There is no debate when it comes to the harms of excessive alcohol consumption.Credit: SERGEY PAPSHEV/Getty Images ShareIts a new year, which means its time to take stock of old habits. For many that means resolutions to get healthier and a month long break from booze, in observation of Dry January.Yet as 2025 begins, what hasnt changed is the muddled messaging over the health effects of moderate drinking. Two recently released federal documents offer contrasting perspectives on alcohol and healthunderscoring a long-standing, ongoing scientific debate thats reverberated through some of the most prestigious scientific journals and institutions.A review published in December by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine tows what some see as an outdated line: suggesting that up to a drink or two a day is associated with health benefits like reduced risks of heart disease and death. The National Academies analysis will likely inform revised national dietary guidelines set to come out later this year. (Current U.S. guidelines state that alcohol consumption should be limited to one standard drink a day for women and up to two drinks a day for men. This is also considered the upper limit on moderate consumption by many U.S. researchers and agencies.)Then, on January 3rd, the office of the U.S. Surgeon General released an official advisory unequivocally stating that drinking alcohol, at levels as low as one drink per day, can cause certain cancers. The advisory calls for updating the existing health warning labels on alcoholic beverages to include a warning about the cancer risks.So what gives? How can any substance be simultaneously associated with reduced risk of death and also increased cancer risk? How can big studies in well-regarded journals disagree on something as basic as harm or benefit? Why is the U.S. government seemingly arguing with itself? Is any amount of alcohol healthy?Answers to all of the above are complicated. Theres statistical biases and confounding factors that muddy the data, the financial interests and outside influence, and a lack of consensus on how to define terms such as risk and moderate. Researchers sometimes disagree with each other about how to interpret the available evidence, and what guidance is best for boosting health. But there are some things we know for sure. Heres whats clear and what remains murky, when it comes to alcohol and health.Consensus, straight upPopular Science spoke with six expert sources for this article, including some who endorse the idea that moderate drinking may be associated with health benefits and those who say that drinking at every level carries only health risks. Every single source agreed that alcohol consumption exceeding one standard drink a day for women or two drinks a day for men can have negative health consequences, and that drinking beyond that level brings significantly increased risks of accidental injury and death, certain cancers, heart problems, liver disease, cognitive impairments, and more.Internationally, the definition of a standard drink varies. But in the U.S. and Canada its defined as 0.6 fluid ounces or about 14 grams of pure alcohol, which is equivalent to 12 oz of a 5% beer, 5 oz of a 12% wine, or 1.5 oz of a 40% distilled spirit.All sources agree that binge drinking, heavy drinking, and alcohol use disorder are serious public health problems, and none directly endorse starting or increasing alcohol consumption for any health reason.I wouldnt want to recommend drinking, especially to someone who isnt otherwise going to drink, says Gregory Marcus, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. Even if there are protective effects, which I acknowledge is possible, I dont think that the level of evidence is high enough to recommend initiating it, he adds. Thats despite his own, ongoing research trying to tease out potential heart health benefits of moderate drinking and his perspective that light drinking may have salutary effects that are biologically plausible.Further, its firmly established that alcohol is an addictive substance with systemic effects in the body that can lead to physiological dependence. Use at low levels carries the risk of increasing and excessive consumption. Upwards of 20% of Americans who drink will experience an alcohol use disorder in their lifetime, according to data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions.There is no debate when it comes to the harms of excessive alcohol consumption. Instead the ongoing scientific discussion is about how to research and classify the health effects of relatively low alcohol consumption and how to communicate to the public about those effects.Increasingly, theres also burgeoning scientific agreement that the risk-relationship for alcohol and certain cancers is straightforward: every additional volume of alcohol consumed is associated with increased risk of cancer. Alcohol is a carcinogen. That link is very well established, says Adam Sherk, a senior scientist at the Canadian Center on Substance Use and Addiction, an NGO founded and overseen by the Canadian government.Different analyses disagree about what level of alcohol consumption poses what level of risk for what cancers. But even the new National Academies report, which critics say is conservative in its assessment of health harms, found a 10% increase in breast cancer risk among moderate drinkers compared with those who reported never drinking alcohol.According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), there is robust evidence linking moderate drinking with increased risk of head and neck, esophageal, colorectal, and breast cancers. Light drinking (variably defined, but loosely: a few standard drinks a week, and less than a drink a day) is associated with measurable increased risk of esophageal and breast cancers, per NCI.Finally, sources generally agree that, when it comes to assessing the cumulative health effects of occasional or light drinkingwhatever benefits or harms may exist are modest. Its entirely possible that light or moderate alcohol consumption has no meaningful health impact