
This is what you see when you upload stats into the included software. The smiley faces are the best.
After reading an article about this study,* which showed how much exercise (or lack thereof) can affect the body’s ability to regulate and use blood sugar, I was inspired to buy a shiny new pedometer
. The authors of the study used them (and an armband device) to measure the physical activity of the people in their study, and reported that activity mostly in terms of steps per day.
I wanted to increase my own activity level, and walking seemed like a good way to do it, because it has the virtue of simplicity, both in terms of measurement and execution. Have I moved around enough today? Check the pedometer (measurement). If the number is less than my daily goal for steps, get up and move around (execution). Now that I’m measuring my steps, I’ve walked to work every day, walked to do some errands that I would very likely have driven to before, and am generally moving around a lot more.
Contrast that with previous efforts to get in shape: I vowed to get to the gym to exercise at least three times a week, but it was easy to put off; there was no device reminding me that I had been a couch potato that day and could use some physical movement.
How does this fit into the writing life? I tend to associate going to the gym with time spent away from writing (so in competition with it). On the other hand, if I’m stuck in my writing, I’ll frequently go for a walk around the block, or at least pace around the house, because the bilateral movement seems to help shake things loose in my brain, get new ideas flowing, and help me develop new solutions to problems I’m struggling with. In that not-entirely-rational framework, more time at the gym = less writing, but more time walking = better writing, and probably more writing (because less time being stuck).
So measuring minutes spent at the gym didn’t work for me nearly as well as measuring steps taken–at least so far. This highlights the importance of measuring the right things. David Kammler’s essay, “The Well-Intentioned Commissar,” is a great demonstration of that concept; each time the Commissar changes the metrics of success, one of his directors finds a way to subvert it, resulting in great numbers in terms of the metric but poor performance on a practical level. In my gym example, it would be as if I logged 90 minutes at the gym, but 60 of those minutes were spent changing, showering, waiting to use my favorite machine, etc.–I’d have to modify my metric to “time spent actually exercising at a specific level of intensity.”
Like metrics for health, metrics for “writing productivity” are deucedly difficult to get right. For drafting, the number of words a day or number of scenes written might be the right metrics; for editing, the number of pages edited a day could work, and for pre-writing? Maybe the amount of time spent in the chair, thinking/noodling/journaling/outlining the project? Writing is also a notoriously nonlinear process for many of us, with highly variable output.
What are the writing metrics that work for you?
* Mikus CR, Oberlin DJ, Libla JL, Taylor AM, Booth FW, Thyfault JP. Lowering physical activity impairs glycemic control in healthy volunteers. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012 Feb;44(2):225-31. PubMed PMID: 21716152.