When Optimization is Not Optimal

I want a better jawline and a more sculpted face. 

Since Instagram probably knows all our thoughts by this point, I started getting ads for jaw trainers. There are a few companies who make rubber chewing devices meant to train your jaw. I never bought one because I had a bad feeling it would end up covered in saliva, smelling bad, and that my teeth would hurt from chewing on rubber all day. 

Then I got an ad for mastic gum, which is a natural gum made of resin from trees in Greece. It’s a bit tougher than normal gum, so you can chew it for hours while it helps train the face. But it didn’t seem like it would train the jaw as effectively as the rubber jaw trainers. 

I’m happy to report I’ve been chewing all the time for it for over a month, and I’m already noticing change in my jaw muscles. 

Technically the jaw trainers are more optimized than mastic gum. But I wouldn’t use a jaw trainer for two hours straight while I send emails. There’s virtually no barrier with the mastic gum, which leads to more time spent chewing, and better results. 

The most optimized approach is not the most effective for long-term habit building. 

Former athletes and musicians struggle with this the most. We know the most optimized way to exercise and play, and we tell ourselves if we can’t do it that way, we might as well not do it at all. 

This is a big lie that holds us back. 

Six months of slow, sweaty jogs makes an individual far healthier than one perfectly optimized run. Consistency beats high performance over the long term. 

Is your knowledge of the optimal approach keeping you from enjoying an effective approach?