Ryan Tarzy received his B.A. in Economics and Applied Mathematics from Northwestern University. Early in his career, he realized that his talents involved combining the role of an entrepreneur with that of an advisor. Since then, Ryan has been passionately working on moving healthcare forward and has founded or led several digital health startups. In 2003, he co-founded MediKeeper, one of the earliest digital health startups. He later served as CEO of Personal Health Labs, a lab focused on R&D in areas such as health gaming and interoperability. He now serves as Director of the Incubation Studio at CoverMyMeds. Prior to CoverMyMeds, he served as Co-Founder of Playful Bee and SVP of Business Development for PokitDok. He has recently begun to angel invest in digital health startups.
1) Many have attributed the impressive evolution and expansion of digital health to a move towards human-centered design, suggesting that a lot of previous health technology was engineered in a such a way that user experience was an afterthought. In your opinion, to be a success in digital health is user experience more important than utility? And why?
I think it is absolutely accurate that in the past, user-centered design has arguably been an afterthought. However, as we evolve into this next wave of digital health beyond Health 2.0, I think it is unfortunately still true that neither utility nor user-centered design is the most important factor of success. I would say at this point, success relies primarily on a solid business model. You can have fantastic user-centered design, you can have some utility, but if you have not figured out the way you’re going to get reimbursed, the way you’re going to get paid, or have a compelling value proposition for the direct consumer, then you are still going to struggle to be successful in digital health.
That said, I do believe user-centered design is driving some really exciting things coming out of the new wave of companies in digital health. I’m really encouraged by that, and I hope that it continues. I think that it does become a differentiating factor when you compare multiple companies, all of which have the reimbursement model and/or revenue model figured out.
2) As an investor in digital health startups, what do you look for in early stage companies trying to make it in health tech? And, what is a common flaw of new entrants that you feel could be easily avoided?
First and foremost, I look at the founders. Founders, to me, are the No. 1 determinant for success. I look for founders that, if they haven’t done this before, have deep domain expertise. They have dealt with the business problem before, they understand it, and they’re now trying to solve it through their own company.
I also look for founders that have a combination of passion and hustle that makes me confident that they’re going to be able to get past the inevitable roadblocks and hiccups that are going to take place when you’re trying to tackle an industry like health care. Those are the top two things I look for.
Lastly, I look for companies that I feel like I can provide an unfair advantage (while advising them). I want to feel like I can bring a lot more to the table than just monetary value as an investor.
In terms of things that I think are common mistakes … ultimately the sales cycles in health care are just really long. What I see is most new entrants will come in vastly underestimating the sale cycle and struggle. When you have these long sales cycles, what kills you is waiting on those maybes. You really have to aggressively develop process to manage the pipeline and be able to move beyond that first LOI, or unpaid pilot, and get yourself more quickly to a proven revenue model — a robust pipeline that is bringing in recurring revenue.
Another common mistake is a great idea, with a lack of domain expertise. It sounds self-serving as a healthcare investor with deep domain expertise to say this, but it is always good to have someone with healthcare expertise as an investor and/or advisor in the group. You need an advisor with specific knowledge in the area that you’re trying to tackle.
For example, a lot of people lump life science investors in with health IT and digital health investors — these are completely different businesses. One is dealing with long development cycles and a completely different type of regulation. The other is more about reimbursement cycles and enterprise sales and understanding the intricate players in the space. They are just different animals. You need someone, depending on which area you’re tackling, with that specific type of healthcare domain expertise. Very few can do both.
This is very personal to me because the first company I co-founded was one of the early personal health record companies. My co-founders and I built the company on the premise that there is this need, this obvious need, for a more central place for individuals to manage their health information. Back then we called it personal health records (PHRs), now you might call it a health portal. It just still feels like something that should exist but, I agree, at this point there has not been a huge success in this space yet.
What’s really interesting about this is there’s information leaking out that both Google and Apple are now attacking this space with new technologies. The ubiquity of smartphones, or even now through smartwatches, might potentially be a new opportunity for this to take hold.
I’ve always believed that the ideal health information exchange is the “HIE of One,” where the individual is the conduit of their own health information. The panacea of interoperability to create a universal portal, whether it’s Google Health or Microsoft HealthVault, is the wrong way to think about it. We need the ability for an individual to easily be able to take control of their health information and have control of the back and forth. Then, consume their data in whatever portal they want. I hope this is where things are going and I’m excited to see Apple coming into the market and Google seemingly retrying to attack this market. I’m really intrigued to see what they come up with.
4) What is your take on the longevity of today’s wearables? There are numerous articles with click-bait titles indicating the smartphone is dead within five years. One could argue that might be the same fate for most wearables today. Where do you see the puck heading for wearables?
I feel like five years is too aggressive to say the smartphone will die, but I may be wrong. I think that I’m much more pessimistic about the future of wearables as they exist today. We are seeing the early stages of these devices; they have passionate followers; they literally have millions of users out there. If you believe that wearables are going to become a more ubiquitous thing — I will say today’s wearables will likely be starkly different five years from now. Looks at Apple’s AirPods, those will change the smartphone and are technically a wearable. Wearables will evolve in ways we cannot predict.
It comes down to, what do you define as a wearable? Staying with the AirPods example, this is a sign that we’ll be utilizing voice for data entry … speech will be integrated into our car, which is integrated into our watch and into our AirPods. And really, the cloud becomes more and more the world we live in versus having our nose in our smartphone.
So although I am pessimistic that devices like the Fitbit will have legs five years from now, I am optimist about the future of computing being more integrated into all parts of our life in a, hopefully, more user-centric way without having to have our nose buried in our smartphone all the time. As voice gets more and more compelling, we will not need to physical interact with devices, limiting the need to “wear” anything.
5) In your opinion, what are two underrated and/or little-known companies right now in digital health that you believe are positioned to make a huge impact (in the future) and why?
1) LeapCure: This is a company that has really cracked the code on recruiting patients for clinical trials. It is fascinating to me that over 60 percent of clinical trials fail due to patient recruitment issues. That’s just staggering to me and just seems like such a big problem that we haven’t been able to crack.
This company has been able to use techniques that have been utilized in other non-health care markets to micro-target individuals — even for very rare diseases. One of their customers specifically specializes in rare diseases for children. So, truly the needle in the haystack kind of problem: how do you find the less than 20 patients in the country that would qualify for this clinic trial?
They are able to do that, and will likely make a huge impact. They are reducing the cost of patient recruitment and increasing the success rate of clinical trials. That could have a far-reaching impact on the industry. So, I’m really bullish on that and what they’re doing and excited to work with their team as an investor and board observer.
2) Paubox: Sometimes seemingly boring companies on the surface are in the best position to make an impact. Paubox operates in the area of email and disaster recovery. Sounds incredibly boring for healthcare but, what they’ve done is, they have cracked the code of how to deliver HIPAA-secure email — and they do that in a way that is user-friendly. You can finally simply use your Gmail account as a doctor, and they’re able to make that HIPAA secure for communication with patients. All the friction created by email alerts that push you to a portal, only to hassle with additional passwords and clunky communication channels. Paubox solves all that. Finally, you can simply email your doctor … like you email the rest of the world.
What is Fun? The Oxford English Dictionary (O.E.D) defines fun as “amusement, especially lively or playful.” As an adjective, the word is described as “amusing, entertaining, enjoyable.” “For fun” or “for the fun of it” means “not for a serious purpose.”
The standard definition of fun suggests some overlap with the concept of play. In fact, these two words are often mentioned together (e.g. fun and games). However, play often appears to be the overarching term, where fun is more specific to experiencing enjoyment. For example, when defining play, play researcher Scott Eberle, Ph.D., writes that fun is one of the basic elements of play. He also observes that we play because the act of play promises fun. If there were no fun in play, we would likely not play (Eberle, 2014). This suggests a relationship between the concepts of fun and play, a possible causality perhaps: fun is a natural byproduct of play — fun is intrinsic to play. Eberle also argues that although there are many ways to develop knowledge, self-assurance and vigor, none of them are as fun as play.
Another academic concept that is used when discussing fun is “flow.” When Gayle Privette of the University of West Florida attempted to distinguish between peak experience, peak performance and flow, she defined peak experience as mystic and transpersonal, peak performance as transactive and flow as having fun (Privette, 1983).
Casual and Academic References to Fun
Definitions of fun are generally discussed as a result of an act and/or engaging in activity. Some authors focus on the fun side of things/activities and talk about the hedonic aspects of certain activities. As such, in academic writing, fun is often equated with hedonism. For instance, Barry Babin, William Darden, and Mitch Griffin (1994) took the hedonistic value of shopping (e.g. shopping for fun) and contrasted it with shopping’s utilitarian value, which is more concerned with usefulness and task completion. Utilitarian shopping can almost be regarded as work. Shopping for fun, on the other hand, is personal, subjective to the shopper and often entails playfulness. The participant values the experience itself because the endeavor is entertaining. In short, many activities can be analyzed for their ability to induce fun — emphasizing entertainment and enjoyment of the process rather than its practical value.
When activity is done for fun, it often involves increased arousal, perceived freedom, fantasy fulfillment and escapism (Hirscham, 1983). The saying “time flies when you’re having fun” indicates that the concept is also connected with our perceptions of temporality and can influence the subjective component of time. This popular anecdote is a cultural artifact that further alludes that flow and fun are related social constructs.
People sometimes also talk about “short-term fun” and contrast it with “long-term gains,” suggesting that fun could obliterate the lasting success of an individual. Fun and play often get negative press, especially when adults engage in fun activities excessively. It sometimes gets implied that people’s efficiency and productivity could decline if they overtly prioritized fun. Modern research, however, does not support that negative proposition of fun (e.g. R. Fluegge-Woolf, 2014).
