Economics of Overeating (Why we do it)
DSNStratos
Posts: 8 Member
An economic threory of overeating - feel free to tell me I'm crazy or make suggestions.
What is the cost of eating half the pan of that Sarah Lee slightly thawed chocolate cake last night? In actual weight gain, not much from this "one" indulgance, almost insignificant. But what is the benefit of this one indulgance? Need I answer that? It's chocolate cake, and for a half hour I'm in heaven. Benefits > Cost.
The above scenario highlights the application of the economic theory of Marginal Utility and generally explains overeating in my view. The theory goes that people will act in their self interest, and continue doing something (in this case, eating) until the marginal cost of doing it is higher than the marginal benefit of doing it. The term "marginal" is critical here, meaning it looks at a single act of consumption, in our case, one meal (or one cake). As stated in the above paragraph, the benefits of that one last indulgance was greater than its cost - when you look at it in isolation. So naturally you did it.
The theory goes that individuals (in general) look at cost-benefit one event at a time. So...we keep eating, makes perfect sense. For every piece of cake I eat, the weight/fitness cost of that one piece of cake was much lower than the benefit I derived from eating it. Conclusion - I eat it. Same theory holds for smoking as you might imagine - the cost of that last cigarette you had is practically zero, compared to the benefit of smoking it when you're addicted to nicotine.
So are we doomed? Is there a way to tip the balance of the cost/benefit equation? To do so we would need to either raise the cost of eating that one piece of cake, or lower the benefit. I haven't figured out any way to lower the benefit, but would propose a way to think about increasing the cost. One answer, I think, is a daily workout, and it needs to be a little taxing, its gotta hurt a little - not epic, but it needs to hurt a little. Here's why: if the workout hurts, physically taxing, expensive, inconvenient, etc., consider the piece of cake you ate that day as "wasting" that day's workout. You did it for nothing. That's a cost you are attaching to that day's indulgance.
So looking at it this way, you have changed the cost/benefit (the marginal utility) of that one piece of cake by increasing its cost. And maybe, just maybe, this changes your outlook.
What is the cost of eating half the pan of that Sarah Lee slightly thawed chocolate cake last night? In actual weight gain, not much from this "one" indulgance, almost insignificant. But what is the benefit of this one indulgance? Need I answer that? It's chocolate cake, and for a half hour I'm in heaven. Benefits > Cost.
The above scenario highlights the application of the economic theory of Marginal Utility and generally explains overeating in my view. The theory goes that people will act in their self interest, and continue doing something (in this case, eating) until the marginal cost of doing it is higher than the marginal benefit of doing it. The term "marginal" is critical here, meaning it looks at a single act of consumption, in our case, one meal (or one cake). As stated in the above paragraph, the benefits of that one last indulgance was greater than its cost - when you look at it in isolation. So naturally you did it.
The theory goes that individuals (in general) look at cost-benefit one event at a time. So...we keep eating, makes perfect sense. For every piece of cake I eat, the weight/fitness cost of that one piece of cake was much lower than the benefit I derived from eating it. Conclusion - I eat it. Same theory holds for smoking as you might imagine - the cost of that last cigarette you had is practically zero, compared to the benefit of smoking it when you're addicted to nicotine.
So are we doomed? Is there a way to tip the balance of the cost/benefit equation? To do so we would need to either raise the cost of eating that one piece of cake, or lower the benefit. I haven't figured out any way to lower the benefit, but would propose a way to think about increasing the cost. One answer, I think, is a daily workout, and it needs to be a little taxing, its gotta hurt a little - not epic, but it needs to hurt a little. Here's why: if the workout hurts, physically taxing, expensive, inconvenient, etc., consider the piece of cake you ate that day as "wasting" that day's workout. You did it for nothing. That's a cost you are attaching to that day's indulgance.
So looking at it this way, you have changed the cost/benefit (the marginal utility) of that one piece of cake by increasing its cost. And maybe, just maybe, this changes your outlook.