for many people, according to Marcus. These are not major, large effects, he says.Tim Stockwell, a psychologist and professor at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, also views the effects of low level drinking as small. Stockwell studies the measurement and prevention of alcohol related harms, and stations himself squarely in the camp of researchers who believe no level of alcohol consumption is without risk. Despite his firm stance that evidence indicates drinking in any volume is net bad for health, averaged over a population, he explains each drink is likely equivalent to only a few minutes of lost life. If you [consistently] have six drinks a week, its probably about two or three months of lost life expectancy, he adds. At something like two drinks per week, its a very small risk, Stockwell says.Where things gets fuzzyYet a small risk is a very different thing from a small benefit, at the public health level, and thats where the consensus breaks down. Despite the fact that individual effects of low and moderate drinking may be small, Stockwell notes that they can add up across the population. We shouldnt just focus on the high end of the spectrum, he says. Unfortunately, the broader view remains confusing.Beginning in the 1990s reports about the purported health benefits of red wine began to lend moderate drinking a health halowherein the prevailing assumption among the drinking public became that a small amount of alcohol is good for you, especially for the heart. Subsequent studies of alcohol consumption and all-cause mortality found whats known as a j-shaped curve: Those who drank some had a lower risk of dying than those who reported entirely abstaining. Meanwhile heavy drinkers mortality risk was far higher than both groups. This furthered the idea that a little bit of alcohol every day is healthy, despite the harms of overconsumption.But in ensuing decades, research into all-cause mortality and other health metrics has yielded inconsistent results. For instance, a 2017 study found that even moderate drinking is associated with brain volume loss. Some reviews, like a meta-analysis co-authored by Stockwell in 2023, conclude that low-level drinking offers no protective effect. In 2022 the World Health Organization surveyed the available research and concluded, No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health.Whereas other assessments, like the recent National Academies meta-analysis, continues to report measurable benefits associated with alcohol consumption at low and moderate levels. In one particularly complicating instance, The Lancetamong the highest impact and most esteemed medical journalspublished a 2018 analysis on alcohols global burden of disease reporting no j-shaped curve and no health benefit of drinking. Two years later, the same research group published a revision, stating that the data does, in fact, support a reduction in cardiovascular risk and all-cause death associated with small amounts of alcohol consumption among certain age groups.Again, its worth noting that all of these review studies combine research that defines moderate and low levels of drinking in different ways. In the National Academies study, a few of the studies used to inform the all-cause mortality finding set the upper threshold for moderate drinking at 0.7 U.S. standard drinks per day. Only one set an upper limit on moderate drinking as high as how its defined by existing U.S. dietary guidelines. That means that the reported findings on all-cause mortality related to moderate drinking dont necessarily apply evenly to all amounts of alcohol consumption between 0 and 2 drinks a day.Regardless, the basic idea is that, even if alcohol increases cancer or other health risks, at low or moderate levels (somewhere between 0 and 1-2 drinks per day) it may simultaneously reduce cardiovascular risk. And, in the U.S. where heart disease is the biggest killer, that could seem a worthwhile trade-off.Proposed mechanisms for alcohols cardiovascular health boost include that it might increase the amount of the bodys good HDL-cholesterol, inhibit clotting, or help moderate blood sugar levelsthough its hard to disentangle the effects of alcohol itself from the other compounds present in beverages like red wine. Some also suggest that the social aspect of alcohol may mean those who engage in moderate drinking have richer social lives and are less lonely. Social interaction is a positive thing, says Ned Calonge, a physician, professor of epidemiology, and an associate dean in the school of public health at Colorado University. Calonge chaired the consensus committee that wrote the National Academies report. Perhaps, he suggests, there are things associated with moderate drinking that have nothing to do with alcohol, which could account for some of the observed heart and lifespan benefits.The key thing to know here is that nearly all studies of alcohol in humans are observational, meaning they look for correlations among large research cohorts who self-report habits. These arent randomized control studies, which serve as the gold standard for understanding the effects of pharmaceuticals. Instead, observational studies can only really demonstrate associations, not causal relationships. Drinking habits are complex and heavily influenced by non-random factors. Observational research can easily be inadvertently biased.One of the primary difficulties is abstainer bias, wherein studies may lump together never drinkers with those who previously drank and then quit. People who stop drinking often do so, in part, because of health problemsand so they may constitute an inherently less healthy group compared with those who keep drinking moderately. Calonge notes that the National Academies report sought to eliminate this problem by only including studies that separate never drinkers from quitters.Yet that, along with other stringent selection criteria, left Calonge and his co-authors with only a small handful of studies to assess. Their primary all-cause mortality finding was based on just eight research papers and some of their all-cause