Here's a good question: 

"How should we interpret diet-related events?" 

When we lose weight who or what is responsible for the weight 
loss? 

Should we take credit? Is the diet responsible? Is it just a 
matter of luck? 

When we gain weight who or what is responsible for that? 

When we gain or lose weight, we have many interpretive options, 
it seems. 

When we interpret an event one way rather than another, it's 
like putting one kind of picture frame around it, rather than 
another. And that can change our feelings about the event 
entirely. 

Which way should we frame our diet-related events, like gaining 
and losing weight? 

Which way of framing things is most helpful for us? 

Are some ways of framing these events apt to discourage us? 

Will some interpretations help us succeed on our diets? 

I want to consider the advice of two doctors. One is a tall, 
Southern doctor who became famous with a little help from his 
friend Oprah Winfrey.  The other doctor, you might not know. 

You've probably guessed that the first doctor is Dr. Phil 
McGraw. The second is Dr. Robert Sapolsky, who has written 
Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers -- a great book about stress. 

I have a lot of respect for both doctors. Let me say that 
first. But it turns out that these two gentlemen seem to be 
giving advice that conflicts a little bit, and I'm going to 
try to sort it all out here, because the issue involved is 
very important for dieters. 



Dr. Phil's Locus of Control Model 

Have you heard? Dr. Phil has written a diet book. It's a pretty 
good book, too, though it would be much better if he supported 
a low carb diet :) 

In the book he talks about our interpretation of diet-related 
events--like gaining and losing weight. And Dr. Phil says that 
we can look at these events primarily in one of three ways. 

We can have, what he calls, an INTERNAL locus of control. We can 
have an EXTERNAL locus of control. Or we can have a CHANCE locus 
of control. In other words, we can believe that most events in 
our lives are caused by us. Or we can believe that something in 
the environment, perhaps another person, is responsible. Or we 
can largely believe it is a matter of chance or luck whether 
things happen or not. 

If someone has an Internal locus of control, she is likely to 
take responsibility when she gains weight, and take it to be 
her own fault. But this person will also take great pride when 
she loses weight, because she will think that, that too, is a 
result of her own efforts. 

If someone has an External locus of control, she is likely to 
blame the environment, or other people, when she gains weight. 
And she is likely to give credit to others when she loses 
weight. "It was the diet." 

If someone has a Chance locus of control, she is likely to 
attribute both weight loss and weight gain to chance, fortune, 
luck, or fate. 

Dr. Phil says that, all things considered, it is better to have 
an internal locus of control. This has the best chance of leading
to success, because it reminds us that we have to take action if 
we are going to lose weight. 



But... 
Now for Dr. Sapolsky. 

Traditionally it has been held that, in order to reduce stress, 
it is good to have a sense of control, and to be fully informed 
with timely information. But Dr. Sapolsky considers a couple of 
examples where these general rules break down. 

Suppose, for example, you are facing your first examination as 
a grad student or something, and you are already quite nervous. 
Now suppose your friend comes along and says: "I just heard 
that they are really going to be hard on you, absolutely rake 
you over the coals." How? "I don't know, I couldn't find out 
that part." (Sapolsky, 329) 

This is a case where more information actually increases stress. 

Or suppose you are given the power to decide the border between 
India and Pakistan, as Cyril Radcliffe was. (Sapolsky, 330) No 
matter where you draw the line, you will get death threats, and 
be responsible for a hundred thousand deaths. 

This is a case where having more control over a situation will 
increase stress, too. 

Here is the point. Whether control is a good thing or not 
depends on the outcome. If the outcome is good, or is 
anticipated to be good, it's good to feel in control. If it 
is anticipated to be bad, it can be more stressful to be in 
control. It would feel better not to have to take the blame 
for all the bad results. 



A Crucial Distinction 

When Dr. Phil suggests we should choose an internal locus of 
control, he suggests it carte blanche. 

In other words, we should attribute the cause to self whether 
the outcome is good or bad. 

But here's the catch. When we gain weight, an internal 
attributional style will lead to feelings of shame or guilt, 
and this will produce stress. This stress, as I have written 
elsewhere, could cause us to crave carbohydrates, which will 
make us more likely to fail even more. 

Maybe, then, we would be better off having an external 
orientation when we gain weight. 

