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?

Views: 277

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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

Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"I haven't done the research, but some may have been done by a renowned sculpturist or something. That would put it at the level of a piece of art IMO. But I haven't done the research.If it was just cast based on some random picture or…"
4 minutes ago
Dominic replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"I didn't see any looting and burning or shutting down cities in Charlottesville. You are conflating your image of one group with an image of another. I did see nazis in polo shirts and tiki torches shouting anti-semitic, nazi slogans, racial…"
6 minutes ago
Pale Horse replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"You're right though, the two sides are on different planes. One blocks traffic, loots, burns, and shuts down whole cities. The other wears polo shirts and holds up tiki torches."
10 minutes ago
Pale Horse replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"Nope. You don't get to manipulate the narrative. They were ancoms."
15 minutes ago
Dominic replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"The anti-nazis were pretty clearly there to be against nazis. To show that white supremacy can't just march through a city without demonstrating that white supremacy is not wanted or welcome. The two sides are not equivalent on any plane at…"
18 minutes ago
Shane replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"The Communists and anarchists used the statue as a reason to gather and engage in class warfare together in a group. I don't see much evidence that they really care about the destruction of statues. And if that is their real goal, there are…"
31 minutes ago
Shane replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"Appeal to Authority"
39 minutes ago
Dominic replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"The Nazis and white supremacists used the statue as a reason to gather and be racists together in a group. I don't see much evidence that they really care about the preservation of statues. And if that is their real goal, there are many…"
40 minutes ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service