Can Fun Be Universally Defined?
Although fun is often connected with play, few would argue play is the only time we have fun. For instance, for many, work can be fun as well. A task like gardening can be perceived as monotonous to one person while being perceived as fun by another. But, does work cease to be work if we have fun? Actually, fun in the workplace is increasingly being researched. Researchers are exploring strategies that help make our work lives more fun. For instance, there are evolving applications of gamification. Gamifying work involves creating strategic tactics in an attempt to make arduous tasks more fun. New studies have confirmed that a fun work environment creates more productive and creative employees, therefore showing that both parts of the “work hard, play hard” phrase can actually coexist (R. Fluegge-Woolf, 2014).
Your perception of whether something is fun depends on your mindset, ability and skills, the environment as well as those around you (your relationships). For example, taking public transportation can be a tedious, mind-numbing activity. If you’re headed to a concert with a group of friends, though, it can be the ride of a lifetime: spending time together, chatting while excitedly anticipating the show — in laymen terms, “a ton of fun.”
What is clear is that fun is a subjective construct. What seems fun to one person might be perceived differently by somebody else. Therefore, perhaps the most relevant question is: How do you define fun? What is fun to you?
OK, to all you non-parents out there … I am going to go out on a limb here and share a secret held by us on the other side — misery loves company, so when one of us tells you, “My children are the best thing that has ever happened to me,” or some similar thinly veiled ploy to have you come join us in Suckville — don’t you believe it! The reality is we likely miss you dearly, yet there is no reasonable escape from the trap of our new reality, and our only hope is to trick you to come along. Like someone drowning — clinging on for dear life — we are ready to take you down with us. Therefore, it should be no surprise that a recent study out of the Indiana University—Purdue University Indianapolis by Leslie Ashburn-Nardo suggests child-free adults consistently face moral outrage by their childbearing counterparts. The hard truth is, many of us dream about our prior lives sans kids. Often kids aren’t fun and many of us long for pieces from our previous autonomous lives.
Joking aside, I love my kids. There are moments when it is really fun being a parent. My kids bring me occasional joy; they most certainly give my life a sense of meaning and purpose that was not there before. Like many other parents, I do my best to juggle priorities and sacrifice my own needs for theirs. Being a psychology geek, I truly enjoy watching them develop and thrive. Parenthood gives me a sense of accomplishment; there is no question I love my kids. Surely, I must be happier with two little bundles of joy in my life. Right? Right?!?
The Parenting Happiness Gap
Not according to science; research studies from different parts of the developed world have been suggesting for some time now that people with kids are less happy than their non-parent counterparts. So if you have been struggling with the self-actualization that your new life parenting is not as fun as you thought it would be … don’t stress, you are in good company. Those who have read Dan Gilbert’s Stumbling on Happiness or All Joy and No Fun by Jennifer Senior are probably already familiar with some of the previous science. Important to note, this does not mean that parents are (necessarily) unhappy. It just verifies that there is a happiness gap between the two groups. To put it more bluntly, when your ex-drinking buddy tells you, “My kids make me so happy,” they’re probably full of shit. This is especially true here in the United States. More than other countries in the world, there appears to be a strong link between parenthood and lower emotional well-being in the United States.
I’m not trying to be a polemicist. As I previously suggested, there is an abundance of research to support this claim (see Glass, Simon, & Andersson, 2016 for a comprehensive list of studies). For example, research published in 2005 in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior suggests that having children is associated with decreased mental health. This work also suggests parents reporting significantly higher levels of depression than their childfree counterparts.
There is a gender bias to these statistics due to hormonal issues associated with postpartum phenomena. However, these effects are observed in both men and women (Evenson & Simon, 2005). Cohabiting with dependent children is a period of parenthood that has been associated with the highest degree of stress levels (this goes for both genders); of this group, parents with minor children are the ones who usually experience the highest time and energy demands (Evenson & Simon, 2005).
“Don’t Worry, it Gets Better” Might Be a Lie, Too
According to Ranae Evenson of Vanderbilt University and Robin Simon of Florida State University, even empty-nesters have trouble reaching the levels of happiness experienced by non-parents. This is unfortunate interesting since many people believe that once their children are all grown, parenthood is more enjoyable. A meta-analytic review published in the Journal of Marriage and Family suggests that, after having children, couples actually report being less satisfied with their marital relationship compared with non-parents (Twenge, Campbell, & Foster, 2003). Twenge, Campbell and Foster conclude that lower marital satisfaction might be due to new role conflicts from the change in family dynamics, as well as the increased autonomy that comes with the empty nest. In other words, you wake up from Suckville and realize you still want to go to Burning Man, only to discover your partner would now rather watch “The Good Wife” reruns.
In a nutshell, science shows us (once again) what we already know but for some reason decided to kid ourselves about: being a parent is hard fucking work. While fantasizing about the birth of a child, we usually look forward to personal gratification, meaning and purpose, but these positive emotions are fleeting and ultimately get eclipsed by the vast variety of stressors associated with childcare. These underestimated stressors can often lead to a poorer sense of well-being (Umberson & Gove, 1998).
United States + Kids = Suck
From all over the globe, those who romanticize parenthood still acknowledge the stressors connected with parenting, but it seems like parenting is especially hard here in the United States. I have dug into the research, and stress theory has failed to explain why American parents feel worse than their counterparts in other countries (Glass, Simon, & Andersson, 2016). Many experts agree that the reason American parents report less happiness than parents in other countries is a lack of parenting support (when compared to collectivist cultures) and the lack of support offered by governmental programs (e.g. family leave, significant tax breaks, etc.). While in some developed countries, childbearing brings a number of social and financial benefits — well, let’s face it, the United States simply fails miserably here.
A group of researchers looked into resources provided to parents in different countries and examined whether the happiness gap between parents and non-parents was smaller in countries that provided more family assistance. They confirmed that the (distal) source of parenting stress generally originated in the respective countries’ social, economic and policy constraints. They referred to this as the macro-level cause for parental negative emotions. Their analysis showed that out of 22 OECD countries, the greatest happiness gap between parents and non-parents was experienced in the United States.
In fact, us American parents report being 12 percent less happy than those without children. In contrast, countries that provided more resources and social support for parents (paid work leave, work flexibility, subsidized childcare) generally had a smaller disparity in happiness between parents and non-parents. Truth be told, in some countries (e.g. Spain, Portugal, Sweden and Russia), parents actually reported being as happy (even slightly happier sometimes) as their non-parent counterparts (Glass, Simon, & Andersson, 2016).
Another factor is parenting does not have the social value and esteem attached to it that it did 50 years ago. We can now decide for ourselves when to have children. That is why some social scientists argue that when we compare people with children to non-parents, we are in fact comparing two groups of people who made different choices and have different attributes and preferences. Admittedly, the science here is as messy. It might, therefore, be more relevant to compare people’s happiness before and after they have had kids.
Professor Andrew Clark of the Paris School of Economics and his team are currently working on the book The Origins of Happiness, which is looking at the determinants of well-being in four countries: the United States, Germany, Australia and the U.K. They presented some of their findings at the Wellbeing Conference 2016 which was held last December and was organized by the OECD and the London School of Economics (LSE). After four years of following new parents, their preliminary findings reaffirm that parenthood does not improve subjective well-being in the long run. The positive effects only last for the first 12 months after the baby is born. Unfortunately, after that, the well-being score of parents starts to decline.
Is Being a Happy Parent Possible?
OK, so parenting can suck … but here we are … and we love our kids … so WTF should we do? The good news is parenthood does offer many opportunities for some of the most worthwhile moments of your life. We lose a lot of autonomy as parents, but we can choose to bring more joy into our lives through our children. A study led by Katherine Nelson, a psychologist from the University of California, Riverside, shows us again what we already intuitively know — that the relationship between parenthood and well-being is very complex. It is influenced by so many factors, including: parenting style, emotional bonds between the parents, the child’s temperament and age…
When evaluating parental happiness, we should look at the whole context; it is important to observe why and how we, as parents, become more or less happy. If we have “bought in,” we can experience positive emotions through our enhanced social roles (Nelson, Kushlev, & Lyubomirsky, 2014).
Moreover, to counter the somewhat negative research on parenthood, Nelson and her colleagues demonstrated (in three studies) that parents (especially fathers — go dads!) can be happier and experience more meaning in life compared to non-parents (Nelson, Kushlev, English, Dunn & Lyubomirsky, 2013). So, being a happy parent is in the cards, if you are ready to work.
Let’s explore how:
Allow Time for Unstructured Play
Play is a source of happiness for kids, as well as adults. It is baffling to me that kids seem like they’re continually being deprived of free play. We’ve become too dystopian. Some of the silliest fights I have with my wife are about my kids going outside because they might get dirty. “Yeah, no shit, that is part of the fun of going outside.”
Statistics show American children (as well as children in other developed nations) have less and less free time to engage in free play activities. Our kids’ lives are increasingly highly structured and controlled. There are reasons for this, sure, but I want you to think about some of your favorite childhood memories for a moment … they probably involve at least some images of unstructured play, shenanigans with friends, moments of a carefree existence … moments when you were not directed, because you were a kid!
How does this make me happier? If we are always helicoptering over our kids (more on that later), we have less autonomy. Autonomy makes us happy. Furthermore, Professor Peter Gray argues that the decline of free play importantly contributes to an increase in different psychopathologies among young people, including: anxiety, depression, narcissism and difficulty focusing (Gray, 2011). In his writing, Gray (2014) suggests that children need to be allowed time to play freely, with other children, and away from adults. So when we eliminate the autonomy out of our lives, and the lives of our children, we create a perpetual death spiral. It is a bitter pill to swallow, but your parenting style might be part of the problem.