Dr. Phil seems to think that if we have an internal locus of 
control, we must be consistent and have an internal locus of 
control whether things are good or bad. 

I want to suggest that we don't have to be consistent in this 
way. I wan't to suggest, in line with Dr. Sapolsky's work, that 
we should have a different orientation in different situations. 

When we are gaining weight, we should attribute the weight gain 
to external causes. And when we are losing weight, we should 
attribute that to internal causes. 

If I gain weight, it's the stress others are putting on me, 
or it's the lack of sleep I've been getting, or the fact that 
others brought cake into work, that's causing me to make poor 
choices. If I lose weight, then good for me. I pulled it off. 
I did it. I should be proud. 



Isn't this hypocritical? 

Does this sound too much like having your cake and eating it too, 
so to speak? Does it sound hypocritical to take responsibility 
only for the good, and not for the bad as well? 

I think it would be hypocritical if you allowed yourself to have 
this kind of mixed outlook, but criticized others for having it. 
But there's no reason to do that. If this kind of outlook would 
prove most helpful for weight loss, and you are prepared to let 
others have this kind of outlook without criticizing them, then 
I don't see any reason why you shouldn't help yourself to this 
more helpful orientation toward your diet-related events. 

Here's why it's important for us to attribute weight gain to 
external causes. It allows us to be curious instead of feeling 
guilty. It allows us to wonder why we gained weight instead of 
beating ourselves up for it. And when we get curious, we are 
much more likely to find a way to solve our problem, than when 
we feel guilty. 

But how do you get yourself to attribute bad events to external 
causes, and good events to your own hard work? It's easier than 
you think. Consider a couple of examples from other areas of 
our lives. 



The Weight Loss Video Game 

Have you ever learned how to play a video game? Have you ever 
learned how to play a musical instrument? Have you ever mastered 
a difficult subject in school? My guess is that you have. 

Now, let me ask you. When you couldn't play a classical 
masterpiece after one week of piano lessons, did you feel 
guilty? Did you beat yourself up and say, "it's my fault I 
can't play it?" 

My guess is that you did not do this. 

Instead you said, "the reason I can't play a classical 
masterpiece after one week of piano lessons is that the piece 
is very difficult and requires years of practice". In other 
words, it was something about the external environment that 
prevented your playing the piece. 

Now, let's say after two years of lessons you finally played 
a pretty decent version of some masterpiece. Were you proud 
of yourself? Most likely you were, and you should have been. 

It's easy in many cases to blame external forces for failure 
and give credit to ourselves for success. And it can be quite 
appropriate to do so, too. 

If an adolescent wants to dunk a basketball, but can't jump high 
enough, the reason she can't dunk is that the hoop is too high, 
or her muscles aren't strong enough yet, or she is too short, 
or something like that. And that tells her what she has to do 
if she wants to dunk. 

She should lower the hoop, of course! 

Or she could try to build her leg muscles and practice a lot :) 

Would the pianist get any better by simply feeling guilty and 
trying harder? 

Would the would-be dunker get better that way? 

Perhaps a little. But progress would probably be slower than 
necessary. 

Overcoming failure requires creativity. It requires us to figure 
out the cause of our failure. It might be just that we have to 
try harder, but it is even more likely that there are some 
additional external things we can change that will make our 
success more likely. 

Someone with an internal locus of control is likely to miss 
many of these other factors. Someone with an external locus 
of control is likely to discover more factors that will lead 
to success. 

[I should point out here that Dr. Phil would probably agree 
with much of this. He does encourage dieters to "get curious" 
when they fail. And he does consider external factors to be 
very important for successful weight loss. I just want to 
suggest that his emphasis on an internal locus of control 
is a little at odds with these other emphases.] 

So here is my exhortation to you. Stop beating yourself up for 
being overweight! Pass the buck when you fail, but take credit 
when you succeed. 

Think of it being like a video game. The game is stacked 
against you in various ways. But you can figure it out. You 
can eventually get to the next level of the weight loss video 
game. You just have to figure out how to defeat the monsters 
that stand in your way. They'll get you sometimes, and you'll 
have to start over. But you will learn something every time 
that happens, and eventually you will succeed. 

And when you get to the next level, make sure to call all your 
friends and brag a little.