We went straight back to the hairdressers [My wife didn't carry on cutting our hair] We're on a mission to help one million people RISE by 2030 - join the movement at www.myrise.co.uk One thing that the pandemic will be forever remembered for is DIY hair-do’s. With hairdressers being closed during the lockdowns, we all had to sort ourselves out. My wife did our hair. Me and the four kids. She did a great job, bless her. For an accountant. But I think she will freely admit she’s not planning on giving up the day job. As soon as hairdressers were back open, we were straight back in. It was nice to save a bit of money, sure. But the difference in the results from DIY to seeing a professional was sufficient to make that investment worthwhile. Like it is with our programme. The last few months have seen a lot of former members return to us. Who’d tried over the last year or so to “do my own thing”. With mixed results. Between “a little” and “massively backwards”. They’d realised that, whilst it’s nice to save a few pounds a day………. The difference in the results from DIY to seeing a professional is sufficient to make that investment worthwhile. Saving a little bit of money but having a worse haircut all day every day isn’t a good saving (for most). Saving a little bit of money but having lower energy levels and mood and a body we like the look and feel of less all day every day isn’t either. We get that “it’s not cheap”. But there’s a reason for that. You get what you pay for. If cheap or free works for someone, that’s cool. For the vast majority for who it doesn’t, we’re the equivalent of “getting a nice hair cut”. Much love, Jon ‘& Guy’ Hall

Did you have "a good week"? [How will you know?] We're on a mission to help one million people RISE by 2030 - join the movement at www.myrise.co.uk Did you have a good week this week? From my experience of asking people this many thousands of times over the years, there’s a pretty good chance you’ll have said “No”. Or “not really”. That’s what the vast majority of people have replied with to me. Which I get. Life is busy. Full on. So much to do. And it rarely, if ever, all gets done. Easy to finish the day or week thinking about all the things that didn’t get done. Or didn’t go quite as we’d like. But…………. Is it worth considering……………. What would have needed to have happened for us to have considered it a “good week”? Did we have a particular definition? If not, we’re just left with how we “feel”. And how we feel will always tell us it wasn’t good. Our feelings will lean more towards remembering the ‘less than perfect’ stuff. And immediately forgetting the majority that went as planned. Moving quickly on to the next thing. There’s no right or wrong, of course. But, if having no particular definition of a ‘good week’ usually leads to us feeling we’ve not had one…………….. Or if that definition is, essentially, everything going absolutely perfectly………… Could we set a definition that sets up up for success? One that we will achieve the majority of the time and use to build confidence and momentum? Could a “great week” be all the stars aligning? And a “good one” being something a bit more likely? My “good week” is no one dying and getting done the bare minimum that needs to happen for the business to be ok (Sessions, blogs, accountability follow ups, etc). This happens practically ever week. A great week takes a little more and happens less often. I know some would question this definition. But it sets me up for success. For feeling happy the vast majority of the time. Again, no right or wrong. Our choice. But if our definition of “a good week” is none existent or is “perfection”……… Might we benefit from questioning that? Much love, Jon ‘Will Hunting’ Hall

It's after, not before [Motivation] We're on a mission to help one million people RISE by 2030 - join the movement at www.myrise.co.uk Next March, I’ll have been in the Fitness Industry for 20 years. This blows my mind. Many things have changed over that time frame. And many things have stayed exactly the same. For all that time, the number one thing people tell me they struggle with is………….. Motivation. There may be other factors there too, but that’s mentioned more than anything else and always has been. Which I get. Ultimately, the main reason we don’t do anything sufficiently frequently over time is that we don’t feel sufficiently motivated to do it. If we did, we would’ve done it. I’ve mentioned many times that I’d quite like to be able to play a musical instrument. But the fact that I’ve put practically zero time and effort into it shows I’m not really that bothered. I’ve never been particularly motivated by it. Which is fine. Although, the irony with exercise, better eating, etc is……… We probably have all felt motivated by it at some point in the past. Usually when we were doing it. We just lose that feeling. When we stop doing it. Because motivation is an ‘after emotion’. It comes from the doing. Not the waiting. And sometimes it takes time to come when we’re doing. But it’ll come in the end. If we keep doing. When we remember that (and that the body responds the same whether we’re motivated or not if we’re ‘doing’)………… And we ‘do’ even though we’re not motivated………. That’s the only way we ever become motivated! Motivation as an after emotion, not a before one. Much love, Jon ‘noon tea’ Hall