and cancer findings on as few as two. For many of the questions they asked, they concluded insufficient evidence.They looked at probably about 1% of the studies that have been published and said theres not enough evidence, says Stockwell. I thought that was very misleading.Further, abstainer bias can cut both ways: by eliminating those who quit drinking for health reasons from a study, you may artificially be inflating the health profile of drinkers, Stockwell explains. Plus, self-reporting is an unreliable metric of actual drinking habits, different studies (even those equated in meta-analyses) define moderate drinking at different levels, and people who are true never drinkers may be an inherently less healthy group because lifelong health conditions prevent them from drinking. Confounding demographic factors like age and socioeconomic status also play a role. Some research, including Stockwells own, has shown that heart and health risk factors among non-drinkers and moderate drinkers vary for reasons completely unrelated to alcohol.In the U.S., about 5% of deaths are attributed to alcohol annually. Yet somehow, the National Academies report found a 16% lower risk of all-cause mortality for moderate drinkers. I think thats logically impossible alcohol would have to have an immense benefit, says Sherk, and other evidence doesnt support that. I just feel like it has to be an artifact, because otherwise every single study would send immensely clear messages that low volume use is hugely protective.All-cause mortality as a metric has come into question and fallen out of favor for many scientists because its so difficult to control for data artifacts, bias, and confounders, says Jrgen Rehm a senior scientist and professor at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health at the University of Toronto who contributed to the 2022 WHO guidance. All cause mortality studies use middle class samples who die of completely different causes of death than the rest of the population [and] theyre very specific per country, he explains. One major flaw in the National Academies review is that they include some observational studies of non-U.S. cohorts to make a judgement about Americans risk, Rehm says. Its nonsenseSouth Korea has a completely different profile of causes of death and you cannot do that if you want to create guidelines for the U.S.Some research has begun to embrace alternate methods beyond observational cohort studies. There are, for instance, studies that attempt to randomize participants based on genetics, which Rehm says have more potential to illuminate causal relationships. (Though Marcus thinks this type of research is often over-interpreted.) And there are a handful of randomized control studies looking at the effects of alcohol dosage on health. To clear the ethical hurdles inherent in assigning people to drink alcohol, most of these studies instead take a group of moderate drinkers and prescribe some portion to drink less. So far, some of this research has found low to moderate levels of alcohol consumption has no significant effect on factors like blood pressure or mild negative effects on abnormal heart rhythms.For now, the state of the research leaves even experts unconvinced one way or the other on the potential benefits of alcohol. There is no consensus of scientists on the cardiovascular effects, says Rehm.Im quite agnostic Im willing to let well-designed studies decide, says Sherk. And again, those studies might not yet exist.Whats at stake?Money is often a talking point for those on both sides of the moderate drinking debate. The alcohol industry and its lobbying arm have funded, advised, and promoted research endorsing health benefits associated with drinking. In 2018, an National Institutes of Health study was shut down because of an investigation revealing financial conflicts of interest. Similar issues have cropped up since.On the flipside, drink-defenders note that this accounts for a small portion of the total research, according to one 2020 analysis. And, at the same time, temperance and religious organizations have a vested interest in promoting research demonstrating alcohols harms. Stockwell admits that, at different points in his career, hes accepted small amounts of conference and travel reimbursement from both an alcohol industry group and, more recently, Movendi International, a Swedish temperance group.Its clear that official guidance, online trends, and shifting research tides do change peoples drinking and buying behavior, so any group with a moral position or financial stake has good reason to try to involve itself with scientists. Following a 60 Minutes broadcast promoting the idea of red wines health benefits in 1991, sales of red wine spiked. Amid the current health and wellness wave, which tends to endorse drinking less, wineries are experiencing a downturn. But ideally, our health decisions would be well-informed and free from the influence of profit or proselytizers.Public health organizations and researchers try to help, by parsing the evidence simplifying whats known and unknown for the public. Our role is really to raise awareness and to put the evidence out there and support people in understanding what the risks are, says Carina Ferreira-Borges, a regional program manager for WHO Europe who focuses on alcohol. Then, she says, groups like WHO advocate for harm reduction policies accordingly. Labels, regulations, and consumption guidelines can all be tools for doing so.Yet even official guidelines cant capture the nuance and individual factors that might shift the outcomes of drinking for any one person at any one time. If, perhaps, you know youre at high risk of developing cancer, then cutting out alcohol entirely might make sense. If, on the other hand, youre more worried about a heart attack, then maybe thats not a reason to become a teetotaler, says Marcus.If you believe in both the [positive and negative] effects, you should try to look at the reasonable risks youre willing to take, says Rehm. Whether or not to drink is a personal choice, and sometimes science has limits.

