The Science of Willpower

The Problem with Dieting

Kelly McGonigal, Ph.D. — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:41:57 +0000

A recent study showed just how chronic dieting can turn someone into a food addict.

Bad news for yo-yo dieters this week: according to a recent study, cycles of feast and famine can create fast-food junkies–at least in rodents. The researchers put rats on a cyclic diet of 5 days of standard rat chow, followed by 2 days of the equivalent of rat fast food (high fat, high sugar, highly delicious). In other words, a compressed version of most dieters' swings between self-control and indulgence.

The first thing they observed is that it didn't take long for the rats to develop a clear preference for the unhealthier diet. When put back on a standard diet, they showed signs of anxiety and reduced pleasure from (or even refusal to eat) the standard chow. When the preferred food was available again, their anxiety calmed down, but they overate.

After 7 weeks, the researchers took a look at what this diet had done to the rat's brains. They found increased gene expression for corticotropin releasing factor (CRF) in the rats' amygdalas–that is, the brain was resetting itself for higher levels of stress. This is the same pattern of brain changes observed during withdrawal from alcohol or other addictive substances. Other research has demonstrated that this neural stress response triggers cravings and relapse among the substance-dependent.

In effect, by making the unhealthy food temporarily unavailable, the researchers created food addicts. Food might not be addictive on its own, but prohibiting it can set off a cycle of anxiety, craving, and overconsumption that for all purposes looks like addiction. There's no reason to believe that the food itself was the problem in this study, but the anxiety induced by restricting access to it.

Another study offers hope for ending the cycle. Researchers at Laval University in Québec, Canada have been following the benefits of a unique weight control intervention for over a year. This intervention, called "What about losing weight?" emphasized the possibility of being "healthy at every size."

Rather than making food restriction and weight loss the goal, the intervention emphasized positive things participants could to improve their health: good nutrition (what TO eat, not what NOT to eat), enjoying physical activity, and listening to their bodies. It also taught strategies for appreciating your body as it is now, regardless of size.

Participants in the study were overweight or obese women who had likely entered the study as chronic dieters. By the end of the study, they showed significantly less "food disinhibition," or losing control around food during stress, celebration, or other situations that trigger overeating.

At the 1-year follow-up, two-thirds of participants had lost weight, despite the interventions' explicit focus on positive behaviors, not trying to reduce food intake or lose weight. Compare this to the quick weight loss followed by weight gain that a typical diet leads to. Participants who developed the most "flexible" restraint (as opposed to the rigid restraint of most dieting strategies) were the most likely to maintain a weight loss.

From the first forbidden food (a very tempting apple), prohibition has led to problems. This study shows that focusing on positive steps, not self-denial, can make you less likely to succumb to food-related stress and anxiety. If you want to improve your overall self-control, and regain control around food, you may need give up the ideal of perfect control.

Studies cited:

1. Cottone P, Sabino V, Roberto M, et al. (2009). CRF system recruitment mediates dark side of compulsive eating. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Nov 9. [Epub ahead of print].

2. Provencher V, Bégin C, Tremblay A, et al. (2009). Health-at-every-size and eating behaviors: 1-year follow-up results of a size acceptance intervention. J Am Diet Assoc, 109(11),1854-1861.

In Defense of a Good Night's Sleep

Kelly McGonigal, Ph.D. — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:43:46 +0000

It's so tempting to cut back on sleep when you can't figure out how to make it all fit. Many of us have an irregular sleep cycle, staying up and sleeping in some days, and trying to rise before the first respectable glimmer of dawn the next day.

But a new study presented at the 2009 meeting of the Society for Neuroscience shows how disrupting your sleep cycle can interfere with your health and cognitive function. (1) Researchers from Rockefeller University disrupted the circadian rhythms of mice by exposing them to 10 hours of light followed by 10 hours of darkness. After two months of this, the mice were in need of more than a little nap. They had difficulty learning. They were more impulsive. And they got fat, thanks in part to changes in appetite hormones and metabolism.

These changes all reflect a problem with one thing: self-regulation. Even at the most basic task of homeostasis-maintaining normal body temperature-these mice were messed up. One reason why: The researchers found changes in the animals' medial prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain most important for self-control. This area of the brain is especially sensitive to disruptions in sleep and diet.