What percent of GDP is that? ["How much?"] We're on a mission to help one million people RISE by 2030 - join the movement at www.myrise.co.uk I mentioned yesterday about Brian Cox’s response to the cost of a space exploration programme (the details of which I forgot). And the context he put that in by explaining that that money was nearly all then spent in this country and not “sent up in a rocket”. Context is often useful with all expenditure. I regularly see people posting on social media about how much is been spent on things. And “what a waste” it is. Or how it could be spent better. By the government. By the local council. And, often, these amounts of money do sound a lot. A billion pounds by the government. £3 million by the local council. But big numbers always sound a lot without context. A billion pounds is less than £20 per person in the UK. 0.035% of GDP (“all of the money spent by consumers, businesses, and government in a given period”). £3 million about £50 per person who lives in Macclesfield. Or 0.3% of the amount spent in the town each year by visitors. Doesn’t automatically mean that they are the best uses of money and that we shouldn’t ask questions, of course. But it puts them into context, doesn’t it. Both in terms of what a big cost it really is in the grand scheme of things. And of the benefits it could bring (spending 0.3% of the amount spent by visitors in Macclesfield to increase that number by a percent or five makes sense, no?). And I always think the same with the cost of our programme. I get that it costs more than a budget gym. The kind where you rent access to some equipment. But no one knows or cares if you know what you’re doing, go or not or get results or not. And you only hear from when you cancel your DD. But that’s not a fair comparison, if you ask me. Like pointing out a nice house cost more than tent. Or a nice new car costs more than a clapped out old one. A budget gym would cost 1.6% of the average UK income. A reasonable one more like 2.6%. Many are 5% plus and a top end 1:1 PT Studio near here that would be more like 40%. Our programme more like 4%. For a body you like the look and feel of more. Increased energy and mood. A increased chance of staying healthy and living longer. The best use of 4% of income you could possible make in my humble opinion. And for many, only a fraction of what they’ll spend on stuff which, whilst is enjoyable, if we’re being honest with ourselves, is less important. TV, films, eating out, take out, drinking, etc. It always makes me sad when people try us out briefly and leave “because of the cost” and I see them out (or on social media) happily spending what would get them an entire month with us on a single night out. Or an entire year (or several) on a marginally nicer car. I’d never dream of telling someone how they should spend their money, of course. It’s their money, their life – to do with both what they wish. But I will help people question the cost of the changes they can make with us. And to put them into context. Much love, Jon ‘GDPR’ Hall

"They didn't just send that money up in a rocket" [Brian Cox said] We're on a mission to help one million people RISE by 2030 - join the movement at www.myrise.co.uk Five years ago the wife and I went to see ‘In Conversation with Professor Brian Cox + Professor Tim O’Brien’ at Saint Michael’s Church in Macclesfield. It was part of that year’s Barnaby Festival. It was really interesting. I did a blog about it at the time (googling ‘Brian Cox Macclesfield’ brings it up first). But a line from it popped into my head the other day. When discussing the cost to the country of the pandemic. Brian was responding to a question from the audience. About the cost of some sort of space exploration project (I forget which one exactly). And whether he felt it was a worthwhile use of tax payer’s money. In short, he did. For a few reasons. In part, because, as the blog title shows, “They didn’t just send that money up in a rocket”. The money was spent on paying people, mostly in this country, to do work. On purchases from suppliers based in this country. All of whom would then pay tax, spend in the economy, etc. It isn’t just a cost. Like many things. It’s tempting to think that healthier eating and exercise are a cost. Of our time. Of our money. Of our energy and focus. But, if anything, they’re the biggest investment we can make. Not only can we get those back………… We can end up ”in profit’. More energy and focus over all. More productive use of the time we do have (it’s pretty common that I see people who’ve joined here briefly, left because they’re “too busy” and are then listing the hundreds of hours of box sets they’ve been watching – time isn’t the issue there, it’s energy). Potentially more income due to our increased focus, energy and productivity. That time, money, energy and focus isn’t just “been sent up in a rocket”. It’s making more back for us! Much love, Jon ‘D:Ream’ Hall

