Marginal Revolution: Why are markets in exercise discipline imperfect?

July
S	M	T	W	Th	F	St
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

« "Ikea" in India | Main | Randian Valentine's day rhetoric »

Why are markets in exercise discipline imperfect?

Exercise is statistically correlated with better health, but weight is not. That suggests you should exercise more. Furthermore some exercise is much better than no exercise at all, so you can be happy with a modest achievement.

Why don't we rely more on markets to force ourselves to exercise?

Post a bond with your friend, your spouse, your exercise partner, or someone you won't (or can't) lie to. You lose the money if you don't exercise according to a pre-arranged plan with well-defined quantitative goals. If need be, I will serve in this role and cash your check when it comes in the mail (hey, would you lie to your blogger?).

Or why not have the gym collect a bigger upfront fee, and they pay you each time you show up and complete an exercise program under their supervision?

What are the problems with these arrangements?

1. The roles of friend or spouse do not mix with that of "Enforcer." That being said, I bet your spouse is willing to enforce her requirements on you. And surely she wants you to live longer, so why not extend the scope of her enforcement just a wee bit?

2. The payment, if you lose, is not a real transfer. You share funds with your spouse and your friend will treat is as a gift to be returned. Fair enough, but then find a real bastard, a corporation, or an amiable but distant blogger.

3. You enjoy exercise, but not if you feel obliged to do it. Introducing too many external incentives takes away the possibility of developing internal motivation. (Similarly, if you pay your kid to do the dishes, she will no longer feel obliged and the total quantity of labor may fall.) If the exercise arena becomes a regular sphere of money loss and humiliation, you will avoid the exercise idea altogether. After a while you will stop making these contracts.

4. You don't really want to exercise more in the first place.

I put most of my money on #3.

We hear all this superficial blather about "life being a process." This is true, but it is less well-recognized that this is a source of institutional failure. Most good things you do -- and I include charity on this list -- you do not for the ends themselves, but because you have somehow managed to enjoy the process of regular engagement and self-discipline. You then deceive yourself into thinking you value the end more than you do. This creates social order, but it also makes those same commitments fragile. Whether you are meta-rational or not, you are unlikely to seek brutal market discipline (or advice columnists, for that matter) to enforce your good behavior. You prefer to play the happy fool, even though you will die earlier and refuse to break up with the creep you are currently dating, no matter how many of your friends tell you he is ultimately a loser.

The alternative methods?: Fantasize about the relationship between exercise and more and better sex, whether or not it is there at the margins you face. Build fantasy upon fantasy to make the area a source of fun. Or try self-prophecy.

Addendum: Economist Art DeVany has intricate theories about exercise, based on his understanding of evolutionary biology. Run sprints, not marathons. Art reports on his blog how devastated he is from the recent death of his wife; do read this moving tale.

Posted by Tyler Cowen on February 15, 2006 at 07:28 AM in Economics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/3576/4259114

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why are markets in exercise discipline imperfect?:

» [Marginal Revolution] Why are markets in exercise discipline imperfect? from Marketplace.MD Blog
Tyler Cowan: Exercise is statistically correlated with better health, but weight is not. That... [Read More]

Tracked on Feb 15, 2006 5:49:51 PM

» Keeping Up With the Joneses (and the Pizza Guy) from Positive Liberty
Heres a paragraph by Tyler Cowen that blew my mind: We hear all this superficial blather about life being a process. This is true, but it is less well-recognized that this is a source of institutional failure. Most good things... [Read More]

Tracked on Feb 15, 2006 9:25:45 PM

Comments

I've tried this kind of thing a lot, but with little success, because I always chose my wife as the Enforcer. The only way the wife is a good Enforcer is with situations where you are trying to avoid some act, like viewing pornography or spending money needlessly. Then, she makes an excellent enforcer - the credible threat is there. But, if you're trying to develop a strategy to exercise more - as you note - I don't think she can be the other part of the transaction, since resources are pooled and a transfer won't feel like you've lost anything unless you are a family with very strict budget-keeping (ie, you have a certain allocation of monthly "husband funds" and "wife funds" and lose some of it if you fail to exercise). Using an outside person might be the way to go on this one - maybe a colleague at work.