This isn't the first study to show that interrupting natural sleep cycles is harmful. A previous study (whose mouse participants were even more unfortunate) found that chronic jet lag can be fatal. (2) Uh, yikes. Suddenly my frequent flier miles are looking less appealing. Another study, this time with hamsters in the unfortunate role of the sleep-disrupted, found that altering natural circadian rhythms results in systemic organ disease. (3)

Plenty of other studies have found that the more common sleep problem-not enough-interferes with stress management, emotion regulation, learning, and willpower.

In my Science of Willpower course at Stanford University, I make a strong case for sleep as the most powerful resource for greater self-control and better performance at whatever matters most to you. A recent article in the New York Times reported on a study from Stanford showing that sleeping 10 hours a night improved the performance of athletes. The interesting thing about this study was how great everyone felt sleeping 10 hours a day-as if they had never known what their actual potential was when they were sleep-deprived.

Getting enough sleep, on a regular cycle, may make us a better version of ourselves. And even though my greatest wish is usually more time in the day, I'd rather feel good and perform well than get to be a crankier, impulsive, sick version of myself for a few extra hours a day.

Studies Cited:
1. Society for Neuroscience presentation (October 28 2009). Disruption of circadian rhythms affects both brain and body, mouse study finds. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 28, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com¬ /releases/2009/10/091026225744.htm.
2. Davidson, A.J., et al. (2006). Chronic jet-lag increases mortality in aged mice. Current Biology, 16 (21), R914-R916.
3. Martino, T.A. (2008). Circadian rhythm disorganization produces profound cardiovascular and renal disease in hamsters. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol, 294(5):R1675-83.

Exercise and the Immune System: A Stress Lesson

Kelly McGonigal, Ph.D. — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:50:37 +0000

A recent New York Times article by Gretchen Reynolds asked and answered the question: Does exercise boost immunity? The answer may surprise some, and its lessons extend well beyond the world of working out.

Reynolds reported on multiple studies, each showing the same thing. A little bit of exercise boosts immunity and can even help you recover from a cold or flu. But don't lace up your running shoes just yet-intense exercise does the opposite. Immediately after a strenuous workout-defined by many researchers as exercising with serious effort for over an hour-your immune system is suppressed. The effect can last for days and is intensified by training without adequate rest. In one animal study from the University of Illinois, intense exercise dramatically increased mortality rates from the flu-something that makes exercise addicts like myself a little nervous in flu season.

The NYT article does a great job discussing what's going on at the level of immunoglobulins and T-1 helper cells. What really caught my attention, though, was the simple bell-shaped curve: being sedentary is bad for your health, moderate exercise is good for your health, extreme exercise is....bad for your health.

Exercise is a form of stress that asks the body to adapt. That adaptation costs real energy and physical resources. These resources have to be borrowed from somewhere-say, the immune system. When the body recovers, it's stronger. But when you don't get enough rest and recovery, or when you are immediately exposed to another stressor (say, a flu virus or a fight with your spouse), you are too vulnerable to mount a protective response.

Exercise is just one example of stress that we could apply this curve to. A little bit of challenge or change is good, but too much too soon (or without a break) weakens you.

At a time when people are paying $10K to suffer extreme stress to the body-and some dying-in the name of personal transformation, it's even more important to remember that extreme anything is more likely to harm than help. No matter how much you believe in the power of mind over body, pushing the body to its breaking point is a foolish strategy for staying sane and healthy.

We're so used to looking for the next level, the next mountain to climb, the way to make things harder. But sometimes less is more. Is there anything in your life that would be more rewarding or healthy if you lowered the intensity?

Change Your Posture

Kelly McGonigal, Ph.D. — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:16:04 +0000

Quick, notice your posture as you read this. Are you slumped at your desk, shoulders curved forward, spine rounded? Or sitting up straight, with a tall spine but relaxed shoulders?

How you're sitting may be influencing how you're feeling - not just in this moment, but throughout the day. A recent study in the European Journal of Social Psychology (Brion, Petty, & Wagner 2009) looked at how posture influences self-confidence. Participants were asked to hold one of two postures: slumped sitting or sitting up straight. While holding the posture, they completed a mock job application, listing their own strengths and weaknesses that would be relevant for the job. They then rated the degree to which they believed themselves to be a good candidate for the job market, a good interviewee for a new position, a good performer on-the-job, and a satisfied future employee.

