Okay so I've heard time and time again that setting an unrealistic goal is, in essence, sabotaging yourself before you even begin because it's too discouraging. Well I was reading an article in Fitness Magazine and it was an interview with some health author/personal trainer and she said that you SHOULD shoot super high with your goals and set goals that seem like they are out of your reach. Her theory was that if your goals are that ambitious you'll try a lot harder to get there than if you had a mediocre (more realistic) one. She said that even if you don't reach that goal you'll be so proud of how hard you worked to get to where you ended up that it's not a big deal.
So what is your opinion on the matter? Are YOUR goals "realistic"?
That outlook really only works if you are self-confident enough to NOT feel like a giant failure when you don't meet your unrealistic goal.
For me, setting a goal too high/far would mean that, for example, when I've lost 15 lbs in 2 months, but wanted to lose 30, I'd feel like I "failed" because I didn't meet my goal. In reality, I'd be a tremendous success, having lost over 2 lbs a week for the entire window.
Setting unrealistic goals, for me, makes it more likely I'll write off my successes and only see how I failed to meet where I wanted to be, rather than celebrating how far I've come.
I agree with mandalinn. I would rather set a smaller goal and overachieve it, than set a huge goal and fall short. The more I feel that I am accomplishing my goals, even small ones, the more confident I become!
My way of looking at it is that a goal gets you moving in the right direction. Whether you actually reach the goal isn't so important. I always set some relatively short-term weight goals in FitDay (say, a month, 2 months, or 3 months) because that was how to find out how many calories to eat per day and lose X amount of weight. But I never met any of those goals on time and with the exact amount I was "supposed" to lose. So what? Here I am, below my initial goal weight. Did I fail or succeed?
The important thing is to keep moving toward whatever goal you set--and to work as an incentive, the goal should be one you have a realistic chance of reaching--maybe a little stretch, but not unreasonable. So, 5 pounds a week is not going to work. Maybe even 2 pounds a week is not going to work--not every week! It all depends...
I personally don't set my goals super high. Heck, I'm disappointed when I don't reach my low goals .
I generally set goals as kind of a guide to see If I'm on track to lose or not. I know this has to be a lifetime commitment, so if I don't get there in a few months it's OK. I know I'll get there as long as I keep working at it. We all will!
I set medium goals,as I would be very disapointed if I didn't make them, but I also want to challenge myself. For example, I set this month's goal at 6.5 pounds. A pound a week would be safer, but I want to stretch myself a little. I agree with PP - it's better to overshoot a small goal than "fail" a big one.
I think there's a difference between setting goals for controllable versus uncontrollable events. We can control our behaviors, but we can't always control the outcome of the behaviors.
Take pounds lost by a certain date ... we can control our eating and exercise behaviors, but we can't control how fast the pounds come off. We can do everything right and still not see a huge drop on the scales. So I'm not sure it's a great idea to set an overambitious pounds lost goal and then not meet it through no fault of our own.
However, I think it would be OK to set a superambitious fitness goal, for example. Let's say you would love to be able to do an unassisted pullup or to deadlift your own bodyweight. You can train for those goals and build up to them gradually, meeting smaller goals along the way. Especially if you don't set a deadline for your goal, you're bound to get there eventually.
I've never set a "pounds lost by a certain date" goal, but always have fitness goals and some are pretty insane for a 53-year old mom.
I think there's a difference between setting goals for controllable versus uncontrollable events. We can control our behaviors, but we can't always control the outcome of the behaviors.
Take pounds lost by a certain date ... we can control our eating and exercise behaviors, but we can't control how fast the pounds come off. We can do everything right and still not see a huge drop on the scales. So I'm not sure it's a great idea to set an overambitious pounds lost goal and then not meet it through no fault of our own.
However, I think it would be OK to set a superambitious fitness goal, for example. Let's say you would love to be able to do an unassisted pullup or to deadlift your own bodyweight. You can train for those goals and build up to them gradually, meeting smaller goals along the way. Especially if you don't set a deadline for your goal, you're bound to get there eventually.
