable. I chose the pace of 2:20 for the 8x13:00 because it looked like it was only 0.1 off per split. (did I mention I'm math challenged? as in, a whole extra layer of frustration, haha)

Share your secrets, o' OCD master!

[plummy]

Judging by the number of fails (that'll be all but one attempt) I'm no better at maths than anyone else. My only success was a 60 minutes in 10:00 minute splits and I was on course to nail a 30 mins but bailed after 4 splits were perfect (didn't know that until after I finished).
For example, last night I just decided to hold 2:08 pace and 24SPM felt OK (given the condition of my lungs presently). All I do is stare at the SPM and split pace and total time (for 10k @ 2:08 it should be 42:40.0). If my split pace wandered away from 2:08 flat I adjusted my speed until it re-settled at 2:08 again.
The difficulty (and it happened on at least one split last night) is when you only have a few metres to go until it flips to the next split (e.g. coming up to 1250m completed) and suddenly your split average jumps to say 2:08.1 so you have to race to pull it back to 2:08.0 flat and with all the rounding up and down going on those pesky 0.1s have evaded you again.

Tomorrow I'll do another 10k and I'll try and just hold 2:06.0 from the start this time (I'm still not pushing too hard).

I think a HM is do-able but the last 97m IS very difficult to nail at the same pace. Assuming you are on pace when the last split of 97m kicks in you should be able to pull it to your target pace - but it is weird that if you are rowing at say 2:08 and the split changes to a new one, your pace can instantaneously be something like 2:10.7 which is miles away from the steady pace you thought you were doing. Pulling from 2:10.7 (say) to 2:08 in 97m is a juggling act as you will have to accelerate your pace, remembering NOT to increase your SPM (and blow your OCD row that way)

[Paul Victory]

The only experience I have of trying to nail a particular pace was doing the blind demon, where you had to row for exactly 666m on a just row, without looking at the monitor. I used to do it as my warm up and I think i kept doing it for around 3 months until I nailed it (which was around 2 and a half months after everyone else had given up on the challenge). So there is NO WAY I am ever going to start doing OCD rows, because I know they would take over and I would spend all my time trying to nail one.

Funnily enough, I don't find long rows boring. I just set a load of intermediate targets or try to delay as long as possible the extent to which I fall behind a given pace. For example, on a HM that I am trying to do at between 2:00 and 2:05 pace, I try to extend the number of minutes it will take me to lose 50 meters against 2:00 pace. If I cover 700m in 3 minutes, that's 2:08.6 pace, 1200m in 5 minutes is 2:05 pace, 1700 in 7 minutes is 2:03.5 pace and so on. So that's what keeps me focused.

IF (and I'm not) I was going to do an OCD row, I would definitely do a time based one as it provides a much greater margin of error on each split. On a distance based row, a variation of 0.1 second means failure. On a time based row, it's 1 meter. As it takes .25 of a second to cover 1 meter at 2:05 pace and .3 of a second at 2:30 pace, you can afford to be much less accurate and still achieve a perfect result.