The researchers found that posture had a significant effect on these ratings. Sitting slumped over was associated with lower work-related self-confidence than sitting straight up.

It's an interesting example of how the body can influence the mind, and just one of many findings that suggest that we check in with our bodies to know how we feel. For example:

• Positioning the muscles of your face in a way that mimics natural emotion expressions can shift your mood. For example, putting a pen between your teeth engages the muscles of smiling. This simple (and somewhat ridiculous) act increases happiness and amusement. (Strack, Martin, & Stepper, 1988).

• Changing your breathing pattern can shift your mood. To feel quiet joy, practice breathing steadily and smoothly in an out of your nose, relaxing your belly, throat, and face. (Philippot, Chapelle, & Blairy, 2002)

• Making a fist-a traditional gesture of power - increases men's self-esteem. Caveat: just make the fist-you don't need to throw a punch! (Shubert & Koole 2009)

These are all good reasons for taking care of the body and paying attention to habits of posture, facial expression, muscle tension, and breathing. One of the best ways to become aware of physical habits is to take up a mind-body exercise like yoga and pilates. Mind-body practices help you become more aware of what you are doing with your body and also how to embody specific states of mind, including confidence, courage, and relaxation.

So the next time you're feeling stressed or need a boost of confidence, consider changing your body to change your mind. And the next time you're at a job interview (or first date), listen to your mother's wisdom, and sit up straight!

Studies cited:
Briñol, P., Petty, R.E., & Wagner, B. (2009). Body posture effects on self-evaluation: A self-validation approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1053-1064.
Philippot, P., Chapelle, G., & Blairy, S. (2002). Respiratory feedback in the generation of
emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 605-627.
Shubert, T.W., & Koole, S.L. (2009). The embodied self: Making a fist enhances men's power-related self-conceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
45, 828-834.
Strack, F., Martin, L.L., & Stepper, S. (1988). Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the human smile: a nonobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 768-777.

The Virtue of Pessimism

Kelly McGonigal, Ph.D. — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:17:34 +0000

Two people are beginning a weight-loss program. One is an optimist and the other a realist -- perhaps even a pessimist. Who has the better chance of losing weight?

According to a new study from Doshisha University in Japan, it's the pessimist. People who began a six-month program of nutrition, exercise, and counseling were less likely to lose weight if they had an optimistic personality.

This at first doesn't make sense. We usually associate optimism with greater success and better health. There's plenty of research showing that optimists have stronger social relationships, are happier, and even live longer. So why wouldn't optimism help people lose weight?

In this case, all of the participants in this study were obese, which meant they had a real challenge ahead of them. Most people who are obese have been overweight for years, even most of their lives. The causes of their obesity are likely complex, including behavioral, psychological, social, and medical factors.

Optimists may underestimate the setbacks and pitfalls they will face when trying to lose weight. They may also overestimate how much weight they will lose, how quickly, and how the weight loss will improve their lives. This can turn a success experience into a failure experience. If you expect to lose five pounds a week and lose two, you'll be disappointed. You may criticize yourself or the weight-loss plan. You may be so unhappy that you comfort yourself with food or find you can't muster the energy to exercise.

On the other hand, if you expect to lose 1-2 pounds a week and you do, that's a totally different experience. You'll feel encouraged, have greater faith in yourself and the program, and be motivated to continue. Same weight loss, same success, different trajectories for long-term weight loss.

Previous research has also shown that higher expectations of benefit can backfire when you're trying to change a behavior. If you expect that losing weight (or quitting smoking, or exercising, or learning a new skill) will fix a relationship, help you find a job, or get rid daily stress, and it doesn't, then your motivation to maintain the behavior plummets. People who expect the most rewards from changing a behavior -- that is, unrealistic rewards -- are least likely to succeed.

This doesn't mean that every aspect of optimism is self-defeating. When optimism is accompanied by a strong sense of self-efficacy -- that is, when you believe you have the inner strength to handle challenges -- you may maintain hope and preservere in the face of setbacks. And when optimism is realistic -- for example, you believe that losing weight will give you more energy in the day, but not necessarily that it will fix all of your problems -- the focus on positive long-term outcomes can help you resist short-term temptations.

