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.

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.