We need to give children some space to express their personality, learn, develop their skills and build social interactions. In his book, Free to Learn, Gray further explores these concepts and looks for ways to improve children’s happiness and the potential to learn.
The first rule of being happy (and raising a happy person) appears to be giving your kid some space. Let them play freely and get absorbed in some self-directed activity that has not been organized for them. It is good to have fun with your kids, but if one or both of you are not having fun anymore, it is counterproductive. Letting your kid free play also helps you recharge and have more fun during the time you do share experiences.
Don’t Make Play Your Duty
When you do play with your kids, avoid engaging in it as a sense of obligation. Play should be fun for everyone involved. Otherwise, it is not play. Hey … I get it, singing “Frozen” karaoke for the nth time isn’t your idea of fun.
Our interests, energy, humor are different than our children … you don’t need a Ph.D. behind your name to observe that. This makes it difficult to bridge the age gap in parent-child play, but you can get creative if you try. Gray (2014) suggests finding ways that fit the abilities and interests of the parent and the child. This strategy is going to be specific to your family. For me, I have gotten my 5-year-old into rock climbing and running. Do what works for yours.
Consider the Implications of Helicopter Parenting on Well-Being
Terri LeMoyne and Tom Buchanan of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga explored the style of “helicopter parenting” on a sample of college students. They found that helicopter parenting can have a negative effect on children; lowering their levels of well-being and making them feel more negative about themselves. Children of helicopter parents are also more likely to take medications for anxiety and/or depression (LeMoyne & Buchanan, 2011). Ill effects of over-parenting were also shown in other studies. For instance, one led by Chris Segrin of the University of Arizona, Tucson, highlighted that helicopter parenting can lead to child having difficulty in relating to others (Segrin et al., 2014). Science shows us that although a caring and genuine relationship is essential for our children’s well-being, they (and we) will probably be happier if we give them less direction. Again, make sure your parenting style is not the culprit. When the time is right to play with your kids, let them guide you and generally only intervene for reasons of safety and security.
Don’t Take Life Too Seriously, No One Gets Out Alive Anyways
If you constantly strive to be a flawless parent, then my guess is you are probably not having much fun anyway. Having parental standards is important, but try your best not to turn this into perfectionism. There are rewards for being a flexible parent. Studies show that authoritarian parents who are high on demands and low on responsiveness tend to have children who have low self-esteem and are overly worried about making mistakes (Hibbard & Walton, 2014). Nicholas Affrunti and Janet Woodruff-Borden from the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences at the University of Louisville also suggest that parental perfectionism and over-control can be risk factors for the development of child anxiety (Affrunti & Woodruff-Borden, 2015). So embrace your silly side.
Deploy a little healthy code-switching and become a kid yourself during play. The practice can be healthy for all involved. There is inherent fun in getting silly and laughing with someone. You both release oxytocin, which in turn creates strong bonds with each other, which in turn makes you feel good — plus a host of other benefits that contribute to the well-being of both parent and child.
Create Fun Rituals
This is one I have borrowed from my best friend Micah and his family. I am trying to get better at this one, but it the spirit of authenticity I must admit I have failed a bit here. The recognition that routine “family time” is important for family relations and well-being is well-established. Weekends play an important and beneficial role in the lives of many families in this regard — they give us more time to do things together. Rosalina Pisco Costa, a sociologist working at the University of Évora in Portugal, writes about the creation of “special time and space” and family rituals. Family rituals can center around different things (celebrations, greetings, trips) and involve the stages of anticipation, experience as well as conclusion (Costa, 2014). Costa also cites the work of Imber-Black and Roberts (1998) who suggested that “rituals give us places to be playful, to explore the meaning of our lives, and to rework and rebuild family relationship” (p.4). Fun rituals are something we can consider including in our family life to experience the emotional benefits they bring. Circling back to Micah and his family, they invested in a boat knowing that the significant cost would ensure that maritime activities, such as weekly sleepovers on the new boat, would become the norm and create endearing memories for all.
I am not suggesting you go out and buy a boat. I am suggesting you make family time a habit by engaging in a family ritual the whole family enjoys.
Invest in Experience, not Things
I feel like this has been covered well recently by others (see: Buy Experiences, Not Things or The Science Behind Why You Should Spend Money on Family Holidays Instead of Toys) and is almost a cliché topic now, but it is still worth a mention. Investing in experience over things builds memories that all parties can relish. Furthermore, since you likely have some control of your family’s resources, choosing an experience over buying another toy interjects some autonomy back in your life. We know the benefits from experience last longer than the gratification derived from most tangible things. Moreover, you don’t have to succumb to the pressure of going to a child-centered destination like Disneyland for your family vacation. What is an experience that would create an enjoyable, lasting memory for all involved? If you plan your vacations accordingly, you can mitigate the ill-conceived adage: children make a family, but destroy the marriage. Pick a location where the tips from 1-5 (above) are baked in. For instance, you could choose an all-inclusive resort that has a kid’s club so there are opportunities for family fun, as well as intimate time with your partner while your kid is at play. Fun for all!
The Days Are Long, But The Years Are Short
If you are lucky enough to find unwavering fun in being a parent … I am happy to hear that unicorns exist … something for me to strive for. For the rest of us, we tell our friends, “Don’t worry, it gets better,” because it can … especially if we are able to parent mindfully. Life is about moments, and as parents we have committed to a lot of those moments being with our kids. Either by choice or lack of family planning, these moments are not just ours anymore; however, we still hold a few cards and we can influence our environment and our family time to maximize our ability to have fun and be happy (along with our kids).
Parenthood can easily become a shitshow at times, but we have more control over that than we think. The days are long, but the years are short — we might as well stack the deck in our favor, so in our final days we have a lifetime of fun memories and we can relish in a family life lived happily.
I live on the island of Alameda, California — here on the island there is a place that has begun to wear on me. It’s called Pump It Up, a favorite among local parents for children’s birthday parties, and there is nothing inherently bad about this place. I suppose selfishly I do not like it because I have not connected with many people in the parent circle of my kids … and this type of event is solely for our kids. It is boring and no longer novel (because of the amount of times we’ve all been there), and I find myself questioning my existence every time it is my turn on the rotation to take one (or both) of my children to one of these parties. (I wonder if my parents had a similar disdain for Chuck E. Cheese?)
Since I am a psychology geek, I do take solace that these parties provide fertile ground to ponder the value of friendships. One, because it is a fascinating place to watch the storming, norming, forming marvels of childhood. Two, since my children are preoccupied, the experience gives me the space to mindfully explore my own loneliness and my lack of sensibilities in building rapport with strangers (i.e. the other care givers that somehow pulled the short straw that day). The recent resurgence and virality of Harvard’s Grant and Glueck study (which, in part, indicates that men with happier childhoods likely have stronger relationships in old age) has had me recently pondering these subjects more deeply than usual.
Please do not get me wrong. It’s not that I don’t want to be friends with the parents of my kid’s friends. On the contrary, science backs up the notion that good friends can be one of life’s greatest gifts. Alas, I suspect at least half of you reading this are better at building and preserving close relationships than me. If one’s ability to acquire friends has a standard distribution, I am for certain on the losing end of the bell curve. I have always been an odd ball. My psyche is staffed by Tim Burton characters — witty, funny, yet flawed and weird looking. These characters don’t stay in the cage long during cocktail conversations, and they get apathetic easily — they’re looking for wit and humor on the other end, not another conversation about child rearing and my day job. I do have a script for the latter, but it is long and boring. Once this script is triggered, I have literally had parents simply walk away as I meekly fade out my dialogue, embarrassed that I have killed yet another one.
At the risk of doing that to you here, let me get on with it. I know I have to try harder. In her book Friendships Don’t Just Happen, Shasta Nelson points out that making, keeping and changing friends is perhaps one of our most important skills. In reality, I think there are a lot of people like me that feel “developing” friends can be a messy proposition. I, for one, remember reading the book How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie and then putting it down feeling almost as dirty as I did when completing The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene. Authenticity is a personal value of mine, so I don’t want to boil down making friends to a “system” — so at these parties I have stopped trying and instead navel gaze while watching the kids play…
Parents have a significant influence on who our kids will be friends with
Different aspects of a child’s personality can be assessed simply by observation (e.g. self-control, self-esteem, mood, relationships with others and self-reliance). I personally look for self-reliance in my kids since it correlates with success. Self-reliance has been defined by Diana Baumrind, a researcher of human development from the University of California, Berkeley, as ‘the ability of the child to handle his[/her] affairs in an independent fashion relative to other children his [or her] age.’ Things to foster in kids in this regard are: ease of separation from you, willingness to be alone at times, leadership interest and ability, as well as pleasure in learning new tasks. Research by Baumrind (1967) shows that the parenting style that resulted in well-developed self-reliance includes being firm, loving, demanding and understanding. I think my wife and I are doing the best we can here, and building this self-reliance will hopefully lead our kids to more secure friendships.
Less is known about the influence friends and peers have on our child’s development
We know as our kids move through developmental stages, they become increasingly dependent on peer relationships and peer communication. There is little doubt we also influence this. Salient connections have been found between the relationship we have with our kids when compared to their later relationships with friends, as well as with their future romantic partners (Farley & Kim-Spoon, 2014). For instance, one longitudinal study found that adolescents who were insecurely attached to their fathers were more likely to develop an insecure attachment to their best friends. Similarly, insecure attachment to mothers led to more insecure attachments to romantic partners later in life (Doyle, Lawford, & Markiewicz, 2009). Clearly, building strong bonds with our kids is important, because ultimately they get the final decision who they keep as friends.