So if you have a sunny disposition, don't start looking for the storm clouds. This study doesn't so much doom optimists to failure as it provides good food for thought.

When you think about what it will take to make a behavior change, and what benefits you will receive, are you being realistic? Have you considered how you will respond emotionally and behaviorally when you experience a setback? Do you have a plan, or social support, that will help you recommit? If you think that a behavior change will transform your entire life, can you focus first on the most likely benefits, and celebrate those moments when they happen?

This kind of realistic optimism should carry you through challenges and help you savor the rewards along the way.

Study: Saito, H., Kimura, Y., Tashima, S., et al. (2009). Psychological factors that promote behavior modification by obese patients. BioPsychoSocial Medicine 3:9 (in press).

The Diabolic Secret Powers of Junk Food

Kelly McGonigal, Ph.D. — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 07:23:09 +0000

It seems too clever, too diabolic to be true. A recent study shows that foods high in saturated fat -- ice cream, cheese, red meat -- cause your brain to secrete chemicals that tell the body to ignore biological signals of fullness (like leptin and insulin). The result: you don't "feel" full, and you keep eating. It's as if junk food had been shaped by the forces of evolution, learning to fool humans into ever-increasing consumption. And it explains why we seem to have an endless appetite for some foods, like pizza and a pint of Ben and Jerry's.

Even more mind-blowing: the effect lasts three days. So an indulgent meal can make you more likely to keep indulging, undermining any resolution to get back on track with healthier choices. This dirty trick is specific to saturated fats; foods low in saturated fats but high in healthier fats do not show the effect.

This study nicely highlights some of the most important influences on willpower. For example, we tend to think that our choices are independent, and that choosing to eat dessert or smoke a cigarette tonight has nothing to do with whether we indulge tomorrow. In fact, our behavior is far less variable than we think, and each choice (to resist or give in) strengthens the likelihood of choosing to do the same again. This study illuminates one biological mechanism that may contribute to this phenomenon, at least when it comes to diet.

Most people also have a hard time distinguishing between the promise of reward and actual satisfaction. As this study shows, many foods high in sugar or fats activate areas of the brain that promise satisfaction, but do not trigger the biological process of satiety. Other temptations -- from reality TV to most addictive drugs -- follow a similar pattern, increasing craving but not leading to lasting satisfaction. So we keep chasing the reward, ignoring the fact that in the long run, we aren't really satisfied and only want more.

Finally, it highlights the potentially discouraging fact that our behavior is influenced by forces we aren't consciously aware of. Like studies showing that the size and color of your plate influences how much you eat, and the smell of a store influences how much you spend, this study reminds us that we are vulnerable to unconscious processes.

However, awareness is a powerful antidote to all of these challenges. If you know that eating certain foods is going to fool your appetite, you can prepare yourself to make more conscious choices. If you start paying attention to the indulgences that are most satisfying, you can reward yourself with them. And if you know that your choices today are likely to influence your choices tomorrow, you will be less likely to tell yourself, "Today I indulge, tomorrow will be different."

Now, I just have one question for science to tackle: any chance fruits and vegetables are sending some secret signals to my brain and body that make me more likely to get up early and exercise?

Study citation: Benoit SC, Kemp CJ, Elias CF, et al. (2009) Palmitic acid mediates hypothalamic insulin resistance by altering PKC-θ subcellular localization in rodents. The Journal of Clinical Investigation, 119(9), 2577-89.

The Self-Control Costs of Moral Flexibility

Kelly McGonigal, Ph.D. — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 06:50:09 +0000

Which takes more self-control? Lying well or telling the truth?
Your answer might say a lot about how trustworthy you are. 
According to a recent study by Harvard psychologists, telling the truth is the more challenging of the two-but only for those who are also willing to cheat.

Researchers invited participants to play a game in which they could, if they wanted to, lie for profit. Every round, the participants had to report whether they had correctly guessed the answer-but only after they saw what they answer was. If they guessed correctly, they earned money.

As participants played, the researchers tracked changes in brain activation. They were particularly interested in brain areas related to self-control (e.g., the anterior cingulate cortex and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex).