Posted by: scott cunningham at Feb 15, 2006 8:52:06 AM

I would put my money on 4.
Coincidentally, I wrote about this subject a year ago and just reposted it:

I was riding on my exercise bike trying to solve an economic problem of a personal sort involving over consumption when a thought came to me: “Wouldn’t it be nice if the bike dispensed a twenty dollar bill when I finished exercising?” Perhaps I was thinking that because I was beginning to feel a drop in motivation and money always motives me. But then I thought, who would put the money in the bike? Who would pay me to exercise? My wife might. But then I thought that I might do it myself. Is that rational?

You see, maybe I have a time inconsistency problem. Sometimes I feel very motivated to lose weight and would pay to achieve that goal. Other times I feel lazy and think it’s too much work. Maybe I would rather eat pizza. I call up the pizza guy and ask for delivery. Then I realize “Oh no! All my cash is in the exercise bike!” So I furiously race the pizza guy on my stationary bike to get the cash out before he comes. And months later, when I’ve gotten all of the cash out of the exercise bike, my rational self declares “See, I exercised and I lost weight. The money works!” So do you think people would buy an exercise bike that dispenses cash if they had to put the cash in themselves?

Posted by: Michael H. at Feb 15, 2006 9:01:36 AM

I would put my money on no. 4, too.

Additional thoughts:

-- Tyler writes, "Most good things you do -- and I include charity on this list -- you do not for the ends themselves, but because you have somehow managed to enjoy the process of regular engagement and self-discipline. . . . This creates social order, but it also makes those same commitments fragile." I guess that may explain pledge drives, walk-a-thons, and the like? (I.e., the fun factor of charity needs to be continually renewed.)

-- As for exercise, opportunity cost is the biggest problem for me. The time I spend exercising has to come out of my reading time. (I'm totally incapable of reading while exercising, and audio versions are rarely available for what I want to read). Therefore, I will exercise only if I believe that it will result in a net increase of reading time or reading volume. Adding more years at the end of my life doesn't do the trick, because I expect that I will be a less efficient reader at the end of my life, plus I can make better use of what I read if I read it now, while I'm in my prime. Is there any evidence that, say, exercising for half an hour will enable me to read more in 90 minutes than I could in 2 hours without exercising?

I would welcome any thoughts Tyler or others may have on this issue.

Posted by: John P. at Feb 15, 2006 10:26:20 AM

Some banks and law firms will pay your membership fee at a gym, but only if you go more than a certain number of days/times. If you don't, you pay the monthly fee, which can be a good amount of money.

Of course, at the end of the month, my friends are sometimes walking over to the gym to take a 15 minute jog on the treadmill.

Posted by: BDK at Feb 15, 2006 10:44:19 AM

Hire the "Exercisers, Inc.", who I heard are a new subsidiary of the Quitters, Inc. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quitters,_Inc_(Stephen_King) ], a company with the noble cause of saving others since 1985. But remember, a deal is a deal.

Posted by: Oskar Shapley at Feb 15, 2006 10:55:54 AM

Is there REALLY any proof that exercise improves health? Low-fat, cholesterol, overweight, all a big lie. Maybe exercise is a lie too.

Posted by: Half Sigma at Feb 15, 2006 11:26:34 AM

I don't think a "market" works if you try to sell to yourself... If you're interested in the money, it's simplest not to put any money into the "market". Maybe if insurance companies consistently gave rate reductions on life insurance - but that's just one more level of indirection.

We do have some effective markets in weight loss. You can pay a plastic surgeon for liposuction, or get a stomach stapel. Some diet drugs work - though I haven't heard of any that don't have dangerous side effects. If you're willing to pay more for your food, you can buy higher quality food, well prepared, that tastes really great, but includes less fat, starch and sugar. If you're willing to pay enough time and money, you can engage in activities that are intrinsically fun and non-painful exercise.

Ultimately the problem is that we know that we could save money by eating less, but eating is too much of a pleasure to give up.

Posted by: TomC at Feb 15, 2006 11:34:45 AM

My first reaction is that a market satisfies wants, and when you get in a sedentary groove ... you don't want to exercise. On the other hand, my experience is that when you work your way (forcing yourself) into the active state, your body almost demands movement.

(to sigma - the old saying "moderation in all things" gets better scientific support every year.)