Why does friendship matter for our kids?
How our children evolve getting along with their peers can be an important predictor of their academic success. North American studies show that children who have a better relationship with their classmates perform better in school, and peer acceptance and attachment have been linked to academic achievement (Kingery, Erdley, & Marshall, 2011). Kids with a bigger social network have more opportunities for engagement, encouragement and support. An extensive literature review by Burack and colleagues showed that children with more positive peer relations also show more prosocial behavior, self-esteem and perceived support, and are less likely to develop depression, aggression and anxiety (Burack et al., 2013). Close relationships with peers have been found to provide children with a safe base from which he or she can explore and develop (Laible, Carlo, & Raffaelli, 2000).
Why does friendship matter for us?
I am in my 40s now. Unfortunately, a simple truth is that once parenthood hits it gets more difficult to connect with others. There is a really good 2012 New York Times article by Alex Williams where he examines the topic of making friends as an adult. Williams points out to make close friends three conditions need to be fulfilled: proximity; repeated, unplanned interactions; and a setting that encourages interactions that can be confidential. Unfortunately, these conditions are often difficult to fulfill once we have a job, a partner and/or a family.
Do I work too hard to have friends?
Some authors wonder if becoming successful results in having less contact with family and friends, which could create a sense of loneliness – ‘the top is not a crowded place’ (Reinking, & Bell, 1991). However, various scientific studies contradict the notion it is lonely at the top. Those who hustle actually have reported less loneliness compared to those that work fewer hours in comparison (Bell et al., 1990), and another study from the 1990s looked at people’s position in organizational hierarchy (which was interpreted as a level of success) and their corresponding loneliness. The findings support the premise that employees working at higher levels of an organizational hierarchy are not lonelier when compared to those working at lower levels (Reinking, & Bell, 1991). This is further supported by a recent Harvard Business Review article currently making the rounds: Does Work Make You Happy? Evidence from the World Happiness Report.
Conclusion: True friendships are invaluable
The final act of a Pump It Up party is the cutting of the cake. It is at this point I generally find myself pinching my leg until it is time to leave. The uneasiness reminds me I miss adult parties with my own friends; but the truth is this is self-inflicted misery — merely a by-product of not prioritizing pre-existing relationships accordingly. I can do better. Kid’s parties, whether I like them or not, are also important for developing good social habits in my children. The influence I yield about viewpoints on friendship influences my children’s behaviors and characteristics. It will develop how they relate to their peers. Science tells me children with more secure attachments, develop more secure friendships. My children’s ability to connect with their peers will likely influence their academic achievement since being accepted by your peers is correlated with academic success. I also know that the simple truth I am mindful of all of this means no matter how bad I fuck up (and I will), they’ll probably turn out okay.
As we grow older, for many (myself included) it is simply difficult to meet new people who become close friends, so we revere early relationships which provide us the positive support and encouragement we need to continue to develop and grow. Those that get my newsletter know my little brother recently passed away. If it was not for the support of my best friend from college, Micah, I don’t think I would have made it. If you are familiar with Dunbar’s work, then you already know science says we can only have five close friends anyway; if true, I’m truly a lucky man Micah is one of them.
We need the bonds of friendship to flourish. The presumption that people who work more become detached from their family and friends has not been supported by science, so this cannot be used as an excuse. We can, however, do a better job staying connected to old friends no matter what the distance and circumstances. As the findings from the Grant and Glueck study suggest, it might be one of the best things we can do for our well-being.
So … maybe it’s time to get the gang back together, tap a keg, and rent a bounce house suitable for adults? We won’t let the kids in, they can sit outside, bored; let them talk about how silly and annoying we are for a change.
Last quarter I mentioned I wanted to start exploring fun and play more deeply. Certainly I have mastered the art of work, but somehow I have found fun increasingly elusive. Being the nerd I am, simply observing the benefits of fun from my daughter’s delightful play was not enough. I had to dig into the science. As such, I wrote the post: Why You Need More Fun in Your Life, According to Science. It was a self-serving assignment — something to work on, because heaven forbid I spend the time having more fun. I discovered I am not alone in experiencing the elusiveness of fun, because it was my first post to truly go viral with 100s of likes and shares. Since then I have been digging into fun, and … well … it’s been fun. There is a lot to unpack: fun; play; happiness; autonomy; flow — science reveals to us these are not tangible puzzle pieces that each have their respective place. Instead, for each of us, they are unique parts of a complex quilt that when aptly patched together making our lives more fulfilling and helping us build resilience against the bad stuff.
The truth is, sometimes life is not fun. I was thrown another curve-ball recently. I was diagnosed with osteoarthritis and had to have corrective hip surgery. I was told until science catches up with my condition, I am no longer a runner. Even just typing that out — I am no longer a runner — creates internal cognitive dissonance (i.e. it’s sucky). I can choose to let this identity change get me down, or I can adjust to new forms of fun and play. To know if change is beneficial, it is important to understand how to make personal assessments and gauge whether new adaptations are working for you (or not). This quarter, I reached out to two thought leaders in the space of self-evaluation: one a best-selling author, the other one of the leading psychological researchers at Harvard.
Business, Innovation and Entrepreneurship: The interview this quarter is with Cathy Presland about tracking progress. Cathy is considered an expert on leadership, drawing her knowledge from over 20 years of experience working with governments and international organizations. She is also an international bestseller and runs the World-Changers’ Circle program from her office in the UK. My interview with Cathy Presland is available here.
Health and Wellness: This quarter’s interview is with Matthew Nock, Ph.D., about assessing an intervention using only a single individual (i.e. n=1, self-experimentation). Matthew is a leading expert in single-case experimental design. He received the MacArthur “Genius” Award in 2011 and is currently a psychology professor at Harvard University, where he also runs the Nock Lab. My interview with Dr. Matthew Nock is available here.
Life Experience: This quarter, I traveled to Houston for Super Bowl LI. I also had hip surgery, which I alluded to earlier. Both significant life experiences — however, Houston was notably more fun than surgery, so it gets the photographic evidence.
Contribution: This quarter, I made donations to Tour de Cure again, as well as Little Kids Rock. More importantly, I made time to share the gift of contribution with my daughter. Sloane and I spend an afternoon at Crab Cove in Alameda, California, helping to clean up the beach there with a host of other local volunteers.
Lastly, this quarter Charlie Hoehn, author of the book “Play It Away,” found my website. When we were able to connect, it made my day. I am a fan of Charlie’s work so I wanted to finish this newsletter paying it forward and plugging a new book he is working on: Play for a Living. I am hopeful I will be able to coax him into an interview sometime in the future.
Until next time, wishing you all the fun you can handle!
Matthew Nock, Ph.D. is one of the leading experts on n-of-1 experiments and single-case experimental designs. Matthew became a MacArthur Fellow in 2011 receiving the MacArthur “Genius” Award. He studied at Yale and now is a professor at Harvard where he also runs the Nock Lab. In addition to his research interests, Dr. Nock has been counsel to the World Health Organization’s World Mental Health Survey Initiative, the National Institutes of Health, the American Psychological Association, as well as other prestigious health organizations.
1) Assuming I have captured the basic methods of single-case experimental design (SCED):
Identification of specific target behavior
Continuous and valid measurements
A baseline period (data is gathered before the intervention is applied)
Stability of the specific target behavior (target behavior changes only when the intervention is applied)
Systematic application of intervention
What are the considerations, risks and advantages for someone partaking in self-experimentation — someone who wants to use these methods to help determine the efficacy of a new habit or practice (e.g. determining the effect of meditation on mood)?
These are the basic methods, but it is important to note there are some variations in how you would apply different types of single-case experiments. Once the intervention is applied, then something else is going to happen next, right? For instance, there is “AB-AB design” also known as “withdrawal design.” In this application, you apply the intervention, you then remove the intervention and examine whether the behavior/condition reverts to the baseline level. You then reapply the intervention — so the A state stays as baseline, the B state stays as an intervention — so you do AB, AB and measure the change.
For instance, if you wanted to see if a reward program for not smoking cigarettes worked for you. You start with cigarette smoking as your baseline. Let’s say you smoke two packs a day. Now you apply the reward (intervention). After the reward you now smoke half a pack a day. You then remove the reward (intervention), going back to baseline (smoking without a reward for not smoking), and you see if you go back to two packs a day. You then reapply the intervention (in this case the reward) in an attempt to determine that it is when, and only when, the intervention is applied that your behavior changes. This method helps you rule out alternative explanations. For instance, in this hypothetical example you rule out that you stopped smoking because of some historical event, or your wife told you she’s going to leave you if you don’t stop smoking at the exact time you started the intervention.
What you are trying to accomplish is identifying the result from the experiment is from the intervention and nothing else. You can do an AB-AB design as described, or, if you have access to other participants, you can do a multiple baseline design. In this example, the first person, they would have a one-week baseline and then you apply the intervention; the second person would have a two-week baseline, then you apply the intervention; for the third person, a three-week baseline then you apply the intervention. Again, if you can show when, and only when, you apply the intervention something has changed, you have evidence that your intervention causes change in people.
A single person can also use a multiple-baseline approach across behaviors. For instance, I am trying to change my smoking and drinking and eating. I could apply the intervention to my smoking, then apply it to my eating, and then apply it to my drinking. If I see that when, and only when, I apply the intervention my target behavior changes, it provides evidence that my intervention is effective. You can apply the multiple baseline approach across people or across behaviors.
If someone is self-experimenting, they will want to do their best to collect their own data objectively. Using these methods on yourself, you run the risk of tricking yourself into seeing something that is not there or failing to see something that is there. When it is a clinician or a researcher observing you, they are going to be, with their own objective eyes, carefully measuring some behavior of interest. If you are not carefully measuring objectively what it is you want to change, again, you might see change that is not there or fail to see change that is there. It is important to do your best to objectively measure.
The benefit of this approach is you are the one following the data. You have a real-world answer to whether or not your intervention is working. It can be just a little bit of extra work to do something like this, to quantitatively, objectively measure your own behavior. However, in my opinion, that is also a benefit: knowing what’s effective; knowing what can change your behavior at a fairly minimal cost.
2) For many, “lifestyle design” is about optimization. For example, using meditation as the hypothetical again, it appears that many find benefit from only minimal exposure (Creswell, Pacilio, Lindsay, & Brown, 2014), but one could posit the effective duration is unique to the individual. Since interventions generally come with an opportunity cost, reducing this cost has a benefit. What are some good strategies for expediting the determination of the minimum effective dose (MED) of any given intervention?
In my mind, there are two philosophies about this. One is start small, and measure carefully the effects of the small dose/intervention, and then increase, increase, increase, until you see maximum benefit(s) and then you might know how much is needed. The other is the opposite; start with the maximum dose and then work down from there. Each has pros and cons, right? It certainly depends on what it is you’re using as an intervention. If there is any toxicity associated with the intervention — drugs are an obvious example — if there are toxic side effects to an experimental drug, you would want to start very small and work up to see what is the needed dose to cause change. The benefit here is you are not exposing the subject to toxicity; the downside is it could take longer for an effect and the person could be engaging their harmful behavior, or suffer from disease, for longer intervals of time than giving them more from the onset. On the flip side, if you start with the maximum dose, you generally will know right away whether it has an effect and then you can work down from the initial amount. The downside is you are now exposing the subject to any toxic side effects from potential overdose. If you are certain the intervention does not have any toxicity and/or limited risk, I think the best thing to do is start with the maximum amount and then work down from there to see how much is needed to maintain the effect.
3) Technology is making the recording and analysis of self-experimentation more accessible. There are an abundance of consumer and condition-specific wearables for collecting data, ecological momentary assessment (EMA) protocols are accessible to anyone with a smartphone, the statistical package R is free to use — enabling anyone willing to take on the learning curve the ability to crunch their own numbers. What technology and innovation excites you in this area? And, is there anything that is currently helping democratize one’s ability to run these types of experiments?
There are a lot of tools at the ready now with smartphones and other wearable devices, so people can collect and analyze their own data quite easily. The big bridge is people often are not going to want to learn something like an open-source statistical program. Learning a statistical program like R, even though it is free, is not a minor endeavor. People want ready-made solutions to problems, so they want an app that is turnkey and ready to go. Technology that is going to monitor their behavior, apply the intervention, whatever it is … to the extent that we can create applications that bridge that gap for people, that are easy to use, people will likely use them.
So yes, there is some great open-source stuff out there, but getting someone to figure out how to collect their own data effectively, then create and apply their own intervention, learn statistics (even if it is free to do), analyze their data; wow, this basically requires an intervention in and of itself to get someone to do that.
The thing that excites me most right now is using wearable devices and smartphones to collect data about people and apply interventions that are beyond their own awareness. There are apps available now that allow us to collect data from people’s smartphones passively. We can monitor their GPS, we can monitor their sleep, we can monitor their activity level, who they’re calling, who they’re texting, who’s calling them, who’s texting them, and we may pick up information that can predict future behavior that people are not aware of themselves.
For instance, if a person’s activity level is decreasing, they have outgoing calls and texts and none are getting returned, and their sleep becomes more irregular, we might predict this person is becoming more depressed. So a condition a person may not even realize they have themselves — we can use information from their phone to help identify potential problems and deploy an intervention remotely before the condition can cause any negative effects. We now have e-interventions, smartphone interventions, where people can engage in a little quick, game-like app that they can play to try and change their behavior. The old model of going to a doctor, the doctor does an assessment and tells me I have a problem, then gives me some kind of treatment — this model is changing. We can now go out and find people who are in need of help before they know they need it, and send interventions out to them that they can use and apply themselves. We can deploy this on demand, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, whenever it works for the individual.
4) You are a Harvard psychologist. You are also one of the leading experts on destructive behavior. There seems to be a resurgence of William James’ ideas lately, specifically that if we master our free will and make ourselves 100 percent accountable for our actions, this process will increase our chance of positive outcomes. Do you believe in the validity of this assertion? And, given your expertise working with people where this process might pose difficulties, what are some strategies to assist one to increase their ability to be accountable in this area?
My department resides in a building called William James Hall, so the spirit of William James is still present. The idea of holding ourselves 100 percent accountable, as it pertains to the way I am interpreting your question, comes down to the rewards and the costs of a behavior. If we want to change our own behavior, we need to accurately understand to what extent the behavior in which we are engaging is rewarding or beneficial. We also want to accurately understand what the costs involved are. We have to seriously evaluate both the rewards and cost. For instance, if I am smoking cigarettes, I probably feel good after I smoke. In this case, what are the rewards and costs of smoking? It means realizing there are benefits, but there are also significant costs engaging in the behavior. I need to weigh both, but to do so I need to accurately consider present and future elements of the behavior.
So for me, holding ourselves accountable means realistically realizing the cost and benefits of our behavior and weighing those carefully. If the costs are going to ultimately outweigh the benefits, then I think we have a chance of decreasing risky behavior. If the benefits are perceived as outweighing the costs, it is much tougher to change someone’s behavior. For instance, take a self-destructive behavior like cutting oneself or burning oneself, why would someone do that? It turns out that cutting yourself or burning yourself, for many people, removes aversive thoughts and feelings. This behavior has a benefit for them. For these people, the reward of removing these thoughts appear to outweigh the costs of seeing tissue damage, and so they engage in the behavior. Getting people to stop engaging in this behavior is a lot about figuring out other ways to get the existing benefit for alternative behaviors that do not carry such a heavy cost.
I think the same is true with smoking, drinking and overeating — as well as other problematic behaviors. These behaviors have associated rewards, but they also can come with significant costs. To make good choices, we need people to understand and appropriately weight the costs and the benefits. An important part of the process of behavior chance is to figure out ways to have people find similar benefits that do not carry the same costs of the behavior one hopes to change. The challenge is how to get yourself to feel good and/or distract yourself from aversive psychological states, without doing harm to your mind and/or body. If the spirit of your question is, “How do we increase our chance of positive outcomes?” then you can look at it as benefit-cost=outcome. To do this, you need accurate information about the behavior’s costs so you are not discounting and/or ignoring these. Then look at the behavior’s benefits and find suitable alternatives that offer comparable benefits without the associated costs of the behavior you are trying to change.
5) A young student has walked into your office and proclaimed they want to become the leading expert on self-experimentation. What are three rabbit holes you suggest they explore (i.e. ideas, concepts, models)?
Three rabbit holes they should explore …
1) Read up on the decades of research that people have done on single-case experiments and N of 1 designs. There are a lot of well-worked out-methods and approaches to measuring behavior and carefully, systematically applying an intervention to change behavior, as well as observing the effect of the intervention. When you really understand these validated methods, then you are aware when you are truly doing experimentation. We have existing study designs where one can carefully observe the outcome of self-experimentation in an empirical manner — opposed to reinventing the wheel, there are decades of existing work that one can build on, so mastering the current available literature in this area is a big one.
2) Mastering new technology. As we discussed earlier, there have been significant, recent advances in technology available to people interested in experimentation in the form of smartphones, wearable devices, the Internet and free access to educational information. We have easy access to data at our fingertips now. Through technology we can easily measure our real-world behaviors. Mastering new technology will allow a person to tap into a huge new source of objective data on our behavior.
3) Once you master experimental design and you master the latest technology, the last rabbit hole I’d suggest is how to engage and measurement your experiments. You need to figure out how you can use advances in technology to develop new interventions based on what we already know works. Questions like, “Are we effectively using carrots and/or sticks? Are there ways that we can use computers, the Internet, smartphones, wearable devices, to try and apply new interventions?” The new frontier regarding behavior change is to master the way that we try and modify people’s behavior (or modify our own behavior?). With the right creativity — coupled with an existing mastery of the first and second rabbit holes — there is a lot that can be done using the new tools that we have at our disposal. We now have the ability to apply personalized behavior-change interventions, in real-time, at scale.
There is a downside to this third rabbit hole, too, though, especially if you are building tools that help others self-experiment. There are now thousands of thousands of apps out there that are purported to improve health and well-being. However, by my reading, there is very little data to support that most of these apps are actually effective in any meaningful way. Moreover, there is little evidence to suggest that most of these apps will actually change anyone’s behavior. Worse, there is a financial incentive to create apps and to market to people, “This app will make you healthier and happier.” In my opinion, there is not a good public understanding of how to evaluate scientific evidence. That makes it difficult for most to evaluate claims about effective treatment and/or interventions. It’s the Wild, Wild West out there.
Before scientific medicine, people just created their own methods. They could sell snake oil. They could put anything in a bag or box and sell it to us as effective. Some were and some weren’t, and many times the ones that were effective, weren’t effective for the reasons that people thought. Luckily, now we have a much better infrastructure where, if you are going to sell some kind of FDA-approved medication, you have to know what is in it and show that it is effective in randomized clinical trials. It’s on you, you’ve got to have experimental data. I think of the app world as similar to the Wild, Wild West. People are now deploying things that they say are treatments and there is not a good, systematic infrastructure in place to know which ones are experimentally sound and which ones are not. Similar to the thoughts expressed in the previous question, there needs to be a clear benefit to making experimentally sound apps. This benefit could be a special designation, like FDA approval or FDA approval equivalent. Something that ensures it has been tested, with evidence showing that it works. If the app does not have that, then some kind of repercussion for the makers. Until we have that system in place, I think you will continue to see a market full of snake oil.
