Waste of ressources: Who has the time for dieting?

Dieting is a waste of energy, time and money.

I don't know about you, but I certainly have none of those to spare!

I am a HUGE advocate of intuitive and mindful eating to manage health. It encourages a way of eating that fits with your "eating personality" & food preferences, it is easy to integrate regardless of where you are geographically (on vacation, on a business trip or enjoying breakfast bed) and perhaps most importantly, has nothing to do with starvation or deprivation.

A recent article touches on this subject with great insight. It is from the latest Scientific American MIND magazine:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-diets-don-t-work-and-what-does/

It is so eloquently written and it mentions all the important aspects of weight management. If you have 5 minutes to read it, DO IT, you won't regret it.

So, getting back to my initial thought that dieting is a time suck. The funny thing is that many people have told me that they just don't have the time to learn how to eat mindfully. They believe that they need some strict guidance on what to eat and what not to eat in order to fix their eating problems and that somehow these strict rules will be easier to follow than a more natural way of eating. For many people, it is easier to blindly follow a diet- there is no need to think or second guess your decisions so it may feel like you are saving energy. It can also feel safer to follow a traditional way to lose weight since it has been marketed to death for decades. 

However, over time the strain and drain of having to resist eating the foods you enjoy and avoiding those that are handy starts to take its toll. Not to mention the terrible track record diets have with unsustainable weight loss and even weight gain

There is a finite amount of energy we have at our disposal every day. Wasting it on doing things that just don't work (ahem, diets!) is insane and frustrating.

When talking about diets, gurus and celebrities come to mind. I still can’t understand why people think that a celebrity could possibly know their body better than they do. Sure, dietitians have (science based) knowledge about nutrition and know of what has worked for other people who have successfully made health changes, but ultimately, you are the expert on your body. Re-discovering the confidence that you can make healthy choices takes time and practice, and it the only sustaining way to manage weight and health. I say re-discover because we were all born with the innate ability to hear and listen to our hunger and fullness cues. Understanding what influences things like mindless eating and large portion sizes is one step to eating healthier. Unfortunately, no diet will help with these issues, the answers have to come from listening to your mind and body.

No one would stand being instructed on how to feel or, perhaps more bluntly, what kind of underwear to wear. So why are so many of us allowing other people to tell us what, how much and when to eat? Listening and worrying over these instructions is a waste of time and energy.

The jobs of dietitians and other health professionals has evolved from providing knowledge and barking orders to listening to what the client wants and needs as well as motivating & supporting them to take action on making changes. So if you find yourself in a relationship with a health advocate who is telling you what to do rather than listening to you, move on and find someone who will be more of a partner in change rather than a know-it-all.

Feeling inadequate because you can’t follow a crazy diet to the letter is a waste of energy. Remember, you deserve to be confident with what you eat and diets do not give us confidence, they only take it away.

The secret ingredient for real corporate wellness

Companies who care about their employees’ health are often seen as being responsible and forward thinking. But could these good intentions be paving the way to harm? 

A few books have come out this year debating this question "do corporate wellness programs help or harm employees?" There have been numerous articles talking about the subject, as well as debates such as the one on the CBC radio show Q. 

One of the books in question is called The Wellness Syndrome and it was written by Dr. Andre Spicer and Carl Cederström. They state that some company's extensive wellness efforts caused employees stress. You can read a print interview of this book here.

Another book along the sames lines is Surviving Workplace Wellness…with Your Dignity, Finances, and (Major) Organs Intact. You can read a summary of it here.

At first glance, it may seem that the obvious answer is that corporate wellness programs do help employee health. However, if you delve deeper into both sides of the debate, the answer is far less clear.

On the one hand, you have the idea that healthy employees work more efficiently, are sick less often and help to add to a culture of healthiness and happiness. Also, most people feel that if your employer cares about your health and gives you time to take care of it, it is an added benefit. However, implementing a corporate wellness program and having this program actually work are two separate things. The assumption is that the wellness programs really do help people be healthier and improve their lifestyles. But this may not always be the case.
 

Labelling people who don't participate in the program as lazy or singling out people to participate can do more harm than good. People who are perceived as being unhealthy by their peers (this is usually based on their physical appearance) may be bullied or coerced into needing to participate. This backfires on the whole point of corporate wellness since stigmatizing people due to their weight or size has been linked to lower levels of healthiness. Although weight and body size is an easy thing to see (and thus judge) it really does not indicate one's health status. The factors that do matter most are the ones you cannot see, like cholesterol levels, blood pressure and stress.

Assuming that the "unhealthy looking" employees need help improving can alienate them from the corporation and their peers and assumes they are either doing nothing to improve their well-being or are too stupid to know what to do. When these initiatives come down from the top, they can persist weight biases and encourage continued ignorance on the subject of global health. In The Wellness Syndrome, the authors succinctly summarize their proposed “syndrome”. They state "that because employees had every opportunity to stay healthy, those who didn't meet extreme health standards sometimes felt like failures".

