{"id":143269,"date":"2021-03-18T08:49:51","date_gmt":"2021-03-18T08:49:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.next-action.co.uk\/?p=143269"},"modified":"2021-03-18T08:52:05","modified_gmt":"2021-03-18T08:52:05","slug":"magical-shrinking","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.next-action.co.uk\/2021\/03\/18\/magical-shrinking\/","title":{"rendered":"Magical Shrinking"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Fasten your seatbelts. We are almost a quarter of the way into the year, and so far it looks like another odd one. Global pandemics and political shenanigans aside, the first months of a new year have always offered an opportunity for making long-desired changes. Or they have, traditionally. I\u2019ve heard a lot less about goal-setting this year. I think that\u2019s because the main goal is a big \u2018un: Let\u2019s get through this thing without killing anyone we live with\u2026.<\/p>\n

If you\u00a0have<\/em>\u00a0set some other goals for this year, you definitely want a plan for reaching them that really works. I mention it because sometimes the accepted model for changing doesn\u2019t work as well as its PR would have us believe.<\/p>\n

If the proposed solution didn\u2019t work at all, that would be easy. Everyone would say \u201cThat\u2019s a waste of time. I\u2019m not doing that, it\u2019s bonkers.\u201d<\/p>\n

What is really challenging is when an ineffective solution is logical and easy to understand. It still doesn\u2019t work, but because it is easier to understand than what does, people keep trying \u2013 and failing \u2013 to make it work.<\/p>\n

Some examples:<\/p>\n

Because of the time we live in, many will \u2013 again this year \u2013 have set a goal about losing weight. They\u2019ve bought books, read articles and searched the internet for something that will work better than what they tried last year. They\u2019ll find weight-loss plans that trot out the old, \u2018move more, eat less\u2019 schtick to create a deficit of calories. Implicitly, they are told that if only they were less slothful and gluttonous they\u2019d not be so lardy. So they get to weighing and measuring, and calculating how many minutes on a treadmill cancels out that Mars bar after lunch.<\/p>\n

The theory is elegant. The maths impeccable. It should work. Sometimes seems to. But the fact that pretty much everyone who tried it last year is doing it again this year indicates the proposed solution isn\u2019t working. And it won\u2019t work \u2013 can\u2019t work \u2013 because the problem is metabolic, not caloric.<\/p>\n

If you are using the \u2018calories in\/calories out\u2019 model, then the spoon in the image above makes sense. It\u2019s a real thing. As part of their sugar reduction strategy, one of the major supermarkets developed it to help people reduce the amount of sugar they put in their tea by 20%. If you just use the same number of spoonfuls as you usually do with a normal spoon, the bump in the base of the spoon will theoretically ensure you use less sugar. A great idea. It should work. And won\u2019t, ever.<\/p>\n

Similarly, for years we were sold a story that fat on your plate would turn into fat on your butt or gut,\u00a0and\u00a0in your arteries.\u00a0It\u2019s not true, but it was gospel for decades because it\u2019s logical and easy to understand.<\/p>\n

It isn\u2019t just in the domain of diet. Here are some other things that make sense but\u00a0don\u2019t solve the real problem:<\/p>\n