Nature, Published online: 13 January 2025; doi:10.1038/d41586-025-00060-zSang-Wook Han hopes that the technology will spark innovations in materials science, drug development, finance and defence.

The well-preserved skull belongs to a never-before-seen species of sauropodomorph that potentially grew up to 33 feet long.

Last year saw plenty of great games released, and if you're looking to catch up on Dragon Age: The Veilguard, you can get it for just $40 right now through Amazon. After an ill-fated trip into live-service territory with Anthem, BioWare's return to its single-player roots was well-received when it released last year, and the game checks all the boxes for a fun fantasy adventure. In case it sells out at Amazon, you can also grab it for this price at Best Buy. Dragon Age: The Veilguard $40 While it's not a groundbreaking game like previous entries in the series, Dragon Age: The Veilguard still shows just how good BioWare is at crafting an adventure set in a magical world and bolstered by strong real-time action-based combat. "Inch by inch, The Veilguard has wormed its way into my Inquisition-loving heart. Is The Veilguard as complex and nuanced as past Dragon Age games? No, not at all. Instead, it delivers an action-packed romp through a fantastical setting with good friends," Jordan Rame wrote in GameSpot's Dragon Age: The Veilguard review. Amazon Best Buy If you're looking to add a few more trinkets from Thedas to your collection, you can also pick up the official Dragon Age: The Veilguard art book for $40 (was $50). This is a 256-page oversized book showing off concept art and final designs, covering everything from characters to weapons, and if you really feel like splurging, then you can pick up the deluxe edition for $100. This package includes the book inside of an elegant foil-stamped slipcase and cover, gilded pages, a ribbon book marker, and two lithographic art prints housed inside of a sleek portfolio.Dragon Age Art Books and Graphic NovelsThe Art of Dragon Age: The VeilguardThe Art of Dragon Age: The Veilguard -- $40 ($50)The Art of Dragon Age: The Veilguard (Deluxe Edition) -- $100Dragon Age: Graphic Novel Collection -- $50 ($60)Dragon Age: The Official Cookbook -- $32.50 ($35)There's also a collection of two paperback Dragon Age graphic novels on sale for $50 (was $60), and if you're hungry for fantasy, the official Dragon Age cookbook will give you a taste of Thedas for only $32.50 (was $35).

The free-to-play mobile game, ARK: Ultimate Mobile Edition, has crossed three million downloads within three weeks of launch. Released on December 18, 2024, the survival game is a spin-off set in the same universe as 2017's ARK: Survival Evolved.