4
Replies
-
I think your cost-benefit association for the one time events absolutely holds true for me when I'm eating things because I'm hungry and they are there (rather than because they are part of my daily plan). However, saying that using a painful or expensive or exhausting workout to raise the cost doesn't work for me because that sounds like I need to be punished for my calorie indulgence. I don't want to view exercise as punishment and I'm unwilling to berate or punish myself because I ate 500 calories worth of cookies. I prefer to view the cost of the calories like money: I overspent by 500 today so I'm going to have to cut back (or increase exercise) by 100 for each of the next 5 days to "pay" for it or my account won't balance.4
-
I appreciate your theory in general. Another thing to keep in mind is that the benefit is immediate, while the potential cost is spread over time (unless you're diabetic and crash). I say potential cost because sometimes there is no cost. Being able to fit something you deem an indulgence into your daily calories is 100% benefit.DSNStratos wrote: »So are we doomed? Is there a way to tip the balance of the cost/benefit equation? To do so we would need to either raise the cost of eating that one piece of cake, or lower the benefit. I haven't figured out any way to lower the benefit, but would propose a way to think about increasing the cost. One answer, I think, is a daily workout, and it needs to be a little taxing, its gotta hurt a little - not epic, but it needs to hurt a little. Here's why: if the workout hurts, physically taxing, expensive, inconvenient, etc., consider the piece of cake you ate that day as "wasting" that day's workout. You did it for nothing. That's a cost you are attaching to that day's indulgance.
So looking at it this way, you have changed the cost/benefit (the marginal utility) of that one piece of cake by increasing its cost. And maybe, just maybe, this changes your outlook.
This is negative reinforcement and as @benevempress stated above, makes exercise into a punishment. Exercise is a *good* thing. Putting a negative spin on it isn't helpful in the long run. That's why people on here always encourage people to do exercise they like, because they're more likely to *keep* doing it.1 -
You might enjoy this video- it shows the exercise required to burn off the calories in 1 Oreo (which is only 55 calories). It definitely makes the cost seem higher than the reward!!
https://youtu.be/mVfSG3lV8Mk 4 -
Interesting point of view and I agree with some of it. Per your quote:
"So are we doomed? Is there a way to tip the balance of the cost/benefit equation? To do so we would need to either raise the cost of eating that one piece of cake, or lower the benefit. I haven't figured out any way to lower the benefit, but would propose a way to think about increasing the cost. One answer, I think, is a daily workout, and it needs to be a little taxing, its gotta hurt a little - not epic, but it needs to hurt a little. Here's why: if the workout hurts, physically taxing, expensive, inconvenient, etc., consider the piece of cake you ate that day as "wasting" that day's workout. You did it for nothing. That's a cost you are attaching to that day's indulgance."
Personally, for me lowering the benefit has meant learning that I don't need instant gratification (i.e. "But what is the benefit of this one indulgance? Need I answer that? It's chocolate cake, and for a half hour I'm in heaven. Benefits > Cost.") A half hour of enjoyment isn't worth it to me in the long run. Doesn't mean I don't have treats, it just means that I can see past the few fleeting moments of good taste and figure out if I really want / need that food at all.
Everyone is different so I'm interested to read how others respond to this thread.1 -
I have treats within my calorie budget. Best of both worlds- get to have that heaven feeling from eating chocolate, AND from seeing the number on the scale go down!2
-
Thanks for the feedback, good stuff! If folks are construing excercise as punishment in this model, I've failed to communicate it properly.
It's quite the opposite in fact. The model considers excercise as a positive, and the increased marginal cost of eating the cake is to have wasted that positive exercise. (who cares if you waste a negative, right?) Don't be thrown off when I say it has to hurt a little, I mean to say you have actual investment in the excercise so the cost of wasting it actually amounts to something.
The model may be of some use, if you're you're willing to buy in, that regular excercise is important not only as a fitness/caloric factor, but in affecting the decision-making process of eating through application of the human behavior / decision-making theory of marginal utility.0 -
courtneyfabulous wrote: »You might enjoy this video- it shows the exercise required to burn off the calories in 1 Oreo (which is only 55 calories). It definitely makes the cost seem higher than the reward!!https://youtu.be/mVfSG3lV8Mk
These kind of things seem to forget that just staying alive requires rather a lot of calories, so you'll burn 55 calories just by sleeping, no problem.0 -
DSNStratos wrote: »The model considers excercise as a positive, and the increased marginal cost of eating the cake is to have wasted that positive exercise.
This model does not describe my experience. I know many other people who break the model for different reasons, too.
I exercise for fun. I won't step on a treadmill, but a 50 mile bike ride on mountain roads sounds like a great day. Here are some pics. Anyway, I tend to eat a lot and well after longer rides. I've never felt like I wasted the experience of being outdoors and enjoying the scenery because I ate yummy food later.
A lot of people exercise so they can eat more. There must be something to it because most people who successfully maintain their weight loss exercise.0 -
I've been arguing for a while (in response to the suggestions that you need some kind of addiction theory to explain why people overeat despite the costs) that the issue is long term cost v. short term benefit and the cost of an individual food item being so low (will one bad day make a difference in the long run? no). So I definitely agree with your general point.