The people that these programs "would be good for" often end up feeling like they have to prove their worth in society by participating in a never-ending cycle to self-improve (in most cases, this is about losing weight). If weight loss and dieting usually leads to weight regain and weight cycling is linked to low mood and low quality of life, then the ethics of having such weight loss based programs must be reconsidered. If you want to learn more about the ethics of health professionals recommending dieting, you can read a past blog here.

Furthermore, the people who feel they must participate or risk being judged, may be already doing something to improve their health that they have not publically announced (ie. seeing a therapist for stress management or a dietitian for weight management). If these programs are poorly designed, participating can actually set them back.

It is amazing that even today, in 2015, well-meaning people want to focus on the same diet stuff that was being talked about in 1990! No, losing weight is not a guarantee that your employees will be less sick. No, it does not mean that your employees will work more efficiently. And no, it does not mean they are better people. How well do you work with the burden

when you are hungry, exhausted from dieting and feel like your company expects you to lose weight? 

The danger lies in the foundation of the wellness program. One that is designed by an actual health professional that has experience in overall well-being, not just weight loss competitions and fat shaming, is optimal. Ideally, this program would include all aspects of health as well as the proper health professionals such as registered dietitians, kinisiologists and psychologists. Including both spheres of health – the mind and the body- is key.

Another big problem is that these programs are being delivered by professionals (or pseudo-health professionals) who are emphasizing the wrong aspects of health. Focusing on the number of pounds lost or following food rules at the office (i.e. going gluten free) are just a few of the nutrition related mistakes that happen all the time. Focusing on weight lost is simple to quantify to the company who is funding the wellness program, but it is a terrible predictor of overall health.

Most people know what to do to be healthy. The question is why can't they make the changes. Focusing on ways to overcome barriers to healthy living is much more useful than reiterating the reasons why you should change. Learning (again) how to read a food label for fat content or stating the reasons why you have to aim for 10000 steps per day is fine if your participants lack knowledge. However, a more motivating discussion around why choosing high fat foods is easy or why they aren't getting 10000 steps in every day can be a lot more useful. 

The authors suggest alternatives to weight loss competitions and exercise tracking such as keeping working hours under control, letting people disconnect in the evenings and weekends, and understanding what actually causes a sense of well-being. 

For real health changes, we have to get back to the science of wellbeing and stop focusing on old school theories because the dangers in promoting a poorly designed wellness program can do much more harm than good. 

Temptations and the unreliability of willpower

Recent research has found that avoiding temptation works better than relying only on willpower when faced with temptation. (You can see the original article here: Restricting Temptations: Neural Mechanisms of Precommitment)

The idea of avoiding "tempting" foods in order to eat less of them seems rather obvious. However, does it work well for everyone? This particular study didn't look at food temptations, so can we expect the same results? I think this is a more complicated answer than initially thought and it will depend on how you avoid temptations.

Let's imagine that the food temptations we are talking about are foods rich in calories, sugar or fat. If there are none of these foods lying around the house or the office and we have to trek to the store to buy them, then it is obvious that we will eat less of them since the temptation is not close by. If we take that thought one step further and say that if we buy these tempting foods in small quantities instead of larger ones, then it will be easier to resist temptations since we won't have any leftovers.

BUT, if we never allow ourselves fun food (at least) once in awhile, then this plan may backfire. If these tempting foods are banned completely from our lives for any reason (to be uber healthy, to lose weight, to get "back on track", etc) we will end up wanting them more- even when none of these foods are in sight. It's the concept of "we want what we can't have". This concept drives most people crazy and increases their cravings for these "banned" food.

The idea of eating only very "healthy" foods is quite popular right now. But is it "normal" to never eat a food rich in fat or sugar or calories? NO. This slippery slope of thinking often leads to a pattern of under eating, feeling deprived then overeating (and possibly even binge eating).

This particular study looked at what happens when people commit to a bigger reward if they resist smaller temptations. This reminds me of what so many people call a "cheat day". Eating only really healthy foods for most days of the week then allowing themselves to "cheat" (I prefer the word treat) for one day or a meal. The popularity of this concept does not make it a healthy way of thinking. Allowing yourself a treat a few times a week and planning ahead is a great idea, and this study suggests it will help you resist the urge to cave to smaller, less rewarding temptations.

HOWEVER, under eating all week long just to give yourself permission to eat "bad" foods is a slippery slope. It is hard to eat these so called "bad" foods in normal portions once you are done denying yourself. You train your body to eat as much as you can on the odd occasion you allow yourself the food. Calling it a cheat or a bad food actually pushes people to eat it in large quantities.