Card art from The Deck of Many Things, which was pulled from distribution in 2023 before being remanufactured and delayed to 2024.Dungeons & Dragons has long been seen as the Kleenex of tabletop role-playing games, a brand that looms so large that it seems to blot out the sun and steal attention from other, similar games. And yet, D&Ds brand is currently on the back foot, unsteadied for the first time in a decade. The recent rules refresh has already produced the excellent Players Handbook (2024) and the Dungeon Masters Guide (2024), but the industry titan feels very much between phases on the threshold of something new, but still not fully realized.There are also troubling signs of decay. Despite the clean precision of that spiffy new PHB, on a cool morning, when the wind is just right, you cant help but smell the enshittification of the beloved role-playing game drifting in on the breeze as its many side projects seemingly wither on the vine.How did it come to this? First, there was Wizards bungling the lead-up to the big rules refresh. That gave the company a black eye. The OGL debacle made things worse by putting a genuine seed of doubt into the minds of consumers. Suddenly, fans were wondering if Hasbro really did have their best interests in mind. But the real damage came when Hasbro laid off roughly one-fifth of the larger company. While we dont really know how thats affected the head count at Wizards, its clear from the 2025 schedule that the pace of releases is off. There just arent as many books coming out this year as I was expecting.Its clear from the 2025 schedule that the pace of releases is offThats not all. Project Sigil, the highly anticipated Unreal Engine-powered virtual tabletop, hasnt been seen much in public since August, when it bugged out repeatedly on stage during a game run by Aabria Iyengar. Later, at a live event in London with a similar format, it wasnt shown at all.Now comes a new marketing push for a simpler, flatter, web-based solution called Maps.The announcement of new campaigns and adventures has also notably slowed. After the revised Monster Manual (2025) arrives in February, fans may need to wait until the summer for new playable adventures set in the Forgotten Realms. And when those do arrive, they may not add up to a full campaign. Additionally, fans will get an unnamed dragon anthology of unconnected adventures by the summer, and a new starter set by the fall. Thats seemingly it for playable content for the worlds most popular role-playing game.Theres no Curse of Strahd on the horizon in 2025. No Wild Beyond the Witchlight or Rime of the Frostmaiden. No Descent Into Avernus. Theres not even a Dragon Heist to look forward to. Just a Forgotten Realms Player Guide and a Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, two products that I expect to double down on whats become a staid, largely generic Vaguely Medieval Fantasy World.And while Hasbros elder dragon may be wounded, independent artists the world over are busy making dangerous creatures of their own. Indie TTRPG creators of all sizes should see this as an opportunity to get loud, to make some more noise, and to do their damndest to bring more attention to themselves and the new and exciting worlds theyve created. But how?Only together can the dozens and dozens of tiny fandoms out there hope to rise above the din, especially once the dragon starts roaring again. Thankfully, I already see collaboration and community building happening out there. As alternative social media platforms like Bluesky begin to flourish, every new starter pack of designers helps the entire fandom find its footing. But with potential tariffs looming on the horizon, coming together for bigger swings needs to be a priority for the entire industry.Perhaps the most exciting bit of collaboration that Ive seen came last October. Thats when the modestly successful team at Tuesday Knight Games, makers of the hit game Mothership, rallied individuals and smaller design groups to their banner for Mothership Month. Its an example of what BackerKit is calling collab-funding, but it has its roots in things like Zine Quest, which builds off of the existing indie design space. This particular effort included 21 different teams all making content inspired by the larger, previously successful Mothership brand. By the end of the monthlong campaign, these designers collectively earned just over $1 million a princely sum for any small game on a crowdfunding platform, but an especially high number for a group of indie TTRPG designers.Reached for comment, BackerKit provided Polygon with some additional clarity that details just how successful the project was. Not only were all of the campaigns involved in the collab-funding project successful, in that they earned enough money to be considered funding-complete, but the funding drives were relatively lucrative as well. BackerKit said that nearly 1 in 5 creators involved ended up with their highest-earning BackerKit campaign of all time. Getting a critical mass of fans to show up had add-on effects as well. BackerKits data shows that 45% of backers who put money in pledged to more than one project, and 30% of backers contributed to more than five projects.But Mothership Week was most successful in increasing awareness of the franchise. Prior to that collab-funding campaign, the Tuesday Knight Games Discord server only had about 10,000 members total. By the end of the project, more than 23,000 people had pledged. Together, these developers effectively doubled the number of folks who are now literally invested in their success and likely brought many of them over to their own private online communities on Discord as well.The last piece of advice I can offer to indie TTRPG makers comes from my own experience working in media. Ask yourselves: Who is your audience, and what is your audience looking for? Where are they looking for it, and how can you best give them more of it? And what does success look like? Betting on the answers to those questions will likely make or break many smaller teams over the next few years. The coming year represents a massive opportunity to get ahead of what appears to be a fundamental transition in the landscape of the internet and search traffic.Above all, I feel it is imperative that indie designers realize that their window is rapidly closing. Rather than sitting in their own little corners of the internet and wringing their hands, creatives who want to thrive in the TTRPG space need to come together and fight for the recognition that they deserve. The dragon is knocked out for now, but it wont be at rest forever. Only by building out a solid party, filled with individual contributors each possessing powerful skills, can they hope to one day face that dragon or at least earn a place in the lair beside them.