Researchers found that a person who was generally honest in the game showed no increased activation in these brain areas when they answered honestly. Telling the truth appeared to be an automatic process.

In contrast, people who were occasionally dishonest showed increased activation in self-control regions when they didn't lie. The pattern of activation is similar to when someone actively resists a tempting reward, or tries to override an automatic behavior. In other words, participants who sometimes cheated had to consciously resist the temptation to lie. Participants who didn't cheat didn't seem to be overcoming any temptation or instinct to lie.

Does this mean that there are two kinds of people in the world: those who are naturally good, and those who must struggle to be good? Not necessarily. What this study may have found is that participants who kept the option to lie open had to struggle to be honest. Participants who had a principled stance against cheating didn't have to consider the benefits of lying each time they gave their answer. Those who had to exert self-control to be honest weren't necessarily "dishonest" people, but people who had a more flexible set of responses in this situation. Because cheating was an option, they had to override the instinct to take the easy reward.

This kind of flexible morality is more common than many of us would like to admit. Most of us strive to be truthful and trustworthy, but our sense of moral obligation also has its limits. We may try to get away with more when the chances of getting caught are low, the potential benefits are high, or when the person being duped is a stranger. It's in these scenarios-when we carefully consider the costs and benefits of lying-that telling the truth is an act of self-control.

But if you have a commitment to honesty, and don't weigh the pros and cons of each opportunity to lie for your own benefit, it's not nearly as difficult to tell the truth. This is one of the reasons why so many religions and philosophers suggest an absolute policy of telling the truth, whether it's Christianity's commandment "Thou shall not lie" or Yoga philosophy's core principle of "asteya" (honesty). If you don't deliberate on the value of lying in each situation, you're less likely to lie at all.

Honesty is not the only behavior this applies to. It goes for any behavior you're likely to talk yourself into (e.g. smoking, snacking, shopping) or out of (e.g. exercising, getting up early, tackling the procrastination pile on your desk) because it's easier or more rewarding in the short-term. In these cases, the freedom to choose just makes it more likely that you will choose temptation and fail at your long-term goal.

What's the best strategy, then, for making moral decisions or sticking to a behavior change? Take a principled stance that sets automatic restrictions on your behavior. Weighing the risks and benefits in each situation may seem like the more logical approach, but it's more effective for most people to commit broadly and then not reflect on each opportunity.

If there's something in your life that you want to stick to but keep seeming to talk yourself out of, try reframing the choice not as a series of individual choices. Try reframing your next choice as the choice between always sticking to your goal or always giving in. Framed this way, each choice carries not the immediate risks and benefits, but the long-term consequences of being someone who consistently makes this choice.

Study cited: Greene, J.D., & Paxton J.M. (2009). Patterns of neural activity associated with honest and dishonest moral decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Epub ahead of print.

The Limits of Self-Control

Kelly McGonigal, Ph.D. — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:21:48 +0000

Want to quit smoking? Try picking up a chocolate habit.

Or at least, give yourself permission to indulgence in whatever foods you find most tempting. A new study by UC San Francisco researchers Dikla Shmueli and Judith Prochaska shows why it's a bad idea to try to change too many health behaviors at once.

101 smokers were invited into the laboratory for a study on food temptation. They were told that the study was a challenge of sorts--researchers were interested in whether or not participants could resist a range of snacks, from raw radishes to freshly baked brownies.

Participants were then put in a room alone with a randomly-assigned food (healthy vegetables or more tempting baked goods). Their assignment: do not eat the treat!

The researchers made sure participants got the full effect of the temptation. For five minutes, they sat and stared at the treat. Every fifteen seconds or so, a chime rang, indicating that the participant should get closer to the plate, lift it up, and smell the food. They were also asked to really think about the food and their desire to eat it. Short of licking the chocolate frosting, this is about as strong a sensory temptation as the researchers could have set-up.

After this test of willpower, participants were given a ten-minute break so the experimenter could set up the next phase of the study. Participant could wait in the lobby or go outside during the break.

What the researchers really wanted to know: Would resting sweets make smokers light up during a 10-minute study break?

After the break, the researchers used a Smokerlyzer to test the participant's breath for evidence of smoking. The results: Participants who had resisted dessert were more likely to smoke during the break (53%) than those who had resisted the less appetizing radishes (34%).