Cathy Presland, a former economist, runs the program World-Changers’ Circle that takes five action-takers on a 6-month journey of transformation. She is an expert on leadership, both personal and professional, and inspires people to look beyond themselves when they make their life and business decisions. Cathy draws her knowledge from over twenty years of experience working with governments and international organizations on different public policies, programs and regulations. Cathy is a respected motivational speaker, teacher, mentor, facilitator and an author. Her book, Write! Stop Waiting, Start Writing. A Step-by-step Guide to Turn What You Know into a Book, is an international bestseller and is just one of the ways Cathy is supporting people who feel they have an idea that they want to share with the world.
1) If someone is looking to create a system to track their process towards some sort of desired change and/or personal improvement, how would you coach them through building this architecture so they can successfully develop a measuring protocol that assists them with meaningful metrics that assist with experimentation and continual improvement?
I think that at the core of any kind of monitoring is the question: is the process serving the end goal? Sometimes this is just a feeling, and sometimes, it is some kind of a quantified measuring protocol. I’m not so interested in numbers; I’m interested in where we are trying to get — How can we make the process more joyful, therefore, making it easier to get to the goal, regardless of the number? In my experience, if we put a measurement around a goal too early, the number becomes more important than the result we’re aiming for and there is no scope for creativity. We’re then quick to jump to self-criticism about not hitting some made-up target which sets off a cycle of demotivation. Measurements are especially not helpful in the early stages when we are just setting up doing something. Sometimes, you first need to do something to test your theory without having to deal with the danger of negative feedback that can come from creating your own metrics. If you want quantification, do a two-week experiment and see how you feel. You can put some measurement around it later if you feel you want to move it forward. So, very rarely would I rush into measurement from the outset.
I’ve got a client at the moment, for example, who’s applied for a number of jobs, and she’s not getting the results she wants. So, we had a conversation about what else could she be spending that time doing? It transpired that it wasn’t working for her because she wasn’t really inspired by the jobs she was applying for. This was the start of an honest conversation. I’m interested in what is going on in our minds that is creating good or bad feelings. When my client has an insight, and she realizes that she wants to be doing something differently, she should just be able to go off and do it. She doesn’t necessarily need to monitor things. Too much measurement can strain your results I think. It may be just about how honest we’re being with ourselves about the things we are doing, whether the things that we’re doing are going to give us the results that we want.
2) When someone is faced with assessing a life change where the present state/status quo is comfortable and satisfactory, and the future state being evaluated is high risk but high reward (i.e. the change requires deviating from an existing desirable state) — what effective strategies, processes and/or frameworks have you found useful for individuals to use to increase the likelihood of making a successful decision?
Life is never a low-risk, high-risk situation in my experience. The future is always unknown. None of us literally knows what we’re going to be hit with personally, professionally, so to me, that is never what it’s about. The actual situation is less important. The only thing that really matters is how we’re thinking about the current situation and what moves we’re making.
I don’t have a framework I could prescribe. What I do have is a philosophy. I do think there is a place that we can come from, because, as individuals, we’re so tiny and meaningless. And, the less consideration I give to me, the more contribution I’ve got to make — to one person, to my children, to my family. I try to have a discussion around what is important to the person in that coaching conversation. What is it that they feel in this moment is the right thing for them to do? It’s about removing your personality and your ego as much as possible, so you can analyze your decision in terms of these questions:
Am I doing this because I think I’m going to be happier in some way, which is a red flag because our feelings don’t come from our circumstances?
What is the greater good in this situation? What feels ‘right’?
And, at the same time, I also think that the right thing is something that we create in our imaginations. So, I don’t see that as a fixed thing; I see that as a drive, a movement, an action at this point in time.
3)In contrast to the previous question, it is my opinion (given the immense amount of advice currently available about improving performance) that people often get stuck consumed by integrating seemingly endless methods (e.g. life hacks, productivity approaches, etc.) that either act as distractions and/or worse — impede progress towards what really is desired. What is your opinion on this assertion and do you have a process with your clients on making strategic decisions on what not to do? Lastly, in this regard are there commonalities that lend themselves to general advice that would benefit most people about what not to do?
I certainly see life hacks as distractions. And, I think that they can impede progress when people give them an importance that they don’t deserve. A lot of life hacks, especially in the personal development world, are designed to try to create some kind of space. Meditation, or anything in that zone, is designed to try to create some space so we can get some clarity. But, the process often becomes an end in itself, like, “I’ve got to meditate”. And we forget that we have access to that space in our heads at any moment. Some people have found life hacks helpful, but the reality is that we don’t need them.
We’re very good at making up things that we think we want and then trying to think our way there. We go into this cycle of over-thinking, whereas, if we actually just gave ourselves mental space, we’d probably already know what it is that we want to do. But, we just don’t accept it, or we don’t see it, or we don’t think this is it; we kind of don’t know what it looks like. So we spend a lot of time chasing things that we don’t really want to do, or things that other people have, which are completely pointless wastes of time.
People that have enough perspective to know that something is not real or is going to pass, do better in life. We need to distinguish between what’s real and what isn’t. Generally, there are some things that look more real than others to people. Money is a typical example here. Many of us think money will create a feeling of security — but the security comes from within us, not from something external. Similarly, doing something because it’s going to lead to something else — taking an action or a path “so that…” or because there is an ulterior motive beyond the immediate is generally a wrong decision, too, and you are fooling yourselves if you are taking intermediate steps to something. If there’s something that you want to create, there’s always a more direct way to do it. For instance, “If I make lots of money, then I can create a foundation to do good in the world.” It’s like, why not just do good in the world now?
The other kind of big general thing that I will comment on is that people seem to think there is somewhere to get to. However, there’s no forward motion. It’s a real trap to believe that there is forward motion because then we’re always trying to get somewhere that we’re never going to get to. It’s just motion, in all sorts of directions and, often, that can be hard for people to conceptualize because we are so conditioned that there is a timeline in life, a journey from A to B. That’s a myth, there is only where we are now.
4) What are good indicators that it might be time to give up on a big idea/plan/goal? Using my own goal as the example, the Boston Marathon has always been a stretch goal, albeit an achievable pursuit — until recently where I was advised never to run long distances again. The Web is cluttered with advice to never give up on your dream, but science suggests this “inspirational” messaging has had some significant negative consequences. What is a suitable gauge and process for determining a goal has realistically fallen out of reach?
For me, this comes down to removing the ego from the decisions that we make. It is about heading in a certain direction and making the most of the opportunities we have rather than regretting those that are not open to us right now. It’s kind of direction versus outcome. And what is important for me is the direction and coming from a higher self … it can be difficult for us to create that separation between what we feel and what we actually decide to do. So, the higher the perspective we get on this, the easier it is to take those clear decisions. That’s where I would work with somebody. We feel what we feel; it’s not for me to tell somebody that what they’re feeling isn’t valid, because that’s what’s coming up for them. But, I will work with them in a way to show them that this isn’t meaningful in the way that they think it might be.
When a big goal falls out of reach, it doesn’t take away from you that direction that you’re heading in. For you, for example, it’s not in the cards to do the Boston Marathon anymore. Or, maybe it is. Or, maybe you can explore something else and get another route for experimentation and/or exploration. But, if you stay attached to the Boston Marathon, you’re going to lose the creativity to try out lots of different things on route to getting there. The reality is that we have very little control over what happens. We don’t know what’s around the corner; we don’t know who we’re going to meet. And, the more open and positive we are to the possibilities that are in front of us, the more fantastic things happen.
5) You run a program called World-Changers Circle. Although daring big might not be for everyone, what are some of the undervalued intangible rewards you have witnessed from those that succeed at big things?
I think that it is human nature to want to do something that goes beyond ourselves. People come to me because they want to do something meaningful, and this doesn’t have to be grandiose. Amazing things can happen when we get our egos out of the way, and these things happen faster than we expect when we do this too. You take bigger actions and make bigger asks when you’re not coming from a place of ego. There are a lot of benefits from taking a different perspective and looking differently at the world: you get calmer, have better relationships. You realize that it is actually more about how you’re looking at things rather than anything that other people have done. You realize that the world is driven internally more than externally.
Hello, my name is Mike Rucker, and I am a fun addict.
This should not surprise anyone. I pretty much have been my whole life. Admittedly, this passion has gotten me into trouble from time to time. For me, channeling this obsession by creating better user experiences (UX) grounds my passion with a purpose. I want people to enjoy what they are doing. I want people to have more fun.
Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for things that are initially described as “fun” to turn into addictions — and, at extremes, pathological obsessions. For instance, neuroscience has shown us that the brain structure changes in people who obsessively play video games (but who are not yet considered addicted). In these individuals, the volume of the player’s gray matter increases in their left ventral striatum — an area of our brain associated with both reward/pleasure and addiction (Kuhn et al., 2011). This region of our brain is also known for being rich in dopamine (the feel-good neurotransmitter) and is connected with the pursuit of desired experiences. It should be no surprise that dopamine has been playfully described as the sex, drugs and rock and roll neurotransmitter, as all three of these activities affect dopamine in the brain — so does sugar and gambling (Avena, Rada, & Hoebel, 2008).
Considering the role dopamine plays in experiencing pleasure, it is not that difficult to understand how addictive behaviors (that release dopamine) can evolve out of initially pleasurable and fun experiences. Having fun in a healthy manner is a rewarding endeavor. Moreover, the allure of fun can motivate us, at least at the onset, to dare big and pursue worthy goals.
