When ‘Dig Deeper’ Doesn’t Work: Understanding Rowing Mental Performance
“Dig deeper!”
“Push through it!”
“Mind over matter!”
“Just want it more!”
Every rowing coach has used these phrases. For some athletes, this approach works. They respond to the challenge, access another gear, break through their perceived limits.
But you also have athletes who hear “dig deeper” repeatedly and nothing changes. They still fade at 1400 meters. They still back off when lactate burns. They nod, agree, promise to try harder… and the next piece looks identical.
Why doesn’t traditional motivational coaching work for these rowers?
Because you’re deploying conscious-mind language to address an automatic-system problem. You’re talking to the wrong brain.
Your athletes operate with two distinct brain systems that control behavior under different conditions:
When you tell an athlete to “dig deeper,” you’re communicating with Training Brain.
But at 1800 meters of a 2k, when heart rate approaches 190, breathing is maximal, legs are flooded with lactate, and the sympathetic nervous system is fully activated, Training Brain is largely offline.
Racing Brain is executing. And Racing Brain doesn’t respond to motivational slogans or conscious reasoning.
Racing Brain evolved over millions of years with one primary function: keep the organism alive. Performance optimization is irrelevant to its programming.
When Racing Brain detects signals it interprets as threat (e.g., elevated heart rate, labored breathing, accumulating muscle fatigue, stress hormone cascade) it initiates protective responses. It sends stop signals. Not suggestions. Not recommendations. Commands.
Tim Noakes’s Central Governor Model in exercise physiology explains this mechanism: the brain regulates exercise intensity based not just on current physiological state but on learned predictions about danger to homeostasis. Racing Brain doesn’t care about your splits, your race plan, or what you told the athlete in the pre-race meeting.
Its computational question: “Are we approaching physiologically dangerous limits that threaten survival?”
The problem: For many competitive rowers, Racing Brain’s threat predictions are massively miscalibrated. It screams “CATASTROPHIC DANGER!” at 80% capacity and labels it 100%.
When you tell that athlete to “dig deeper,” observe the actual sequence:
The athlete backs off. Not because they ignored your coaching. Not because they don’t care about performance. Because Racing Brain’s automatic threat-protection command overrides Training Brain’s conscious competitive intention.
Under maximum physiological stress, automatic always defeats conscious. It’s designed that way for survival.
Here’s what this feels like from the athlete’s internal perspective:
“I KNOW what I should do. Coach keeps telling me. I keep promising myself I’ll push through. But when the pain hits, something takes over my body. I can’t execute what I know I should do.
It feels like my body is revolting against my mind. Like there’s a wall I can’t push through no matter how badly I want to.
I feel weak. Like I’m failing everyone. I don’t understand why other athletes can push through and I can’t.
Maybe I’m just not cut out for competitive rowing.”
This is the phenomenological experience of Training Brain knowing the strategy while Racing Brain overrides execution with automatic threat-based commands.
Researcher Sian Beilock’s extensive work on choking under pressure documents this phenomenon across athletic domains: when automatic processes under stress produce outcomes that contradict conscious intentions and training. The automatic system wins because it operates faster than conscious thought and doesn’t require deliberation.
Your athlete isn’t failing to dig deeper because they lack character or competitive fire. They’re experiencing fundamental mismatch between conscious intention and automatic threat response.
When traditional motivational coaching doesn’t work and you escalate to questioning desire—”Do you even want this?” “Champions want it more than you do” “You’re not hungry enough”—you layer shame onto the existing problem.
Now the athlete is managing:
Shame makes Racing Brain MORE protective, not less. The threat isn’t just physical anymore—it’s social, psychological, existential.
“If I fail again, it proves I’m weak and don’t belong here. I can’t afford another failure. I must be even more protective.”
Racing Brain’s alarm becomes more sensitive, fires earlier, screams louder. The athlete protects themselves more aggressively. The fade worsens.
Your motivational intervention made the calibration problem worse, not better.
Character-based coaching triggers shame-avoidance rather than approach-motivation. Athletes don’t think “work harder.” They think “hide inadequacy and avoid further exposure.”
If “dig deeper” doesn’t work, what does?
You need to address Racing Brain directly using the mechanism it actually employs to update threat predictions: prediction error learning.