Posted by: odograph at Feb 15, 2006 11:44:44 AM

John P.,
Consult your local librarian. Public libraries frequently have audio book collections and can have titles shipped from other libraries. And I do mean "talk to the librarian," not just consult what is available. Ask for whoever is in charge of the audio collection. She will know the most about what is available, and she probably is the one who orders titles. If it is a large library, they may have someone who specifically develops a collection for people with disabilities, and at the worst someone should know other resources you can consult, like an audio book rental place or local center for the blind. You do not need to be blind to ask for help, and most such librarians want to help people who are inquiring into their areas. People are sitting on information just waiting to be asked about it.

Perhaps you have already checked everything and found that your reading tastes really are that unusual: no audio versions exist. In seeing what is available, however, you will have found thousands of titles. Might one of them appeal to you somewhat, even if it is not the next book you planned to read? You now have the utility of thirty minutes of sub-optimal reading plus the health benefits of thirty minutes of exercise, weighed against thirty minutes of optimal reading. You must judge for yourself how close of a substitute the available books are.

If you assign no weight to the benefits of exercise, only to reading, then you will probably favor just reading. On the economist's other hand, exercise is supposed to reduce the amount of sleep you need, although it seems unlikely that it is a 1:1 trade-off. Still, at the margin, the relevant question may be exercise vs. sleep, not reading, so how much do you value being unconscious? Include that as a health benefit of exercise, and exercise + available audio book might have a better chance.

One last note on sub-optimal reading: constrained choices may reveal new preferences to you. You might find a new author or such that you like in this way, under the "try the best of the worst" theory. Get a recommendation for the best book of a type you would not normally read, and that book will probably be on audio (the most recommended titles often are). Alternately, some audio book performances are good performances in and of themselves, whatever the book may be. You get a cross between a book and a radio drama, a different sort of utility to find.

Or maybe you will end up with lousy audio books that make you never want to exercise again for fear of being forced to sit through another one, but then you get your reading time back. Win-win?

Posted by: Zubon at Feb 15, 2006 11:48:20 AM

Bodyfat (as distinct from just 'weight' which includes athletic people with muscle) is correlated with debilitating conditions, as well as earlier deaths.

My bet for the reason that people fail is they never really wanted to become healthier to begin with, they just wanted the positive planning/"im starting something new and exciting" feelings. Putting real money on the table makes people realise they aren't serious.

Posted by: anon at Feb 15, 2006 12:02:40 PM

Zubon, thanks for your thoughtful analysis. The exercise vs. sleep trade-off appears to hold the most promise for me. I suppose I should try some experiments with it.

Posted by: John P. at Feb 15, 2006 12:19:32 PM

Shouldn't you be posting this on a well-read blog that has a mostly liberal constituency? That way they feel really bad when you get their money in the short term and so they exercise more. (if your FANS appoint you their enforcer don't they feel a bit GUILTY whenever they actually do their exercise?)

The trojan horse in the plan is that over time your liberal clients get enticed to read your blog here and there... they end up appreciating how much you have done for their health.... and some will end up being the ideal convert... someone like Reagan with liberal intuitions but market-oriented understandings.

Posted by: dave meleney at Feb 15, 2006 12:20:52 PM

Not sure if this link works:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:QR3XWjtFxPoJ:www.rae-chorze-fwaz.com/yoohoo.html+great+yoohoo+challenge&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

if not, google great yoohoo challenge and look at the cached version of the top response.

It's a first-person account of an attempt of several people to force ourselves to exercise. Irrelevant to the topic at hand, but coloring the account, is the author's cult membership. The original instigator had already lost many cash bets with family members, and ultimately had too much money to care, but this did not help him either.

Hiring a trainer or signing up for a class is a common trick people use to exercise. Somehow the annoyance of paying for a missed session seems to be more effective than gym memberships.

Posted by: fmb at Feb 15, 2006 12:41:57 PM

I thought gyms made the vast majority of their money from people who 'intended' to go ...

Posted by: odograph at Feb 15, 2006 12:45:52 PM

I tried this with diet (if I eat chocolate, fine me $10, etc.) and unless your enforcer believes in the power of incentives (over self-perceived kindness and grace) it won't work out. I.e., they won't fine you, will pretend they don't see you eating chocolate.

Posted by: Alcibiades at Feb 15, 2006 12:54:47 PM

I don't have a comment on the enforcement question, just the weird claim that weight is not associated with health. Weight is significantly correlated with a host of health measures (including mortality) even after controls for exercise and a bunch of other behavioral and socioeconomic measures are included. I confirmed these findings with some calculations of my own witht the Health and Retirmement study that I am working with today. Tyler, what is your evidence for this strange claim?