Leather is inextricable from the human experience, early manipulations dating back 400,000 years. Full grain leather is prized throughout the world as the premium surface in any hide, revered for its strength, durability, and beauty. New York City-based Studio Luddite elegantly subverts this notion with their newest release, the Pell Chandelier. Choosing instead to celebrate another aspect, this piece utilizes the raw edge of the hide, stacked in concentric circles to display the natural variation. Usually painted or waxed to preserve integrity, this unexpected use of a material so storied elevates the collection, adding a heightened sense of luxury.The beauty of the edges makes each piece inherently unique. As our process evolved, we found ourselves increasingly drawn to the edges of the leather rather than the surface itself. This resulted in a fixture comprised of stacked leather hide disks forming the body of the fixture. While traditionally, fine leather goods feature treated or burnished edges, our components are left raw, showcasing the natural imperfections of the material, says Lex Zee, founder of Studio Luddite. Endlessly adaptable, the Pell Chandelier is custom crafted to suit any amount of fixtures or drop heights. This allows for a range of applications within the home, including living areas, dining rooms, or bathrooms.Multiple leather and metal finish options allow for ideal integration into any existing color palette. Every aspect can be tailored to clients specifications, fostering a seamless transition from lighting to appliance. Fusing modernity with tradition, the Pell Chandelier offers numerous lighting solutions to ensure every project retains a cohesive, timeless finish.Studio Luddite is a New York-based brand established by principal designer Lex Zee, guided by the tenets of the Luddite Movement. This movement was popular in the early 19th century as a reaction to unemployment and wage decreases brought about by increased modernization. Luddites would often destroy machines in organized raids, something modern workers would do well to remember. In homage, Studio Luddite thoroughly invests in the functionality and integrity of their pieces, staying true to the craftsmanship and skill that has driven so much of humanity thus far. Zee explains, I take pride in our brands dedication in sourcing quality materials and using them in unique ways. We make it a point to preserve the natural authenticity of each individual component.Lex Zee of Studio LudditeTo learn more about Studio Luddite and the Pell Chandelier, visit their website at studioluddite.com. For more updates on Instagram, click here.

We may earn a commission from links on this page.I do a lot of things on a regular basis that people might classify as good habits. I go for a walk every morning. I hit the gym nearly every day. I prep my meals on the weekends so I always have something healthy to eat for lunch. But I didnt arrive at these behaviors solely through habit stacking or some other clever hack. Because the truth is, most habits are really skills that take work and time to developnot simple set-it-and-forget-it hacks. Most habits arent that simplePsychologists define habits as things we do automatically in a specific situation. For example, the act of hair twirling may eventually occur without the individuals conscious awareness, reads the definition from the American Psychological Association.But when we talk about building a habit, we usually mean something that we do on a regular basis. Maybe it happens automaticallythat may be the goalbut it isnt a reflexive reaction to our environment. For example, people commonly say they want to build habits like: Going to the gym Eating more vegetablesReading booksFlossingGetting to bed on timeNone of these are simple, reflexive, or unconscious behaviors. A few are relatively simpleyou could probably use classic habit hacks like stacking to make sure you floss after you brush. But most habits take a lot more work to develop. What we really want is behavior changePsychologists have a different term for things like eating healthy, getting more sleep, and reading a book instead of doomscrolling social media. They call it "behavior change," and there are countless studies and theoretical models exploring how people actually end up changing their behaviors. What theyve found is that adopting a new behavior (what weve been calling a habit) requires us to invest time and effort, and we go through several mindset shifts as we evolve from a person who doesnt do the thing, to a person who does the thing all the time. See if you can spot yourself in one of these: Precontemplation: You are not interested in doing the thing (lets say: going to the gym).Contemplation: Youre thinking about starting to do the thing on a regular basis. You might have started reading articles about what it would be like to visit a gym for the first time.Preparation: Youre taking steps toward doing the thing. This is where you visit your neighborhood gym for a tour, or buy a pair of running shoes. Maybe you try a workout or two, but youre not committed yet. Action: Youre doing the thing. Note that this is not the first stage, nor the last. At this point, you still have a lot of questions, you may feel uncomfortable in your new routine, and if something goes wrong, you may give up. Maintenance: This is you once youve finally built