Racing Brain recalibrates when it repeatedly experiences this cycle:
This is exposure-based learning, the same neurological mechanism underlying clinical treatment for phobias, PTSD, and anxiety disorders. Repeated safe exposures to feared stimuli, combined with explicit recognition that predicted catastrophe doesn’t materialize, gradually recalibrate automatic threat responses.
The Three-Question Protocol creates this learning systematically for rowing performance:
After every hard piece:
These questions force explicit recognition of prediction error. They make the mismatch between predicted catastrophe (“I’m dying at 1400m”) and actual outcome (“I finished at 2000m without dying”) undeniable.
Over 15-20 systematically implemented pieces, Racing Brain accumulates sufficient counterevidence to recalibrate its threat threshold upward.
Not because the athlete convinced themselves to be tougher through willpower. Because Racing Brain learned through repeated empirical experience: “My catastrophic predictions at this intensity level consistently fail to match actual outcomes. Recalibrate threshold upward.”
Traditional motivational coaching targets conscious mind. Racing Brain recalibration requires different language.
Don’t use:
Use instead:
This language acknowledges the actual neurological process happening in the athlete’s nervous system. It provides framework for interpreting the experience accurately rather than as personal failure or character deficit.
Let me tell you about Jordan.
College lightweight rower. Strong training performances. Every seat race, same outcome: competitive through first 1000 meters, gradual fade through second thousand, finishes clearly behind.
His coach tried everything motivational: “Dig deeper.” “You’re tougher than this.” “Winners push through.” “Do you want this seat or not?”
Nothing changed. Jordan would nod, commit to trying harder, fade at the identical point next piece.
I started working with Jordan in January. Stopped all motivational language. Started training his automatic system instead of trying to motivate his conscious mind.
After a threshold 6k piece, I asked: “Where did your Racing Brain tell you to stop?”
Jordan looked confused. “My… Racing Brain? What do you mean?”
“Your automatic threat-detection system. The part of your nervous system that generates the catastrophic feeling making you want to back off. Where did it send that signal?”
“Oh. Around 3800 meters. Felt like I was dying. Like I couldn’t possibly hold the pace.”
“Where did you actually stop or reduce intensity?”
“I eased up maybe half a second at 4200. But I finished.”
“So Racing Brain predicted catastrophe at 3800. You had 2200 meters of capacity remaining after that prediction. What evidence does that provide about where your actual limits are versus where Racing Brain thinks they are?”
Long pause. Processing. “That… my alarm system is completely wrong about when I’m actually at my limit?”
“Not wrong. Miscalibrated. It’s using old data from years of training patterns. We’re going to systematically teach it new data.”
We implemented the protocol for 18 pieces over 13 weeks. Not motivational coaching. Not character-based feedback. Just systematic collection of evidence that Racing Brain’s threat predictions didn’t match actual outcomes.
By piece 14, Jordan reported: “The catastrophic feeling still comes at 3800 every time. But now I understand it doesn’t mean what I used to think it means. It’s just Racing Brain firing its alarm based on old calibration. I actually have way more capacity than it thinks I do.”
His spring seat racing: won every piece. 2k test: 6.3 seconds faster than fall. Not from improved fitness—his VO2 max testing was essentially unchanged. From learning to distinguish Racing Brain’s false alarms from actual physiological limits.
Post-season reflection from Jordan: “For three years I thought I just wasn’t mentally tough enough. Turns out my brain was just trained to be overprotective. Once I understood that and had a systematic way to retrain it, everything changed.”
Identify one athlete who doesn’t respond to traditional motivational coaching. The rower who keeps fading despite your best “dig deeper” efforts.
After the next hard piece, don’t give motivational speech. Ask these questions:
“Where did your Racing Brain tell you to stop? Where did you actually stop? What does that gap teach your Racing Brain about where your real limits are?”
Have them write the answers. Start building their evidence log.
Stop attempting to motivate their conscious mind. Start systematically training their automatic threat-detection system.
Ready for complete implementation? Get the week-by-week protocols, evidence log templates, and detailed troubleshooting guides in the free Mindset Clinic. Need personalized support integrating this into your program? Let’s discuss coaching options.
© 2025 Schary Consulting, LLC. All Rights Reserved