Posted by: Sven Wilson at Feb 15, 2006 1:34:15 PM

Or why not have the gym collect a bigger upfront fee, and they pay you each time you show up and complete an exercise program under their supervision?

It seems to me like this is how gyms work already. You give them a fee up front and they give you nothing. Then, every time you come in, they let you use their facilities for free. It's not a cash payment but it is obviously something of value. You get more value out of the gym the more often you go; and they have an economic interest in you not coming as often as you could.

Posted by: neil at Feb 15, 2006 1:47:34 PM

"Weight is significantly correlated with a host of health measures"

Research shows that it's healthier to be overweight.

http://www.halfsigma.com/2005/04/the_overweight__1.html

Posted by: Half Sigma at Feb 15, 2006 3:04:56 PM

If the spouse is going to participate in this transaction, I suggest my Uncle's weight loss plan. My aunt asked him to go on a diet. He said, "okay, every day I'll come home for lunch and we'll have sex instead of a meal." Seemed to work. Likewise, gym visits could be correlated with conjugal visits. I leave the details as an excercise for the reader.

Posted by: tylerh at Feb 15, 2006 3:53:13 PM

One trick I read somewhere: write out a check for a substantial amount to an organization you virulently hate. Give the check to your trainer or enforcer. If you forfeit the exercise sessions you've agreed to, they send the check to the hated organization. And then you have TWO failures on your conscience.

In this situation, I would probably choose not to exercise as the least painful option.

Posted by: Mike at Feb 15, 2006 4:37:00 PM

TC: Or why not have the gym collect a bigger upfront fee, and they pay you each time you show up and complete an exercise program under their supervision?

This scares the bejesus out of me. For the first time in my life, I think that a fella@econ.gmu has a GREAT idea.

Posted by: DF at Feb 15, 2006 4:37:04 PM

Half Sigma> Health =/= Mortality. That study measured the correlation of BMI with mortality. Were you to examine how BMI is correlated with QOL or disease risk rather than death, I'm sure the results would be very different. If anything, this is testament to advances in general health and medical practices rather than differences in weight-based health.

Refer to this passage from the JAMA article you linked:
Cardiovascular risk factors have declined at all BMI levels in the US population, but, except for diabetes, the decline appears to be greater at higher BMI levels. These findings are consistent with the increases in life expectancy in the United States and with the declining mortality rates from ischemic heart disease.

Posted by: Patrick at Feb 15, 2006 4:53:32 PM

Patrick, the problem with your theory is that being overweight didn't just correlate with the same mortality, it correlated with LOWER mortality. According to the study, there would be fewer deaths from disease each year of people gained some more weight.

Posted by: Half Sigma at Feb 15, 2006 5:41:08 PM

The problem with charity that is motivated by the act of giving is that there is no incentive to give to charities that actually work rather than to charities that simply waste money.

Posted by: michael vassar at Feb 15, 2006 6:50:13 PM

As for reading and exercise, riding a stationary bike 30 minutes a day has increased my word-intake. I don't like the recumbent bike position especially, and heart rates in excess of 150 make difficult books and music hard to appreciate, but those 30 minutes are perfect for newspapers and magazines. After I get home, I take a short nap. Afterward, I'm much more clear-headed and able to focus on reading than I am without this whole regimen.

But I agree with Tyler: I've learned to appreciate the process; it's all become a ritual that I enjoy, and I rarely think about the healthful ends it is supposed to serve.

Posted by: Lee at Feb 15, 2006 8:46:07 PM

"I thought gyms made the vast majority of their money from people who 'intended' to go"

Gyms postively _love_ the fact that people make New Year's resolutions. "This is the year I'll lose weight/build muscle/improve my endurance/look better naked." So January is a very crowded month in most gyms, but by the time you get into the middle of February - around now, as a matter of fact - things aren't quite so busy, and the crowds just keep diminishing. There often is another peak in late Spring, consisting of people who want to look good for the beach.
Enough of these short-time members sign yearly contracts that the gyms profit nicely.

Posted by: Peter at Feb 15, 2006 9:44:55 PM

uh that study used "body mass index" which is a terrible indicator. I'm quite overweight on the BMI, but i have little bodyfat: muscle weighs a lot more than fat.