For me, what works is to try and reframe it as not about the individual eating decision (with no meaningful cost) but a broader buy-in to a way of eating that does have benefits vs. not adhering to it, which has overall costs. Being able to make concrete the cost of eating one way vs. the benefits of eating another way (as by thinking in the long term -- if I have a 500 calorie daily deficit for 50 weeks I will lose 50 lbs) is what has tended to work for me, as well as convincing myself that there are real benefits to sticking to plan in a day (feeling good about accomplishing goals, liking the healthy way one eats, enjoying the benefits of exercise and meeting fitness goals, stuff like that). This is also why I am someone who has always found more success losing weight as part of an overall "healthy way of living" or "focus on fitness" vs. just not eating as much.0 -
courtneyfabulous wrote: »You might enjoy this video- it shows the exercise required to burn off the calories in 1 Oreo (which is only 55 calories). It definitely makes the cost seem higher than the reward!!https://youtu.be/mVfSG3lV8Mk
These kind of things seem to forget that just staying alive requires rather a lot of calories, so you'll burn 55 calories just by sleeping, no problem.
I was going to say the same thing...these kind of things make it seem like you have to physically burn everything you eat off with exercise...based on my BMR, I could burn that off and a bit more lying down on the couch and napping for an hour.
I wonder if this is how exercise bulimics are created?0 -
DSNStratos wrote: »Thanks for the feedback, good stuff! If folks are construing excercise as punishment in this model, I've failed to communicate it properly.
It's quite the opposite in fact. The model considers excercise as a positive, and the increased marginal cost of eating the cake is to have wasted that positive exercise. (who cares if you waste a negative, right?) Don't be thrown off when I say it has to hurt a little, I mean to say you have actual investment in the excercise so the cost of wasting it actually amounts to something.
This isn't true. In your model, the benefit/positive is enjoyment (of eating cake), the cost/negative is inconvenience or hurt (of exercise). You said yourself, the exercise occurs as an expense.
I don't really understand the solution. The problem as I see it is the initial incorrect assumption that the cake has insignificant cost. You're not so much attaching a workout as its cost as really just translating it.0 -
courtneyfabulous wrote: »You might enjoy this video- it shows the exercise required to burn off the calories in 1 Oreo (which is only 55 calories). It definitely makes the cost seem higher than the reward!!https://youtu.be/mVfSG3lV8Mk
These kind of things seem to forget that just staying alive requires rather a lot of calories, so you'll burn 55 calories just by sleeping, no problem.
Yeah of course- that's why I still have my 270 calorie chocolate protein bar every day. I do find it helpful to think about this though when I'm tempted to eat over my calories. I know I have a buffer of my calorie deficit, but once that is passed the reality is every calorie over maintenance has to get burned off somehow or could end up as stored body fat.
I wasn't meaning that you can't have an Oreo, I just find it interesting to see a visual representation of exactly how much effort it takes to burn 55 excess calories.0 -
I agree with OP too- I don't see exercise as a punishment, personally I love working out. I also don't want to waste my efforts on the gym on too many treats, because my goal is fat loss right now. It would be a shame to destroy my deficit with too much junk food. Though I do partake in some for fun and enjoyment.0
-
DSNStratos wrote: »Thanks for the feedback, good stuff! If folks are construing excercise as punishment in this model, I've failed to communicate it properly.
It's quite the opposite in fact. The model considers excercise as a positive, and the increased marginal cost of eating the cake is to have wasted that positive exercise. (who cares if you waste a negative, right?) Don't be thrown off when I say it has to hurt a little, I mean to say you have actual investment in the excercise so the cost of wasting it actually amounts to something.
This isn't true. In your model, the benefit/positive is enjoyment (of eating cake), the cost/negative is inconvenience or hurt (of exercise). You said yourself, the exercise occurs as an expense.
I don't really understand the solution. The problem as I see it is the initial incorrect assumption that the cake has insignificant cost. You're not so much attaching a workout as its cost as really just translating it.
nope, nope, nope.... the exercise is not the cost/negative, "wasting" the exercise is the cost/negative, i.e. wasting the very good and productive exercise by eating that piece of cake. C'mon folks, who would really think of exercise as a negative?????
This model works, I promise you, but does require a "careful" read. Theory of marginal utility applied to overeating...
0 -
Just wanted to say MFP has allowed me to understand what my friends mean when they tell me "You think too much".
Carry on.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions