A smooth transition between two habits maintains continuity in progression.

As I described in my last post, my pandemic reset involved too many variables and quickly failed. I successfully created a strong, basic rowing habit, but had to return my rower. Afterwards, I switched to walking to keep up the exercise behavior, which eventually just fizzled out.

The biggest issue was not having an intentional method to transition from one exercise to the next. This is a systemic problem because most skill-based habits need to change – sometimes significantly – to avoid a plateau. But, in changing, the cues and responses (the building blocks of any habit) also change.

It’s what I’ve dubbed the Habit Advancement Paradox - eventually you’ll have to sacrifice automaticity to skill advancement.

And this is why I believe that Killing Habits is as Important as Forming Them and why I think it’s useful to think in larger cycles that go beyond habits.

I’m going to define a Lifestyle as a broad based behavior comprised of separate, often linearly changing habits. For example, an Exercise Lifestyle could be comprised of 3 months of walking, then 3 months of rowing, then 3 months of biking.

A good lifestyle progression is an important added measure to Oetingen’s mental contrasting exercise. In mental contrasting, you contrast the good with the bad, brainstorming problems that could crop up. The problem here is how to advance and cross train a skill, which is itself a “danger zone” - a critical area in the duration of a habit where there’s a significant chance it will collapse.

The tendency is for strong habits to “drift” as new cues and responses are introduced to level up the skill. For example, switching from rowing at 3 PM to running as soon as you wake up might be a part of the same exercise lifestyle, but they’re totally different habits.

When transitioning, efficiently creating a new habit would be tedious. You’d have to slowly level up a new Tiny Habit from scratch. That’s great for habit formation, but not as efficient from the lifestyle or skill perspective. You’d be going back to very little cardio vascular growth if you transition from doing HIITs on a rower (an advanced habit) to walking around the block (the Tiny Habit for running).

UNZIPPING HABITS

A better method may come from a weird quirk of habit formation.

One reason I hate the so-called “Seinfeld Method” is that it emphasizes that daily execution is important. But according to the research, habits aren’t completely contingent on streaks – rather, habits are deep mental structures that also involve automaticity, memory, length of time, and identity. According to the researchers, missing a day after 3 consistent times didn’t significantly effect habit strength.

The Seinfeld Method - Get a calendar, draw a big red X on every day you do a specific behavior, and don’t break the chain.

In fact, I remember actually getting higher scores on the Self Report Habit Index (SRHI) after skipping a day every once in a while.

In Is Polymathy Even Possible?, I talk about how you can theoretically make two habits for the willpower price of one.  

The closer you get to a strong habit, the more automatic the action gets, and the less willpower you have to exert.

Conversely, the closer you are to the start date of a habit, the more willpower you’ll generally exert.

But if habits don’t necessarily have to be done every day, then why not alternate days, executing different habits on different days until they’re well established?

Across time the two behaviors would unzip, forming two habits for the willpower price of one.

PROGRESSING BETWEEN HABITS

I think reversing the process may be a way to seamlessly transition to a new habit within a lifestyle.

Here’s an example:

Let’s say you have a rowing habit that you want to transition to a running habit to avoid a plateau.

And let’s say the cue for rowing is, for simplicity sake, as soon as you get up.

The rowing habit grows through the normal cycle:

1. Habit formation. A Tiny Habit of rowing for one minute after getting up becomes more automatic until it’s a fully established habit (70-84 on the SRHI).

2. Natural growth. Rowing automatically swells in time and intensity.

3. Forced growth. Natural growth falters, but by altering practice slightly (inserting other exercises like kettlebell swings or pushups in between two smaller rowing sessions, or by inserting a few HIITs per week), growth continues. The change in focus makes the additional time or intensity feel less onerous.

4. Plateau around day 90. Even forced growth ceases to deliver change and increasing intensity or time loads feels harder.

Instead of abruptly stopping on day 90 to start a running habit from scratch, I’d replace rowing every other day to build up a daily tiny habit of running off the same trigger. Essentially, I’d be splicing in a new habit.

With ludicrously tiny habits it takes about 20 or so days to get them up to the 70s in the SRHI.

I’d want to start splicing in running about 20 days before the end of my rowing cycle - so on day 70.

But those are changing responses to the same trigger (waking up). What if you needed to change triggers?

For example, if I want to transition to a yoga class, I’ll probably have to go at a specific time that’s different from my cue of rowing.

It still theoretically works - I’m just establishing new cues WHILE I’m tapering off my rowing habit. I’m still working out every other day, while efficiently ramping up a new exercise habit and conserving willpower.

It’s like relay runners exchanging a baton. To conserve speed both athletes need to be running during the exchange. If I’m right, this not only solves the Habit Advancement Paradox, but also maintains momentum in skill across a Lifestyle.

Now I just have to test it out…