We can visualise this maybe as an elastic band, you want ‘pull’ enough to get you going, but not so stretched the band actually breaks.

ELASTIC BAND THEORY OF GOAL SETTING

The elastic band theory of goal setting, also known as the Law of the Rubber Band, suggests that stretching yourself is what closes the gap between good and great. The idea is that you can do more than you thought you were capable of, and that without challenge, there won't be any change. 

Here are some other concepts related to rubber bands and goal setting:

• The Rubber Band Model

A model for choosing between two options by imagining yourself stuck between two stretched rubber bands. One rubber band pulls you closer, while the other holds you back. 

• The Rubber Band Principle

The idea that behavior changes, like eating differently or exercising more, can snap back to baseline as quickly as a stretched rubber band snaps back. 

• The Rubber Band Theory in conflict management

The idea that conflict can be useful when it's purpose-driven, and that the end goal is to overcome hurdles together. The more possibilities you consider, the more likely you'll find a creative resolution.  

• Locke's Goal-Setting Theory

The idea that specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals. 

“The key is to have enough tension to drive momentum, without so much the tension snaps the elastic band”.

On this note I was talking to a professor frond of mine about the 5 a day targets for fruit and vegetable consumption. Aim for 5 = get 3.

Aim for 10 get to 7 

In my mind, this type of target, just like aiming for a certain number of reps on an exercise need to be ‘stretch targets’.

By the way RM = rep max. That’s the maximum reps you can complete at a set weight, not just the number you can complete.

If you hit the target. The weight will need increasing next time.

One thing that strikes me each year, is the downing of tools before Christmas. We’ve got a solid 6 weeks before then.

Why not make some really good progress?

Or you can follow the herd, wait till January.

Start today by signing up for my Strength For Life group

“At any point in life, if you are doing what the majority of folks are doing, there’s a very high chance you are not optimising your health wellness or life in general”.

Research suggests that setting high but realistic goals can lead to better outcomes than setting lower, more easily attainable goals. The theory behind this is rooted in motivation science, particularly Goal-Setting Theory by Locke and Latham, which posits that challenging goals, if perceived as achievable, can drive greater effort, focus, and perseverance.

Nutrition Example: Vegetable Intake

Consider aiming for five servings of vegetables per day, a commonly recommended target. If the goal is to eat five servings, a person might consume three servings on average, falling short of the goal. However, if the target is increased to ten servings, the same person might eat seven servings. The effort involved in reaching a higher goal generally prompts better outcomes, even if the ideal target isn’t met. 

Research supports that incremental increases in vegetable intake can significantly benefit health, particularly by lowering risks for heart disease and certain cancers.

This approach aligns with findings from studies on incremental habit formation. For example, one study found that participants who set ambitious goals for fruit and vegetable intake saw higher adherence rates compared to those with more modest goals. The intention to reach a higher target likely leads to more consistent reminders to make vegetable choices, leading to better health outcomes over time. 

Exercise Example: Daily Steps

For someone aiming to increase their daily steps, consider setting a lower goal, such as 5,000 steps, compared to a more ambitious target of 10,000. Aiming for 5,000 steps might lead to a daily average of around 4,000 steps, whereas aiming for 10,000 could push them closer to 7,000-8,000 steps. 

Research on step counts and health outcomes indicates that people who set higher step targets tend to reach more substantial physical activity levels, even if they don’t consistently achieve the full goal. Studies suggest that higher daily steps correlate with improvements in cardiovascular health, weight management, and mental health. Even if someone falls short of 10,000 steps, reaching 7,000-8,000 still provides significant health benefits.

Strength Training Example: Reps and Sets in the Gym

When training in the gym, setting a goal of 15 reps with a particular weight rather than 10 can lead to better strength gains, even if the exerciser only reaches 12 reps. Research indicates that aiming for a higher rep count can drive increased muscle endurance and strength development. 

By challenging the body, one prompts adaptive responses, leading to greater strength and fitness over time. This approach is also seen in progressive overload, where gradually increasing reps, weight, or intensity is known to yield better fitness gains than maintaining constant, moderate goals.

A study on strength training adherence showed that exercisers with challenging but attainable goals were more consistent in their workouts than those who set lower, easily achievable targets. This effect likely results from the perception that more challenging goals necessitate a higher level of commitment and effort.

Body Weight Management: Target Weight

When it comes to body weight goals, setting a slightly more ambitious target can have positive effects on lifestyle choices. For instance, someone aiming to lose 15 pounds rather than 5 might implement broader dietary and lifestyle changes to meet this goal. Even if they lose only 10 pounds, the effort to achieve a higher goal generally results in better overall outcomes compared to setting and achieving a lower target.

Research on weight loss shows that people with higher but realistic weight loss targets tend to lose more weight than those with modest goals. These ambitious goals often encourage more comprehensive lifestyle changes, like increasing physical activity and eating a healthier diet, which provide long-term benefits beyond weight loss.

Conclusion

In summary, aiming high tends to push individuals to achieve better outcomes than aiming low, even if the original target isn’t fully reached. This approach is supported across a range of domains, including nutrition, exercise, and weight management. While it’s essential for goals to remain realistic, a slightly higher aim can drive greater efforts, helping individuals develop habits that lead to improved health and well-being over time.

A standard portion of vegetables is generally defined as about 80 grams (roughly 3 ounces) of fresh, frozen, or canned vegetables. For most people, this portion size is a practical guide to reach the recommended daily intake, although specifics can vary slightly depending on the type of vegetable and preparation method.

Here's a breakdown of what a portion might look like:

• Leafy Greens (e.g., spinach, lettuce, kale): A portion is typically a heaping handful (around 1 cup raw or ½ cup cooked).
• Root Vegetables (e.g., carrots, beets): One portion is about half a large carrot or 1 medium beet.
• Cruciferous Vegetables (e.g., broccoli, cauliflower): A portion is usually 1 small head of broccoli or caulifloweror about ½ cup cooked.
• Other Vegetables (e.g., peppers, zucchini): About 1 medium pepper or 1 small zucchini counts as a portion.
• Tomatoes: One medium tomato or 7 cherry tomatoes is a portion.

This general guideline helps ensure adequate variety and quantity in a diet focused on health and nutritional balance.

In the United Kingdom, average vegetable consumption falls short of the recommended five portions per day. Data from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) for 2016 to 2019 indicates that adults aged 19-64 years consume an average of 4.3 portions of fruit and vegetables daily, while those aged 65-74 years average 4.5 portions. Notably, only 33% of adults meet the 5 A Day recommendation. - Nutrition Society

A 2021 report by The Food Foundation highlights disparities in vegetable intake across different demographics. It reveals that the wealthiest 20% of the population consume, on average, one more portion of vegetables daily compared to the poorest 20%. Additionally, 29% of children aged 5-10 years eat less than one portion of vegetables per day.  - Food Foundation

These statistics underscore the need for increased efforts to promote vegetable consumption across all age groups and socioeconomic backgrounds in the UK.