the habit. Like maintaining a car or a relationship, keeping up a habit takes work. Things will turn up that disrupt the habit; you might take a vacation, or get injured, or get discouraged in your progress. While youre in this stage, you need to learn to anticipate and deal with those potential problems in order for the behavior change to stick.It takes work, time, and mindset changes to move from each stage to the next. And the process isnt always linear: Maybe you move to a new city and miss a few weeks worth of workouts, and then you have to find a new gym. That knocks you back a few steps on the chart, but it doesnt have to push your off of it altogether.Every habit has its own learning processA lot goes into even the behaviors that seem straightforward. For example, if you want to eat more fruit, you could set out a fruit bowl. But thats not the beginning or the end of it. You need to know what fruits you like. You need to buy them regularly. You need to know how to shop for them, avoiding the berries that are about to turn moldy and the bananas that are so underripe theyll still be green for days. (It would also help to know that the berries will last longer if you store them in the fridge, and that you can buy green and yellow bananas in the same shopping trip so you have a weeks worth of perfectly ripe fruits.) Or to take another example: You might think of go for a run every morning as a simple habit. But there are a lot of things that go into becoming the sort of person who actually finds it simple to go for a run every morning. Here's what I mean. The best book Ive ever read on becoming a runner is not one that centers around hacks like stacking your running habit with walking your dog. Its The Non-Runners Marathon Trainer, which at first sounds like it will offer a training program. But of the books 300 pages, the training plan only takes up half a page (the bottom half of page two, to be exact).The rest of the book is what teaches you to be a runner. Before the introductory chapter is over, youve heard anecdotes from people who hated running and found it satisfying to train for a marathon, because its important to know that that dichotomy of thought is perfectly normal and does not need to stop you.Other chapters explain why you want to buy sweat-wicking clothes, how to prevent bloody nipples, how fast to run, what to tell yourself when you get tired and want to quit, how to recognize common injuries, how to track your weekly mileage, why you should increase your carbohydrate intake and what foods will help you do that, how to set appropriate goals, what to pack in your bag on race day, and how to get through the pre-race taper without losing your mind. These are all essential skills for any runner, and none of them come automatically, nor can they be done automatically at first. You have to learn them. You have to practice them. You have to figure out how they apply to you, personallywhich mental tricks keep you motivated, which shoes are right for your feet, and so on. Even though I read this book toward the beginning of my time as a runner (I see penciled notes dating from 2003), it took me years to fully master the basics as they apply to me personally. And Im still learning things about how to be a better runner.Its okay to work for (and enjoy) your habitsThe classic habit hacks tend to assume that habits are boring and we have to trick ourselves into doing them. Maybe thats true for flossing our teeth, but anything we truly want to do, we do because we enjoy it, or at least appreciate the benefits that come with it. Its okay to enjoy things! Even, and especially, things that are good for us. If you treat eating healthy as something that you hate and will always hate, it will always be a chore. On the other hand, if you learn how to make delicious recipes (and maybe even get into cooking as a hobby in itself) youll keep doing it and youll like it. When we love a thing, we stick with it. When we feel something is drudgery, we look for excuses to get out of it. In fact, Donald Edmonson, a scientist who researches behavior change, has pointed out that we make long-term changes by taking ourselves off of autopilot. Habit hacks still have their placeIts not that habit stacking and other tricks like it are bad. Theyre just too weak to power a long-term, meaningful change in your life all by themselves. Each of them can backfire if and when they fail, so think that through. If you temptation-bundle your favorite TV show with your treadmill time, one day you might just sit down on the couch and watch it anyway. If you meditate every day so you can get a streak on your calendar, you might just say fuck it and quit meditating entirely after losing a 364-day streak. If the only thing powering your habit is tricking yourself into it, youll never really reach that crucial maintenance stage. Little hacks cant power big changes. But habit hacks do work well for simple, low-stakes items, or for smaller pieces of a larger goal. It can be helpful to think of them as reminders rather than motivation. Stacking is great for building a bedtime routine (or a morning routine, or a pre-gym routine), but that is only part of the larger behavior-change habit youre really aiming for (go to bed on time). When youre building your habits, you have to think big before you think small.

Hatsune Miku is reportedly coming to Fortnite soon.