Too Much of a Good Thing
“Behavioral” addictions have now been widely recognized as non-substance addictions (that can also develop with or without substance addictions). Neuroimaging techniques and recent research show that it is not only alcohol and recreational drugs that are addictive. Behavioral addictions trigger the same fundamental responses in the body as, for example, cocaine (Grant et al., 2010).
A lot of common activities have the potential to become addictive, though the topic of what behaviors can be considered behavioral addictions is still open for (popular and scientific) debate (Grant et al., 2010). The word addiction has a Latin origin that translates as “bound to” or “enslaved by.” In general terms: I have been addicted to running; I am a recovering addict to travel; I would like to think I am addicted to trying to be a good father and friend.
There is perhaps a fine line between something being an enjoyable activity that brings us fulfillment and an activity that we become dependent on and/or use as a technique for escapism — a distraction that can stand in the way of dealing with real-life situations and feelings. Like Airbnb and Everlast executive Chip Conley recently discussed with me about those that get trapped roaming from one festival to the next looking for fun, “… if you just constantly go to festivals because you cannot live your normal life, or live in real life and/or you are searching for a utopian experience … festivals always come to an end. If you are going to festivals as a way to vacate in some manner, I think you need to ask yourself, ‘What could I do in my ‘normal’ life to make it better?’”
In this context, you can interchange festival attendance with whatever you do for fun. I think Chip’s wisdom applies to all of us in a broader context.
Escapism is a well-known phenomenon in psychology that is often described in conjunction with addictive behaviors. In my youth, especially during my years in high school, I levitated to mood-altering experiences to avoid my boredom and loneliness. I certainly was not alone in this pursuit. Unfortunately, many often continue down this path even when they are aware they’re not getting to the crux of their problem (Reid et al., 2011). And like many, I am still not out of the woods. I traded counterproductive vices for more productive ones … entrepreneurship, Ironmans, this neurotic writing habit. Long distance running or a 2-hour session at the gym can be paradoxically both healthy and unhealthy — just because an activity is marketed to you as healthy does not mean it is being put to use for its intended purpose. Psychologists believe that escapism can become harmful when you start splitting your world into two versions: the real version and the version that is connected with the activity you frivolously pursue (Ohno, 2016). Jesse Israel’s post on his wellness hangover does a great job highlighting this phenomenon.
Furthermore, as modern life becomes more and more stressful and demanding, there is a whole new level of “mind-programming” going on (facilitated by the media and society) that tells us we need to constantly have fun just to make life bearable. A new generation of pleasure seekers has emerged, and they are not necessarily having fun — they are redlining their psyche as they battle cry, “turn down for what.”
In their recent book Stealing Fire, Steven Kotler and Jamie Wheal estimate that we spend over 4 trillion (yes, with a ‘t’) dollars on various types of escapism. As such, questioning the reasons and motives for us having fun is, therefore, a relevant pursuit. A lot of my livelihood, especially as it pertains to UX design, is providing fertile ground for people like yourself to have fun experiences. Maximizing fun is a personal passion, but it needs to coexist with my personal value of not causing harm.
Hedonism vs. Ego Depletion — an Evolutionary Perspective
In my interview with Chip, Chip juxtaposes pleasurable experiences that are guided by hedonistic self-interest with experiences that give you a sense of being a part of something greater than yourself (and that move you beyond your own selfish needs) — collective effervescence. Both types of experience can be a source of fun. However, while the first takes you to your basic instincts, the latter has the ability to enable you to transcend your ego.
Hedonism and hedonistic activities have traditionally been considered a special variety of egoism. Philosophers talk of psychological hedonism. This refers to engaging in certain activities because we believe that they will lead to the fulfillment of a desire that will promote our pleasure, or, alternatively, will help us avoid pain (Garson, 2016). This type of fun has instant gratification, but it also has its faults.
Of important note, from an evolutionary standpoint, a strong argument has been made against hedonism. Philosopher Elliot Sober and biologist David Sloan Wilson, the authors of Unto Others, argue that hedonists are likely not good at child-rearing and that such behavior can be energetically costly — hence evolution has probably prioritized altruists (Sober & Wilson, 1998). Natural selection has promoted behaviors that are reliable, available through genetic mutations, and energetically efficient.
Those in the constant pursuit of fun through hedonists’ means might not fare that well in the long run if they constantly run around seeking their own pleasure (without considering others, especially their offspring). When we blend psychology, biology, anthropology and philosophy — care for others and selfless behavior somewhat surprisingly emerge as important features of human nature that, according to Sober and Wilson, have developed through natural selection.
In Defense of Hedonism
Associate professor Justin Garson, a philosopher of biology from Hunter College, explains another form of hedonism, which he refers to as “reinforcement hedonism” or R-hedonism (as opposed to inferential hedonism or I-hedonism, which is the more egoistic type described above). In this type of psychological hedonism, we have fun from just thinking about the satisfaction of a desire. In Garson’s view, hedonism does not need to be linked only to your own hedonistic desires; it can expand to the welfare of others as well (Garson, 2016). For instance, you can derive great pleasure thinking about the possibility of world peace — which is a very non-egoistic desire that could be considered closer to altruism. Dr. Raj Raghunathan, professor at the McCombs School of Business at The University of Texas, Austin, also suggests that having fun can bring you closer to being more altruistic, happy, healthy, productive and creative. In his view, it is important to have fun, in a way that specifically works for you (for more on that, see my discussion with Raj).
Can you really have too much fun or be addicted to fun?
There is a body of evidence that too much of anything can be harmful, and any addiction has the potential to psychologically enslave you in some way. A hard truth is that our time on this rock is finite — so you probably do not need this perspective from a psychologist to intuitively know that if we overly commit to one pursuit, we will likely live an unbalanced life.
A strong indication that “fun” of any sort has become a problem is if you start having diminished control over your behavior and experience undesirable consequences, as these are common characteristics of addiction (Grant et al., 2010). Also, the distinction between fun and escapism is not always clear-cut and requires some deep reflection on your part. It is up to you to decide if the pursuit of fun has become counterproductive. Make no mistake, fun is an important ingredient of a meaningful and happy life. However, since I am advocating a life full of fun, I have felt compelled to provide an important service announcement: a dose of mindfulness might be required if/when fun gets in the way of you living. In fact, it might be one of only a handful of ways an ecstatic life can truly be reached.
I am an endless knowledge seeker, so on first pass I naturally scoff at the notion we could somehow be blissfully ignorant. AS such, on face value, “is ignorance bliss?” seems like an asinine question. My desire to educate myself on how to be happy has fueled my involvement with the International Positive Psychology Association and my study of academic thought leaders in this space — people like Martin Seligman, Ed Diener, and Barbara Fredrickson — to learn ways to be happier. However, lately I have observed that there are a lot of instances where more information leads to dismay. At a basic level, I watched my one-year-old son thoroughly enjoy a simple train set for months.
There is a great store where we live that has cheap, recycled toy train parts, so my wife and I continued to introduce train pieces and have made my son’s set more robust over the past few months. We loved doing it for him because he couldn’t get enough… until the day he did. As we continued to add disparate train pieces with the best of intentions, some trains do not fit certain tracks — some trains fit the existing track but are too tall to go under the existing bridge that came with the original set. What has ensued is confusion and frustration. I have let it go on because I think the development of problem solving outweighs the loss of bliss my son used to achieve when the set was simply enjoyable. However, this loss of bliss is observably noticeable and therefore significant. We are basically making my son unhappy by introducing new information.
Scientifically, happiness is a choice. It is a choice about where your single processor brain will devote its finite resources as you process the world. —Shawn Achor
Have you ever found yourself in a supermarket, surrounded by an aisle of different choices, wishing there was only one available? Science tells us endless options can be anxiety-provoking. When faced with choice, we use a lot of energy to make our final choice. When there is an abundance of choice, the cost is an increased chance that you will regret your final decision later. If you want to feel like you made a solid choice, you need to scrutinize all the available information you have available and then (once you process all this information) make your decision. But, as a general rule, does more information actually contribute to a more satisfactory outcome? How much information do we need to make an informed decision, engage in play, achieve flow, take action or simply be happy?
The topic of choice touches on different areas of our personal and professional life. Choice contributes to our happiness, as well as our social arrangements. We can view the argument of “ignorance is bliss” through the lenses of behavioral psychology, philosophy, politics, education and marketing sciences. The topic is provocative since it juxtaposes our general wish for autonomy with a more paternalistic and prescriptive view. In a world that is filled with seemingly constant impulses and endless options, we would often like to believe we are happier when we have all the information. However, this might not always be congruent with the desire to reduce our stress and feel balanced.
When Choosing Feels like Losing
The paradox of choice is not a new phenomenon; we can observe it in different areas of our lives, from the food we eat to who we are attracted to. Nowadays, there are so many options available to us in every aspect of our life. If you are not completely satisfied or happy, why not dump what you have and replace it (or even him/her) with another version? Why should you practice discipline and perseverance when it is so easy to find yourself a superior model to what you have now? Psychologist Barry Schwartz wrote extensively about the paradox of choice and argues that Americans do not seem to be benefiting from all the choice that is available to us (Schwartz, 2004).