Its also not an intervention study: the people who are natually thin generally never learn to eat their fruits & vegetables or exercise, where as moderatly overweight people are doing these things. Do you realize just how small a group of people who actually eat well and exercise and control their calories? Finally, old people who are underweight are ususally not that way because they're doing lots of athletic things, but because they already have some disease that made them lose lots of weight. That study is mainly useful to make people who make symbolic motions at living healthily feel better about their failure.

Posted by: anon at Feb 15, 2006 10:21:42 PM

"So do you think people would buy an exercise bike that dispenses cash if they had to put the cash in themselves?"

Not a bike, but I'd be interested in this for a treadmill.

Actually what would be really brilliant is if you created a device that could be hooked up to the most popular models of exercise equipment, since so many people already own bikes, treadmills, etc. and just need more motivation to use them.

Posted by: Jacqueline at Feb 16, 2006 3:50:57 AM

Why are you making it so complicated? Just register in a fitness club. Pay one year membership fee upfront (with some discount if you're lucky). Then you'd feel obliged to excercise. You don't even need a spouse as enforcer. Just a market.

Posted by: Arianto Patunru at Feb 16, 2006 5:45:31 AM

Arianto
Perhaps you should read about the sunk cost fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost_fallacy

Posted by: Michael H. at Feb 16, 2006 7:32:06 AM

I know I'm going off topic now ... but if you have places you can walk or bike to (I didn't realize how many I had until I started loooking), that recreation kills a few birds with one stone. Think about what you read, listent to music or a podcast, save a trip in the car, pick up some groceries or rent a movie, etc.

(It amuses me sometimes when I'm riding a bike across town to see someone in gym clothes getting in a large SUV. They paid for the gym, they paid for the SUV, they paid for the gas ... and they gotta drive ten minutes before they excercise. I won't even suppose they are going to a "spin" class. That would be too sad.)

Posted by: odograph at Feb 16, 2006 8:07:24 AM

michael, the reason its a fallacy is that we have an emotional response that makes us care about sunk costs. and since emotions actually motivate us, sinking cost into something gets us to do somehting (in this case exercise)

Posted by: anon at Feb 16, 2006 11:45:48 AM

For the Markets in Everything dept. Apparently the market supports #4:
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/0216gymbribes.html
The Associated Press
Published on: 02/16/06

PENSACOLA, Fla. — An Escambia County middle school gym teacher let children sit out his class if they paid a $1 bribe daily, netting him perhaps thousands of dollars, officials said Thursday.

Posted by: DK at Feb 16, 2006 3:30:33 PM

I have sworn to give up junk food. Therefore, I have informed my friends if they see me eating junk food they are entitled to charge me. I also use an increasing incentive strucutre (since I may get craftier at not being discovered) -- so if friend A discovers me eating junk food the first time he is entitled to five dollars. The second time to ten. The third time to fifteen, etc (with a cap at 25).

I would like a website that facilitated this distributed-enforcement (you post a picture, a behavioral constraint, and a payoff structure and rely on others to enforce that).

Posted by: BSA at Feb 16, 2006 8:06:32 PM

odograph - I drive to the gym sometimes (though not in my SUV as I don't own one). I drive partly because my husband gets stressed about me being out walking when it's dark, and partly because I am an utter wimp about exercising when it's wet and cold. So if I was to restrict myself to biking or walking to the gym, I wouldn't go on all those days when it's either dark or miserable outside.

Posted by: Tracy W at Apr 6, 2006 5:19:24 PM

lesbisch piss in bed ^^^ nympho atm in bad ^^^ fine agente di polizia ^^^ allievo amore nel bagno ^^^ froid extraterrestre quarante cinq ^^^ bien mpegs ^^^ plus chaud mman vierge ^^^ chaude image ^^^ inchiodare amatoriali prostituta ^^^ comfortable cowgirl ubriache ^^^ begara ung varandra ^^^ overjordisk skolflicka fitta samlag ^^^ lesbiche ass to mouth in anticamera ^^^ love bionde ass to mouth ^^^ mannlig far ^^^ fyldig kino ^^^ elskelig mutter ^^^ het attraktiv sjuskete ^^^ afentiko koritsi katourima ^^^ xanthos avnanismos sto spiti ^^^ maman mieux ^^^ plus chaude mama quarante ^^^