Sat Nav doesn't take you in a straight line [Neither does life] We're on a mission to help one million people RISE by 2030 - join the movement at www.myrise.co.uk Anyone else got kids who spend half of a car journey asking “how long till we get there?” Mine do. Two of them particularly. Always have done. So I often put the destination into Sat Nav even when I don’t need it. If they ask, I just point at the ETA on the Sat Nav. And, I assume, they must remember to check that without my prompt sometimes. I even pop it on the school run for them (it is a 51 mile round trip – for those two anyway). Over the Cat and Fiddle (the Macclesfield to Buxton road). Which, those that have driven over it will know, is rather windy (in both uses of that word). Sometimes you can see on Sat Nav that you’re actually facing, and going, in completely the wrong direction. Because Sat Nav knows that the shortest straight line route is never the quickest one. Not when you crash into a wall, get stuck in a field, etc. No – the quickest progress is usually a wiggly line back and forth but moving in the right direction, on average, over time. Like with most things. Including improvements to our health, fitness, mood, energy levels, etc. The plan that tries to take us in a straight line as fast as possible, usually doesn’t get us there. Drastic, wholesale changes that are pretty much the exact opposite of what we’ve been doing before. We do the equivalent of driving into that wall or field. Then ‘going home’. And planning on “starting again” at some point in the near future. Manageable changes……. That we maintain………. That we may speed up and slow down with as circumstance dictates……… That sometimes involve a bit of “two steps forward, one step back” (and then the next two steps forward)……….. But that we keep going with, on average……….. Get us there more consistently and reliably. Much love, Jon ‘Are we nearly there yet?’ Hall

You can't make it burn [The literal or internal flame] We're on a mission to help one million people RISE by 2030 - join the movement at www.myrise.co.uk I’ve blogged before about fire. You know the stuff. Flames and all that. Takes fuel, oxygen and ignition. GCSE science innit? We’ve probably all set something on fire at some point. We know how it works. But we didn’t really ‘create’ the fire, did we? We can’t ‘make’ things burn. We can just create the conditions where fire is the likely outcome. Manage the variables that feed into that. Control the inputs, not the outcome. Knowing which inputs make the desired outcome most likely. For fires of the literal type………. And that internal one. Motivation. That feeling inside us. That desire to do something. We can’t make that happen either. We can’t create motivation. We can’t conjure it out of thin air. We can’t even force it to happen with the right inputs like we can’t force something to burn. But we can control those inputs……….. Those variables………. To make it most likely. To make it pretty probable to happen given time. We can make the better choices when we don’t feel motivated to; Food Exercise Sleep Meditation Knowing that it makes it more likely that motivation will come, with time. We don’t just expect a log to burn. Then get annoyed with it for not being alight. We control the variables that go into it. Our internal flame is the same. Much love, Jon ‘Bangles’ Hall

Boston were wrong [More than a feeling?] We're on a mission to help one million people RISE by 2030 - join the movement at www.myrise.co.uk Who remembers the band Boston? I’ll be honest, I don’t. I couldn’t’ tell you a single thing about them. Other than the name of one of their songs that I have on my general playlist. “More than a feeling”. Talking about the singer’s memories of a girl called Marianne. And how they are “more than a feeling”. They’re not though, are they? They are just a feeling, aren’t they? ‘Feeling’ being defined as “an emotional state or reaction” And ’emotion’ being “a strong feeling deriving from one’s circumstances, mood, or relationships with others”…………… State “the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time.” By definition, just a feeling. A temporary one. Like all emotions. Temporary states. Governed by the “law of impermanence”. Transient Inconstant. Things that come and go. When we view any emotion as being anything but a temporary state, we’re probably setting ourselves up for a harder time with them. They are just feelings. Feelings we may have more than we’d like, sure. That we are, perhaps, more pre-disposed to than others. That, maybe, come to us more readily and we find harder to let go of. But feelings nonetheless. Temporary states. We don’t describe some feelings with terms of permeance So why others? We never say we “have happiness”. Or talk about “my joy”. So why describe feelings like depression and anxiety the same way? Not to dismiss or minimise them, but does describing them as things we “have” or “my……” set us up for viewing them in the way that serves us best? Can they not just be emotions that we’re feeling? That, by definition, will come and go? That we’ll be feeling sometimes and not others? Does framing them as “more than a feeling” really help us? Much love, Jon ‘Cheers’ Hall