Why? It could be that a craving is a craving, and if you don't give in to one, you'll be doubly attracted to the next. Or perhaps resisting temptation is a form of stress, and stress triggers the need to smoke. The researchers cite Roy Baumeister's theory on the limits of self-control as a likely explanation. You only have so much self-control before your willpower is exhausted. When your willpower is weakened by resisiting one temptation, you're more likely to succumb to the next.

These findings are consistent with other research on trying to quit smoking. Smoking cessation interventions that include nutritional counseling or dieting plans have higher failure rates than programs that only focus on quitting smoking. While trying to overhaul your lifestyle all it once may sound appealing, it isn't sustainable, especially in the early stages when cravings for cigarettes and food are at their worst.

The bottom line: when you're trying to make a difficult change, save your strength for what matters most. If both a cigarette and candy bar are calling your name, let the candy bar sweet talk you into indulgence. You can kick that habit later. Or maybe not-last I heard, there was a new study showing that chocolate is good for you. Plus, gaining a few pounds might help you live longer.

Study cited: Shmueli, D. & Prochaska, J.J. (2009). Resisting tempting foods and smoking behavior: Implications from a self-control theory perspective. Health Psychology, 28(3), 300-306.

After an especially good deed, are you destined to sin?

Kelly McGonigal, Ph.D. — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:22:40 +0000

Have you ever experienced do-gooder exhaustion? When you've done the right things for so long, you just need to indulge your inner sinner? Or when you've given so much to others that you want to save something for yourself?

You aren't alone, and this isn't a defect in your moral virtue. Researchers at Northwestern University recently published three studies that show why one good deed can prevent another.

In the first study, participants were randomly assigned to write a story about themselves, either using the words "caring, generous, fair, and kind," or the words "disloyal, greedy, mean, and selfish." They then completed a time-filler task to mask the true outcome researchers were interested in: how the personal reflection would influence participants' generosity. After the "experiment" was over, participants were asked to make a small donation ($1-10) to a charity of their choice.

What effect did the story-writing have? Participants who wrote about selfishness gave, on average, $5.30. Those who wrote about generosity gave less. A lot less: $1.07, about as close to nothing as this study allowed.

A control group, who wrote a story about inanimate objects, donated on average $2.71. This shows that the selfish storytellers were indeed trying to redeem themselves-but there was also a "stinginess" effect on participants who felt pretty good about their past generosity .

Studies 2 and 3 found the same thing. In study 2, participants were asked to write a story either about themselves acting generously or selfishly, or about someone else acting generously or selfishly. Participants writing about themselves showed the same donation pattern as in study 1 ($1.11 vs. $5.56). But participants writing about someone else showed no difference. The take-home point: this effect is driven by self-reflection, not a more generic priming of generous or selfish behavior.

A third experiment found the same effect with a different test of prosocial behavior: how willing participants were to pay a price to be environmentally friendly. Participants who wrote about being generous were less willing to pay to go green than participants who wrote about being selfish.

It's easy to understand why someone feeling a bit guilty might decide to do some good. But why on earth would remembering your own generosity turn you into a Scrooge?

According to the researchers, it's all about maintaining a steady sense of moral self-worth. How good you feel about yourself depends on how good a person you think you are. Giving in to temptation, or refusing to do the right thing, lowers your moral self-worth. You feel worse and need to do something good to feel better.

But few of us have a self-image that paints us as Mother Teresa. We want to be good, but not martyrs. This means that doing good can lead to a discrepancy in self-worth just as much as being selfish. The research by Northwestern psychologists shows that we are motivated to reduce that discrepancy even when it's positive.

Why would we want to lower our moral self-worth, rather than cherish the warm glow of our own halo? Because always doing the right thing isn't what most of us are aiming for-and after awhile, it can start to feel bad. You may feel a little bit foolish for always putting others first. And always saying no to what you want can start to feel like self-induced punishment.

In other words, being good can feel bad-but being a little bit bad can make you feel better. Not just better, but more like yourself again.

This research is making me rethink my own cycles of being good and selfish. Back in my college term paper days, I developed a serious habit of shopping after I met a deadline. Now, it's like clockwork: turn in a project, hit the mall.