Various research also shows us that when more choice is available, we are more likely to be dissatisfied with what we finally choose. Jonathan D’Angelo and Catalina Toma (2016) explored this idea in their study of online dating. When participants selected their dates from a larger set of people, they were more doubtful about their dating choice a week later (when compared to those who had fewer potential partners to choose from). A similar observation has been made in marketing. Studies show that people who spend more time deliberating about a decision can later feel a sense of loss towards the options they did not pick. During what we perceive to be a careful selection process, we develop a sense of attachment to our decisions, which researchers believe might be harmful to our well-being (Carmon, Wertenbroch, & Zeelenberg, 2003). The premise “choosing feels like losing” has been introduced. Choosing from a set of options can lead us to a feeling of post-choice discomfort. Once we opt for one option, we no longer possess the other — that’s just a fact. Instead of feeling a sense of relief about finally making a decision, we let negative feelings creep in and we start to feel dissatisfied. Rebecca Ratner of the University of Maryland and her colleagues explored different strategies that can help us help others in their decision-making process. They indicate that providing good information is one of them, but restricting options or adding restrictive options are also recommended (Ratner et al., 2008). For instance, pre-committing to a choice can free us from having to face the decision later, and can also help with self-control when more options become available. It is part of the science that makes restrictive diets like WHOLE30 episodically successful. Simply put, if we can manufacture a predisposition to making (and sticking with) a decision it makes our life a lot less challenging.
When Are You Most Free to Make Autonomous Choices?
Although we all generally value autonomy, there appears to be some ambivalence surrounding this topic. For instance, in education, some studies of problem-based learning showed that while students welcomed some degree of autonomy afforded by this technique, they were also engaged during more prescriptive approaches to studying (Harmer & Stokes, 2016). It appears that paternalism can sometimes free our energy to engage in life in a more efficient way.
From a philosophical stance, there is also a vibrant debate about what constitutes choice. It is pretty easy to find critics anytime the idea of a “forced choice” is brought up. For example, in the West, we have the freedom to choose (and this is widely lauded). However, sometimes, there is the subtle (unspoken) condition that we ought to choose the right thing. If we fail to do that, we can be ostracized and, and in a way we lose some of our freedom to choose (Žižek, 1989). How many “forced choices” do we make just to remain a part of our community (or “tribe”) and conform to the expectations of our environment? In choice, too, there appears to be a degree of ignorance we are willing to accept to “keep the peace” and avoid the cognitive dissidence of malalignment with the philosophy of our peers.
So a strong scientific argument can be made that a plethora of choices can create decision fatigue. Our mind simply cannot cope with an endless amount of information; our decision capacity runs out, and at this point we run the risk of making bad decisions. Our mood can worsen when we are faced with too many choices as well. Research shows that too much choice leads to suboptimal decisions (Schwartz, 2004). Therefore, significant decisions should not be made when we are fatigued or in a bad mood. This was illustrated by a study of judicial decisions conducted at four major prisons in Israel (Danziger, Levav, & Avnaim-Pesso, 2011). The authors examined parole decisions made by experienced judges. It transpired that having a break (thus feeling less fatigued) influenced the judges’ ruling. More favorable decisions were made in the mornings (at the start of the work day) and after food breaks — this pattern was predictable, possibly confirming our need to rest and replenish our energy before making an important decision. It appears a good decision can sometimes be more about the timing, and less about the choices we are presented with. The saying “sleep on it” might sound simplistic, but it has some scientific credence.
Then, there is the scientific theory behind choice architecture. If you are interested in going down the rabbit hole of choice and well-being, I suggest following Brian Wansink. In various studies, Dr. Wansink has shown that if you crowd out the ability to make bad decisions by rigging your environment towards a bias to make good ones, you can steer yourself and/or others towards healthy behaviors (never the wiser that they’ve been unwittingly influenced). As I became aware firsthand in my study about workplace wellness strategies, people do not like to know their choices have been limited; however, if the reduction of choice is unobserved, one can rig the system for people to make specific decisions (arguably in their best interest) based on controlling the information available to them.
When Are You Most Free to Be Creative?
A study by Associate Professors Anne-Laure Sellier and Darren W. Dahl challenged the established belief that having more choice fuels creativity. They conducted two experiments that focused on knitting and crafting. The selection of creative inputs was increased from moderate to extensive: a bigger selection of yarn colors in the case of knitting; and a larger selection of shapes for a Christmas tree decoration in the case of crafting. Interestingly, the creative output of experienced and knowledgeable participants was negatively affected by more choice. Those who were less experienced, on the other hand, didn’t seem to be effected by the change in choice but it did not enhance their expereince either. The authors concluded that restricted choice could be better for creative success as it allows us to focus more — and actually enjoy the creative process more — particularly if already experienced or skilled in that pursuit (Sellier & Dahl, 2011).
One of my heroes, Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi, a couple of decades ago wrote how restricting choice could reduce stress and anxiety. Choice does give us the feeling that we can be more creative. However, this feeling is just that — a feeling — it is generally an illusion. Science suggests we have more difficulty focusing and enjoying an activity when provided with an extensive choice.
Is Ignorance Bliss?
Science tends to back up why my wife and I might have been unintentional wet blankets. When we have too much information, we risk the potential of decision paralysis. We are given less room to follow our creative paths, engage in flow and — let’s face it — sometimes enjoy ourselves. Other studies by Darren Dahl also highlighted that the highest level of enjoyment is achieved when there is a right balance between restriction (e.g. providing limits around a task) and the freedom to create with autonomy (Dahl & Moreau, 2007). It is important to note that while researching this topic has in no way curtailed my thirst for knowledge, but it has garnered a new respect for the relationship our happiness has with information and choice. For many of us, happiness is a choice. We don’t need to be ignorant to be blissful, but waiting around for the right information does not appear to help any either. To contrary, in some cases it may do the opposite.
As a general statement, mTORs are cellular regulatory proteins essential for the activation of proteins specific or important to growth and cellular replication. Almost any factor important to protein synthesis affects mTOR activation to some degree by interacting with the TSC1/TSC2 protein complex. Relevant to the question, the underlying mechanisms for many tumors and cancers involve dysregulation of mTOR cell signaling pathways (usually an abnormal up-regulation of mTOR components). Thus, as an approach to controlling the growth of cancerous cell lines, the use of mTOR inhibitors has been proposed. The question or concern related to PQQ evolves from such observations, specifically the report by Kumar et al. in Anticancer Agents Med Chem. 2015;15:1297-304 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25832358). These researchers observed that PQQ exposure lessens the growth of human leukemia HL-60 Cells through Inhibition of mTOR. Thus the question – Could something similar happen in muscle?
The cells in question versus muscle cells:
HL-60 (Human promyelocytic leukemia) cells are derived from a type of blood cells, known as neutrophils. HL-60 cells proliferate continuously in suspension cell cultures. Accordingly, they are used in cell proliferation studies or studies in which cells with the characteristics of phagocytic cells, such as neutrophils, are the focus of an investigation. Phagocytic cells are cells that are recruited to the sites of infection, cell injury, and inflammation. An interesting observation is that when activated, some of their mitochondrial content gets extruded (cf. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15548627.2015.1063765) in to plasma/blood. In this regard, plasma levels of mitochondrial DNA (from phagocytic and the targeted damaged cells) can be used as a marker for the extent of inflammation in human and animal subjects. Phagocytic cells can even generate hydrogen peroxide and superoxide radicals to aid in the chemical modification of inflammatory by-products and cellular debris.
Muscle cells, of course, are different. In vivo, they do not replicate or “turn-over” rapidly, in contrast to phagocytic cell lines. Their mitochondria stay intake and are not extruded. Oxygen utilization is efficient and used for ATP production, which in part is in contrast with phagocytic cells, wherein some of the cellular oxygen is directed at “oxidant” and superoxide production. The point here is that interpretation of results related to cell signaling is cell-type and process dependent. When the only data available are derived from cells in culture, it ‘s hard to make assertive conclusions without a lot of nuance and other assumptions.
mTOR, PQQ, and Muscle
So – can mTOR levels influence muscle growth. The answer in some situations is yes. Several research groups have noted that there is a sarcopenic effect (presence of lower muscle mass and either lower muscular strength or lower physical performance) with long-term mTOR inhibitor use (e.g. for long-term cancer treatment. (cf. Gyawali et al. Muscle wasting associated with the long-term use of mTOR inhibitors. Mol Clin Oncol. 2016; 5:641-646). Importantly, only very very potent mTOR inhibitory agents have been studied. Thus, to what extent this has a direct relevance to a normal exercising person taking PQQ is not clear. Moreover, as it relates to PQQ, there are few comparative studies of using differing cells and their response to PQQ exposure. We know of only one. Min et al. reported (J Cancer. 2014; 5:609-24, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25161699)
PQQ exposure enhanced apoptosis (programmed cell death) in tumor cells (3 types of tumor cells were studied) but promoted no apoptotic changes in the normal cell lines derived from renal and umbilical-derived cells. Accordingly, an answer to the PQQ/muscle question is, if there is an effect, it is probably modest, if at all. Importantly, exercise “trumps” most known dietary factors and nutraceuticals taken as supplements to optimize muscular function or maintenance.
As a final comment, for questions such as the one posed, going to the resveratrol literature is sometimes helpful. In many respects PQQ and resveratrol (RV) influence similar cell signaling pathways. A PubMed search identified over 50 papers addressing RV, tumor growth, and apoptosis, i.e. RV suppresses tumor growth. In contrast, there are dozens of paper suggesting RV improves many aspects of muscle function. For PQQ, although the literature is not as extensive, the available reports suggest similar findings.
In an active individual, is PQQ going to do much independent of the effects of exercise? Few external factors promote muscular or mitochondrial function as well as exercise itself. The mTOR cell signaling pathways are clearly essential to muscle function, but any mTOR inhibitory response that PQQ might have is probably overridden by other factors. For example, PQQ has been shown in animal studies to have clear positive effects on neonatal growth, anti-ischemic/cardio-protective effects, neural protective effects, an ability to enhance fatty acid metabolism via mitochondrial oxidation, and anti-inflammatory effects. Rather, than increasing performance per se, the benefits of PQQ, if any, are more likely related to recovery following an episode of intense activity. In this regard, some mTOR suppression may have some utility.