The Pareto Principle (80-20 rule)

Originally, the Pareto Principle referred to the observation that 80% of Italy’s wealth belonged to only 20% of the population.

More generally, the Pareto Principle is the observation (not law) that most things in life are not distributed evenly. It can mean all of the following things:

* 20% of the input creates 80% of the result
* 20% of the workers produce 80% of the result
* 20% of the customers create 80% of the revenue
* 20% of the bugs cause 80% of the crashes
* 20% of the features cause 80% of the usage
* and so on ...

The numbers don’t have to be “20%” and “80%” exactly. The thing to appreciate is that most things in life (effort, reward, output) are not distributed evenly – some contribute more than others.

How can this be used effectively?

- reward the employees that produce the maximum result
- sort out the critical bugs before you get to the rest
- focus on the customers that give you the maximum revenue
- and so on ...

The economics term for this is "diminishing marginal benefit".

Realize you have the option to focus on the important 20%.

• Quality - When you're looking at overall quality, *everything* needs to be looked at. But when you're just trying to finish off things that need to be done - focus on the important 20% first, then look at the remaining.
  
• Effectiveness - You could read 3 articles in depth - or, skim a dozen articles in an hour (5 min each) and then read the 2 most relevant. Which is more effective?
  
• Volume - "Superstar management" : if you get top results from your 'superstar' 20%, spend all your time managing them. This theory is flawed, because it would be better to take 80% up a notch than try to squeeze more out of the hens that lay the golden eggs. Sheer numbers guarantee that.
  

And while you're at it, here's an interesting link about The Internet and the death of 80:20. And here's an application of the principle to betting on horce racing.

Work smart, not hard - on the right things.

How to mess with your sleep - at a whole new level

Most people work with a monophasic sleep routine ie. sleeping in a single stretch (as grandma says, 8 hours). Others prefer biphasic, where you get your one chunk at night and a nap sometime in the middle of the day - a very popular routine, with entire cultural phenomena (eg: the concept of 'siesta') designed around it.

But why one over the other? Or put differently, which is best? If you want to squeeze the maximum out of each day, consider time spent sleeping a waste, or simply have an exam coming up and syllabus to cram, read on -

Now, there is evidence that humans evolved on a biphasic or polyphasic adaptation. It would be hard to believe that our old monkey ancestors would get their forty winks at a stretch. There'd always be something or the other trying to eat you. *Not* being comatose for eight hours seems to give you a better chance to survive.

Research on napping and circadian rhythms also suggests that sometime in the middle of the day (around afternoon) there is a natural drop in body temperature - which is why sleeping *after* lunch is a good idea. You'll be sleepy anyway, might as well put it to use.
NASA's research on its trainees found that a 25 minute nap in the afternoon had the maximum positive effects on the human system. In fact, since the natural body rythm makes us drowsy seven or eight hours after we wake up, that also gives us the best window to nap - thiry minutes, seven or eight hours from the time you get up.

But that's simply biphasic sleep. It'll increase your energy levels, restore mental alertness and has a positive correlation with sustained memory. What if we could have all of that, while doing away with the one-third waste of a life associated with sleeping eight hours a day?

Behold, there *are* people nuts enough to do this. Enter polyphasic sleep, where you aren't going to get your total sleep requirement in one (or two) blocks. Your sleep requirement is dispersed over the day. In other words, you *dont* roll-over-and-get-up-many-hours-later sleep. You're awake, napping as needed. Clearly, staying up continuously and napping every few hours isn't the best way to go about this.

Enter a study which found a statistical correlation between man-made disasters, car accidents, fires and night-time sleep. That's right, boys and girls, they mapped the time of the day with the severity of loss. As you'd expect, both in number and scale, the "dead zone" period won. The time between 2 AM and 5AM is largely beyond reach for the majority of the population. People will drop off, and this needs to be accepted and dealt with accordingly. A night-out isn't the best idea for a student, and a construction worker handling heavy machinery needs to get some shut-eye during *that* time. So remember to allocate a 2 hour sleep period somewhere in that.

Also, remember that according the our natural circadian rhythm, a four-hour wake period seems optimal. Give or take a bit for individual stamina, but four hours is the most you should go without a nap if you're running polyphasic. Less than that and you won't get sleep, and more than that might make you crash for longer when you do finally get sleep.

So there you have it. Biphasic reduces your night core sleep and gets your day's total sleep to around five hours, giving you an extra two-three hours in the day and stable energy levels throughout. Polyphasic means you'll be napping for half an hour every four odd hours, which means you've cut your sleep down to under three hours in a day. If you go back to monophasic, keep in mind that most people function on a core requirement of five, so any improvement on that is a bonus.

If you're just looking for a quick fix to get through a few days without sleep, remember that sleep in humans is largely a 90 minute sub-cycle within our normal 24-hour rythm. In other words, if you need a nap longer than half an hour, plan for multiples of 90 minutes for maximum efficiency. You'll manage your sleep debt and functioning, yet save on a large chunk of time.

And now, I'm off to sleep. G'nite folks.

The easiest way to regulate your weight

Pretty much no-one is happy with how they look or how much they weigh. And we all know how those new year "resolutions" fare. If you're a guy who wants to bulk up, you'll likely end up spending four days a week in the gym, two hour sessions and then find yourself only marginally better off. The girl trying to lose wait, starving herself and then fretting over her figure isn't going to do much better.

The first thing you need to realize is that you need a lifestyle change. A paradigm shift. You cannot live a fat man's life and grow an eight-pack. Life doesn't work that way. Get your training and nutrition right.

I'm going to give you the easiest way to handle your nutrition. Taking notes, boys and girls?

Dr. Squat suggests the following (and I quote) : "When you sit down to eat, ask yourself,'What am I going to be doing for the next three hours of my life?' Then, if you're taking a nap, eat less; if you're planning on a training session, eat more. And so forth" (ISSA : The complete guide Unit 6 - p.165)

This represents efficient eating. You'll end up getting leaner and drop noticeable fat with just this little change.
If you're the sort who likes putting a number on things, chew on this:

Calories in meal preceding	Relative to average meal (calories)
strenous workout	+300
moderate workout	+200
vigorous activity	+100
moderate activity	avg meal
light activity	-100
relaxing	-200
a nap	-300

So whats the first step in getting this working? Figure out YOUR maintainence caloric level and plug the number into the chart above.
Or if you aren't doing this by numbers, stick to this guideline:

If you're going to rest or chill, eat less. If you're going to workout, eat more. If you're just operating the way you do, eat how much you normally do.

Clearly, if you want to bulk up, do the opposite. Which is why eating heavy lunch and going to sleep is one of the best ways to slow down your metabolism while bulking up (take note, muscle enthusiasts).

Keep at it, people!