Goal-setting and your body

Goal-setting is an efficient way to visualize and reach your targets. It seems to work in sales, academia, fundraising, test-taking and saving money.

It may however not work when it comes to your body. Or specifically, when it comes to reaching a body shape you desire.

Because the human body is far more complex than any of the examples above.

When you want to score well in a test, the equation is simple – set a goal of scoring so-and-so, study well, learn the concepts, practice taking the test, figure out where you might be going wrong and correct yourself.

In most cases, this will ensure you get the desired results. Sure, many other factors play a role – your health has to be good during prep and on test day, no major accidents on test day, need money for the test or buying supplies and study materials etc. But the other factors play a relatively minor role.

If you compare two test takers who have similar facilities available to them, the one that has a clear goal and studies better, scores better by and large.

But bodies, their health and fitness are affected by so many variables that it is impossible to account for all of them.

There’s a long long list of things that go into making a body healthy – amount and quality of food, exercise, mental health, financial health, social capital, genetics, how your body processes stress, your metabolism, family support, preexisting diseases, parental health and habits, your habits, childhood influences, your native culture (especially the position of food in that culture), your relationship to food and so on.

So when you set a goal of having a waist size so and so inches or having so many packs in your abs, there’s a ton of things you have to get right to reach that goal.

Sure, many people, reach their health goals. They probably do so because many of the above factors are already in their favor and they manage to get in control the few factors that aren’t with their goal setting.

On the other hand, I’m sure the numbers of those who don’t succeed is far far greater. Or we wouldn’t have billion dollar industries in nutritional supplements, fitness instruments, apps and programs, reality tv shows, and diet books.

So the take-away? Avoid setting body-shape and size related goals that are influenced by complex factors beyond your control.

Instead, set goals that are in your control, like waking up early or running a set distance every week or avoiding sugar for 21 days or lifting x amount of weight. Your body might respond the way you like or you may have to adjust your goals. 

Sonia Gandhi, Manmohan Singh and the 2008 global rice crisis

I’ve been catching up on old NPR podcasts during my runs. The podcasts are usually short and informative. My ears perked up when one of them mentioned India and had a quote from Government funded think tank official, P.K. Joshi, in the familiar thick Indian accent (familiar because I have it too!).

Apparently, a decision by the Government of India in 2007 helped trigger a global food crisis in 2008. The amazing part was that this crisis was triggered (and contained) not by any actual change in the production or supply of food, but by changes in the expectations and fears of people and governments the world over. And as usual by greed and incompetence. I do not recall reading much about this in the Indian media. So it was particularly interesting that a decision by Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh (obviously not by them alone, but they are responsible being at the top of the decision-making hierarchy then) led to people in Philippines and West Africa going without food. If I recall correctly, Sonia Gandhi headed the National Advisory Council (NAC) which is behind the Food Security Act, among other legislation.

The podcast is from 2011 - NPR Planet Money podcast – How Fear Turned a Surplus into Scarcity. Following is a summary of the events taken from the podcast and other news sources.

The Government of India decided to create the Food Security Act under the Right to Food in 2007. This required more than 60 million tonnes of rice and wheat to be available in India. Wheat being expensive, the emphasis was on making more rice available since India had plenty of it.

“To make sure there was plenty of cheap rice on hand, Indian officials made it illegal for most Indian rice to leave the country. In October2007, they blocked exports of all non-Basmati rice.” 

India was the second largest of rice globally at the time. This sudden anticipated reduction in supply led to a dramatic rise in prices (20% overnight in some cases), limiting rice exports in other countries like Egypt, Vietnam and hoarding in countries like Philippines.

“Early in 2008, Egypt, Pakistan and Vietnam all started limiting the amount of rice that they would export. Government officials in Thailand, the world's leading rice exporter, started talking about setting up a cartel of rice exporters, similar to OPEC.”

“During the first four months of 2008, the price of a ton of rice on the world market went from $300 to $1,200.”

Poor people who couldn’t afford the high prices had to reduce their consumption of rice. I suppose it would be hard to determine and quantify whether any deaths occurred due to this artificial crisis.

The crisis was eventually solved by getting Japan to announce that they will sell some of their unwanted rice to Philippines. I do not know if the sale actually went through but apparently the announcement itself was enough to calm down prices.

In this narration, the American economists emerge, unsurprisingly, as the heroes who rescued the world from the crisis. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were other factors at play.

Listen to the podcast for more interesting nuggets on this story; especially on how an American economist tried to get himself heard by GoI officials… “you try to get a word through channels…try to get key players in the Indian government that a ban is going to be very very difficult for the world…”. I wonder who these key players were. Perhaps one of them was this guy. 

Knowing someone

We started getting comfortable talking with each other. Talking with, not to. Never met though. This makes it hard to know in that gut instinct kind of way whether you really want to be with a person. The usual 'forever' bit at the end of the previous sentence adds a whole lot of pressure. So I didn't put it there, but it's obviously on my mind.

It's easy to fall in love. Even easier when you inevitably, and often unknowingly, make up a fictionalized version of the person you're talking with from a distance. This version is perfect in that imperfect way - we endow them with the qualities and flaws we are comfortable with. But there's so much more to a person.

I don't know what she looks like sitting by the window reading when it's raining outside. She doesn't know what I smell like after I'm back from a run but before I shower. I don't know if she smiles while talking on the phone or yawns loudly or frowns when concentrating. She doesn't know if I slouch too much or how enthusiastic I can get for some things or how slowly I type. Will she want to walk that small distance instead of driving or will it be too hot for her? Will her love diminish if I make much less money than her friends or maybe if I'm not as sophisticated as them?

I don't know if she likes being teased in front of others or how she looks just after waking up in the morning. Will she scowl at me checking email first thing in the morning or that I dip my toast in the cup of tea? And when she tells me something, will she be patient when I don't understand whether she wants me to just listen or reply with something constructive? Does she get absorbed in a movie like I do or is she bursting to comment on what  she just saw? Will she talk to me when she doesn't like something about us or will she let it build up to an un-returnable point of frustration? Will she find it corny if I tell her everyday how much she means to me or will she want to witness it by my actions?

Do I need to know all these answers before taking her hands in mine?