I'd always thought it was operant conditioning at work—I was rewarding myself for doing something good. Surely the promise of reward would keep me motivated for future Herculean tasks.

But now I realize, I may be trying to bring my self-worth back down to size. I don't want to feel like too much of a workaholic. Life needs balance, and everyone needs a little indulgence. Plus, when the credit card bill arrives, I'll feel just bad enough about myself to want to tackle that next project.

Study: Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R., & Medin, D.L. (2009). Sinning saints and saintly sinners: The paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychological Science, 20(4), 523-528.

Is Your Neighborhood Making You Fat?

Kelly McGonigal, Ph.D. — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:02:47 +0000

Want to know the odds that your next diet will succeed? Don't look inside your refrigerator. According to a new study, you're better off taking a trip around your neighborhood.

Your mission: search for every fast-food restaurant, convenience store, and grocery store within half a mile in any direction from your home. Count every McDonald's, 7-Eleven, and Trader Joe's. (This mission does not require stopping to sample the merchandise. If you are so tempted, do your reconnaissance on Google maps, where you can search for businesses near your address.)

Then calculate your "Retail Food Environment Index" (RFEI). Add up the number of fast food restaurants and convenience stores (F+C), and divide that sum by the number of grocery stores (G). If there are no grocery stores in your neighborhood, your index is the sum of F+C.

This number, according to researchers at the University of Alberta, is a good predictor of whether or not you will end up overweight. The researchers calculated the RFEI for 2900 adults who lived in Edmonton, Canada. People were significantly less likely to be overweight if they lived in a neighborhood with a RFEI of less than 3.0, and most likely to be overweight if they lived in a neighborhood with a RFEI of 5.0 or higher.

The researchers called these high-RFEI neighborhoods "obesogenic." The message is clear: live in these toxic environments at your own risk.

This study is just the most recent of a series of studies showing that temptation in your neighborhood can sabotage your diet. For example, a study published in April found significantly higher student obesity rates at schools that had at least one fast-food restaurant within one-tenth of a mile from school grounds. Other studies across the U.S. have linked high RFEIs to higher rates of obesity-related diseases and deaths.
We all want to believe that our choices are self-determined and free from external influences-especially when the external influence is a Dunkin Donuts down the street. What does it matter if temptation abounds? I have the strength to say no! But the truth is that inner willpower is often overcome by the ease of giving in to temptation.

What makes these environments obesogenic is not just how they limit your choices, but how they sap your of your strength. Nobody has unlimited willpower. Every time you say "no" to the siren call of fries and a burger, your willpower is depleted a little bit. If you have to say "no" every hundred feet, that willpower gets exhausted. Eventually, when you are tired or just plain tired of saying no, you will give in. It's much easier to lose weight when you don't have to constantly make the decision to resist.

I'll admit, I'm susceptible to this effect. The RFEI of my current home is 4.32, compared to 3.85 for the neighborhood I moved from 3 years ago. Perhaps that (or more specifically, one particular restaurant across the street) explains the few pounds I've gained since I moved here.

What's the solution? Many researchers and policy-makers are advocating for laws that would limit fast-food restaurants, or provide funding to support high-quality groceries stores in neighborhoods that rely on corner convenience stores. This might be a good long-term strategy for the public good, but it won't save your diet in the meantime.

Here are some strategies (short of moving) that can help you handle a high-risk food environment:
1. Limit the circumference of your food environment. Commit to eating at home more often, where you have more control.
2. Plan your meals ahead of time. You don't want to be making the choice of where to grab dinner when you're hungry and exhausted, driving home past all those tempting restaurants.
3. Do a little homework and find out what the healthiest thing is on the menu of every local restaurant. Go on a scavenger hunt to the convenience stores, and scan the shelves for healthy options. Knowing in advance will help you make healthier choices when your stomach is growling.
4. If you live in a neighborhood full of of fattening options, the social norm is to eat there. Otherwise, the places would go out of business. Set your own social norm in your own social circle. Don't let a high-calorie dinner and dessert in the neighborhood restaurant become the default for catching up with friends. Find ways to socialize that don't involve going out for food or drinks.

New study reference: Relation between local food environments and obesity among adults. JC Spence, N Cutumisu, J Edwards, KD Raine, & K Smoyer-Tomic. BMC Public Health (in press).