Often, when asked why they don’t exercise, people will tell you, “Well, I walk everyday. Hey, it’s better than nothing, right?” Or to justify not eating as well as they should, you’ll hear, “Well, at least I don’t eat McDonald’s everyday. It’s better than nothing.”
Better than nothing? I suppose in a semantic sense, they’re right. You can’t argue that it’s better to omit soda from your diet than not. But is ‘better than nothing’ really what you want?
Apply that logic the other way: “Well, I’m out of shape and can’t play with my kids as much as I’d like. But I can run around with them for 5 minutes – that’s better than nothing, right?” Try telling your boss you only got half of that important project done – “but half is better than nothing.”
You get the idea.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Interestingly, this works both ways. While “something” is certainly not always better than nothing, there are also cases where “something” is much worse than nothing.
There are many people whose health would improve dramatically if they stopped doing what they mistakenly believe to be productive exercise – like joggers.
Why do personal trainers always snigger at the idea of jogging and physical productivity?
Because jogging is incorrectly thought of as physical productivity.
You must log in to post a comment.