I've never set a "pounds lost by a certain date" goal, but always have fitness goals and some are pretty insane for a 53-year old mom.
Exactly. I want to make sure I hit the gym at least 3-4 days per week. So I set going every workday as a goal. Don't always make it all 5 days, but having the 5 day goal makes it more likely I'll meet the 3-4 days per week goal. My next mini weight goal is 180. But I haven't put a date on that yet, because I don't want to set myself up for disappointment, which might trigger binge eating. Or a "to heck with it" sort of rebellion over exercise.
I think there is room between setting a "mediocre" goal, and setting an "unrealistic" goal. I think you can still set super high goals that are somewhat realistic. Although, like Meg, I dont have a time frame for the biggest stretch goals I have. Although I do for some of the "steps to get there" goals
OK...here is mine...I want to qualify for Boston Marathon. I dont have a time frame on that, although I would like to do it before 45. (40 would be nice....but that is a stretch)
My "this year" goal is to break 50 minutes on a 10K...that is a pretty darn stretch goal that is realistic according to all the charts (based on some other milestones) but seems pretty far out there to me.
So I am working for 50 minutes and I have 8 races planned this year for that (1 down 7 to go). In the end if I dont succeed will I be disappointed? probably not too much if I continue to show improvement.
I think in terms of dieting, it is much more common for people to be hurt by not reaching an overly ambitious goal, than to feel proud of themselves for working so hard and getting so far. I mean if your goal is to be president some day, and you find yourself "only" at the status of vice president "proud to have made it this far," makes sense. But when it comes to weight loss, we see over and over again people wanting to "lose 20 lbs by Christmas" beating themselves up over only losing 15.
I think short term and long term goals, and "time sensitive" goals are also very different animals. I do have an ultimate goal of reaching a healthy weight, getting off disability, getting back to work, finishing my novel, owning a house in the country where I can keep a few critters and doing some world traveling.
Dream big, but start small. I think of my big goals as the destination, but I can only focus on my tiny goals, each individual step.
I have set myself a goal with a date. I have done it before and succeeded and I have done it before and failed. But each time, whether I succeeded or failed, I did lose weight so all in all I was successful.
This time my goal is to reach my overall goal by my birthday (March 17). According to fitday, I have to lose 1.5 pounds a week for 11 weeks to reach that goal. This is quite realistic as long as I don't plateau. How am I to accomplish this? I have a run/walk goal of 50 miles this month. That should help in the exercise department. I've given up wine until I reach goal (ok, I MIGHT indulge once in a while). I have a meal plan each and every day and I do not stray from it. While weekends are a bit more lenient, my weekdays are pretty strict with a low caloric intake.
So what happens if I don't see 133 on March 17? Will I have failed? No. So far I've lost 3.5 pounds and that is a SUCCESS! Will I feel horrible if I'm not 133? Probably not. I'm determined. If I am at least close (I've been as low as 136, so I know I can get that far) I will be very happy and then I'll just continue until I reach the goal--regardless of the fact that it might be after my set goal date.
On that line.....do you think of stuff like "go to the gym 5 days a week" as a goal or a step towards achieving your goal?
I think that might be a little bit in the though process of the trainer.
To me running 5 days a week, weights, yoga...they are not goals, they are merely steps to the goal. Things I have to do in order to meet the goal.
For me going to the gym 5-6 times a week is not just a step to get to another goal it is actually my fitness goal on it's own. Yes it does affect my weight loss goal but even if I met that goal I would continue on my fitness goals separately. I am not just exercising to lose weight.
If I followed that advice for the rest of my life, it'd probably kill me... If I don't set realistic goals, I KNOW in the back of my mind that I'll fail, so why try in the first place and just eat a bag of potato chips instead.
It was trying to lose '50 lbs in 2 months!!' that got me even fatter than before, it's trying to lose 50 lbs over the span of a about a year, give or take a few months, that keeps me on the right mindset to lose weight.
I'm sure it's different from person to person, but that's just me...
Setting Unrealistic Goals
.