It has a higher success rate than the vaccine [BMI] We're on a mission to help one million people RISE by 2030 - join the movement at www.myrise.co.uk I was reading an article about the various COVID vaccines the other day. And their success rates. All in the fairly high double digits percentage it seems. 70 to 95% the various reports and studies suggest. When the vaccines were first in development there was talk of 50% being the minimum effectiveness that would be considered viable. So these numbers are, obviously, considered pretty good. But, do you know what has a much higher success rate? But is often maligned? BMI. Body Mass Index. Our weight in kilos divided by our height in metres squared. Under 18.5 is considered underweight. 18.5 to 25 “healthy”. 25 to 30 “overweight”. Over 30 “obese”. Many people will tell you it’s rubbish. Inaccurate. It “doesn’t’ consider muscle mass”. And that “It puts most bodybuilders and rugby players down as obese”. I used to say the same. When it seemed like that’s what all FitPros were saying and, therefore, so should I. And, when my own BMI was over 25. I’ve covered the “body builder / rugby player” explanation in depth before. Body builders / rugby players are perhaps 1% of the population. And only a proportion of them have an “obese” BMI. And only a proportion of them have a “non-obese” body fat percentage. So, based on that, BMI works for 99.5+% of the population, surely? It’s not the perfect tool, sure. But it’s better than many will tell you. It’s easy to look at the numbers and think “I could never get that light”. But, every single person who’s ever been a member of RISE (we don’t attract body-builders) who has gotten down to what you might call a “slim” body fat level………… Has ended up pretty much bang in the middle of that 18.5 to 25 BMI range. Most surprised with how light they’ve ended up. Realising they were carrying more body fat than they realised. When I got really lean for my 40th, my BMI was 22.4. It’s normally around 23.5 now. And that’s with reasonable muscle levels. I’d have to gain 3 stone 9lbs to get to an “obese” BMI. Without the use of steroids (what bodybuilders take to get that big) I don’t see that happening without a fair proportion of it being body fat. As always, we can do what we like. Take the vaccine or not. Have whatever BMI we like. But knowing that BMI isn’t as inaccurate as many will tell us………… And that if we have a high BMI, there is a very, very good chance we have body fat we could lose if we choose to………….. Puts us in a better position for making those choices (and realising that they are choices) then dismissing it completely does. Much love, JCW Hall

How many times did it land on black? [The Gambler's Fallacy] We're on a mission to help one million people RISE by 2030 - join the movement at www.myrise.co.uk During the lockdowns of the last year or so, the family and I had numerous ‘themed’ evenings in. Race nights, drive thru cinema, quizzes, game shows and much more. We did a casino night too. Got a new roulette wheel and baize of Amazon to go with the black jack set we already have. Our youngest particularly enjoyed that night. So much so that I sometimes find him with the roulette wheel out, counting the numbers and having a spin. Do you know what the record is for most consecutive lands on one colour? At least in a well know, casino type situation? It was in Monte-Carlo on August 18, 1913. The ball fell on black 26 times in a row. A one in 67 million chance (as you might expect, I just figured that out with Excel). Gamblers lost millions expecting it to land on red along the way. You can imagine people saying “It can’t land on black again” or “What are the chances?” That game made the term “the gambler’s fallacy” famous. “when an individual erroneously believes that a certain random event is less likely or more likely to happen based on the outcome of a previous event or series of events” The chances, of course, of it landing on black again are 50-50. What happened before has zero impact on what’s about to happen. But the human brain is tempted to see it a different way. As it often does in many areas. We make decisions based off our last decisions. We eat too much and then that’s the reason for eating too much again at the next meal. Framing it as “writing off” that time period (day, weekend, week, etc). Or we have one drink and use that a reason to have another. We miss one workout and use that as a reason for missing another. These are, of course, all things we can choose to do. Free world. But………… Our previous decisions don’t have to have any impact on our next ones……….. Unless we choose them to. Each spin of the wheel or roll of the dice is a fresh event. Unaffected by any event that precedes it. Each choice we make is the same. Much love, Jon ‘Black Jack’ Hall