For people who find they "just have no willpower" and feel they cave to all cravings, this study suggests you plan out how you will enjoy more important (or bigger) temptations ahead of time. This kills two birds with one stone- it forces you to plan out your week to see what special event is happening (ex. 5 a 7 at work, birthday party or BBQ) in order to enjoy and fit the "fun" foods (higher calorie temptations we mentioned earlier) into your plan as well as understand that including them on a regular basis is a healthy, normal part of life.

I want to change! ...I think...

Whether you want to make a change in your eating habits or help someone else do so, it's no secret that having motivation to change is key. What is often not spoken about are the 3 parts of motivation: being ready, willing and able to change.

HOWEVER, wanting to change is not the same as being ready to make that change, being willing to do what it takes to change or having the ability to make concrete changes.

Being able to change or having the ability to change means you have the needed skills, resources, and confidence to make the change. For example, imagine a person who wants to eat more vegetables. Their ability to eat more veggies can be enhanced by knowing where to buy them, having the resources to buy them and how to prepare them. Giving tips on knowledge to help people be able to change used to be the main tasks of dietitians and other health professionals however that role has evolved.

Being willing to change is intertwined with the importance you place on changing—how much a change is wanted or desired. For example, imagine this person knows where to buy veggies, has the budget to purchase them and they have a few good recipes on how to prepare vegetables. They just don't find it worth all the effort to eat more veggies.

Being ready to change is usually the final step in which you decide to change a particular behavior. It involves making this change a priority in your life. Let's continue with the example of our friend who wants to eat more vegetables. They have all the info needed to have vegetables available to them more often. They have decided that its worth the effort to prepare them and eat them more often at meals. Being ready to make the needed changes a priority is the last step. Making this change and the necessary actions a priority such as taking an extra 5min at supper to cook the veggies rather than read the paper or prepare veggies for tomorrow;s lunch rather than watching tv, would be an example of being ready.

Usually, motivation to make a change evolves naturally in the order of ability, willingness and being ready- contrary to the well known saying!

So next time you feel stuck trying to make a change to your habits, remember to explore your ability, willingness and readiness to make that change. If you aren't, why not chose a different habit to change and go back to that one at a later time? It could save you energy and be more efficient.

Wording carries a lot of weight!

Have you ever found yourself wanting something you can't have- seemingly only because you can't have it? Have you ever found yourself eating more food than you wanted after being denied it - maybe because you wanted to take back control over your own decisions? If so, then you are not alone.

People want to see themselves as being in charge of their own decisions and behavior. Threats to their freedom of choice can motivate them to restore their sense of freedom and self-determination by acting against the rule as soon as possible. This is why having a coach or spouse be the food rule enforcer can lead to eating in secret. This may seem innocuous or silly to some, but for the person who is secretly rebelling it can be quite a guilt trip and feel shameful.

This is a phenomenon called "psychological reactance"- reacting to a rule (that infringes on your freedom of choice) by breaking the rule to feel back in control of making decisions. One obvious problem with this phenomenon is that setting restrictions or rules can backfire and actually increase the unhealthy habit. So what are health professionals and campaigns to do when advocating for healthy lifestyle changes!?

Due to reactance, dietitians and other health professionals have had to change their tone and way in which they give advice in order to connect with clients and better meet their needs. Long gone are the days when clients needed information on the topic at hand and many of them are coming to sessions having already researched what they want to know. Our role had morphed into more of a facilitator or coach to help keep the client motivated to make the changes they want to make. Recent research suggests that this more "gentle" approach is not only what the client may want but what they need to make changes.

The reactance phenomenon was recently studied and you can read the article here. The researchers looked at the difference between making eating-related rules as suggestions versus restrictions.
So, for example, stating 'you should not eat unhealthy food' versus stating 'it is best not to eat unhealthy food, but ultimately the decision is up to you'. See the graphic to the left for more examples.

Results of this study indicate that "ironically enough, a restrictive rule may actually increase intake of food in situations where the rule is no longer in place or cannot be enforced". The explanation they gave was that a restrictive rule evoked psychological reactance and participants ate more of the unhealthy food once the rule was no longer enforced.

They also examined if both ways of giving advice are effective in discouraging unhealthy behavior. Some professionals believe that a more flexible and gentle approach won't push the client enough to make changes and follow rules. This study showed that both kinds of statements were equally able to discourage the unhealthy behavior. Therefore a suggested, more gentle rule does not minimize the problem behavior and may ultimately be a more practical alternative to a restrictive rule.

A great summary was written by the researchers: "a suggested rule still discourages consumption of a certain food, but it leaves the ultimate decision about eating the food up to the individual".

SO next time you feel yourself rebelling against a rule- you may be catching yourself in the act of psychological reactance. Take a step backwards and try rephrasing the advice you were given to be more of a suggestion than a rule.