There are two radically different ways to make a positive change in your life, which one is better?

If your opinion is "it waries, depends on you" then of course the question is how to know which one is right for you?

Option 1 - Static Balance. Small, regulated positive changes, in the form of routine. To save money, stick to a realistic budget every month. To lose weight, stick to a calorie budget every day and a regular exercise regime - every Tuesday is a chest and legs day etc. Advantage: can be easier. Disadvantages: it is boring to have regular routines, to have every day or month like the other, to have this organization. Small, easy changes don't fulfill you with a sense of pride and challenge. And always something unforeseen happens that puts you out of the routine. 

Option 2: Dynamic Balance. Understanding that unforeseen events can upset any routine, don't have a routine, rather go all-in today and be OK with not doing it all in a month, then repeating it - go from one extreme to another, then your average will be in a good balance. Have a buy-nothing November then splurge in December. Overtrain like crazy for two weeks, then pursue some other interest for a week. Wanna lose weight, go crazy fast for two days, have a ridiculously restricted diet for a week, then accept your friends invitation to that all you can eat buffet. Advantage: going crazy gives you fulfillment and challenge, it is a fun game, and you are prepared for unforeseen situation throwing you off track for a while, because your average is still OK. Disadvantage: can be hard.


What do you think?

Tags: balance, changes, diet, frugal, loss, spending, training, weight

Views: 243

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I usually found that the static option was, well, static. So I pushed hard. It worked for some things.

Option 3, surrender, "turning it over" as they say in AA, was sometimes the only way change happened.

My issue with the post is that things are more of a continuum, rather than a couple of discrete options.

I would hazard that a series of small, discrete, intended changes in one's lifestyle is not a "static" endeavor.

Similarly, a wild swing between extreme behaviors is not a balanced endeavor.

As to the initial OP question, you know what's right for you when it works for you, and works longer than a couple of days or weeks.

+1, although are you talking about losing weight specifically? Or are talking about positive changes in your life as a whole?

But, it really *does* depend on you.

 

Depending on your own mindset, either approach is equally valid.  The incremental changes are typically less painful and more palatable, but sometimes you just have to rip off the bandaid.

 

I've found, for me, a "break" with the old in favor of a new habit is often my best approach.

 

With regards to weight loss, I might have a suggestion.  There is an app called LoseIt! which I found awhile back.  Basically it's a calorie counting app, approximately analogous to the Weight Watchers system as I understand it.  It seems to be working for me, and I'm already down 6.4 pounds, without the pain of an abrupt change.  Maybe worth a look?

My wife and I actually practice a stance between option 1 and 2.  Based on Edward Deming's work.

We call it Focused Consumption.  We are focused on one area, currently weight loss and put extra resources on that until we find the method that works and then we lock it in, monitor and reward progress.  The rest of life stays like option 1 - Static.  It allows us to find the pride in the changes and make harder ones than "little shifts", yet smaller then an extreme all or nothing like option 2.

Once the method is locked down and the progress metered and rewarded, we can focus on the next topic, without loosing the gains from the first goal.

 

RSS

Latest Activity

Chuck Knight replied to Josh Williams's discussion New hairstyle
"Ask for it, but don't assume that your idea of a skullet and his will be the same.   Instead, take some *clear* photos of what you want, with you, and ask that way.  There is far less room for misinterpretation, this way."
4 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to Shane's discussion Government Services in the group The Great Debate
"If communism can't work because it removes the components of greed and laziness from the individual; then those components need mitigated in capitalist societies.  Especially one of 300million+. This. "
6 minutes ago
Rebekah replied to O'Neal's discussion Is this negligence?
"A mall employee would be a third-party beneficiary to a security contract.  Since there were representations to him about the level of security, there might even be some kind of contract between OP and the mall or security company.  It…"
15 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to Nate Thallas's discussion The strangest date of my life
"When it comes to boobs, we all win. "
17 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to Josh Williams's discussion New hairstyle
"It's definitely a skullet. That's exactly what he should ask his barber for."
18 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to Brad Williams's discussion Hunting Big Game if you Could?
"If you're hunting bison for meat, that's one thing. If you're hunting it for sport, as you've pointed out, that's another. The point I was trying to make was that hunting a lot of big exotic game is about as sporty as…"
20 minutes ago
Pale Horse replied to Dave's discussion What's your favourite ad that inspires you to be a better man?
"They inspire me to make memes."
23 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to Brandon's discussion Admiring aspects of times of oppression
""Was apartheid good for whites in South Africa?  Sure.  Was it terrible for blacks?  Absolutely."   "Well, no." The convenience of oppression VS the challenges of freedom is what this boils down…"
25 minutes ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service