In the mid-2010s, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed a ban on large sugar-sweetened drinks, restricting sales of sodas, sweetened teas and coffees, energy drinks, and “fruit” drinks over 16 ounces with a $200 fine for vendors who didn’t downsize. The idea was that smaller portions would lead to better health and happier, more considerate people.
Did it work? Not really. In New York City, a place known for its diversity and busy culture, people generally don’t like being told what to do, and they push back against restrictions. The soda-ban idea didn’t reduce consumption; in fact, sugary beverage use was reported to double in some discussions of the topic.
A key explanation comes from Dr. Gnel Gabrielyan of Cornell University’s Food & Brand Lab. He points out how our food biases and marketing tactics shape our choices, often more than we realize. The food industry uses clever marketing, including portion distortion and design choices that affect how we perceive servings. For example, many sugary cereals feature characters that look downward, targeting kids who are looking up at the shelf. The message is powerful: branding can steer behavior in subtle, persistent ways.
Two concepts help explain why bans backfire: reactance and framing.
– Reactance: when people feel their freedoms are being restricted, they push back. If you tell someone not to do something, they’re more likely to resist.
– Framing: how a choice is presented affects how people respond. For example, the same wine can be described as “Wine from California” or “Wine from North Dakota,” and tasters often rate the California wine higher simply because of the framing.
Another relevant idea is priming: exposure to one stimulus can influence responses to a subsequent stimulus. In a famous demonstration, people who sampled a healthy item in a grocery study (an apple) tended to spend more on fruits and vegetables later. In media, a movie clip about focus and attention is sometimes used to illustrate priming, though the core lesson is simpler: prior exposure shapes subsequent choices.
Applied to behavior change, these concepts have practical implications for coaching and training.
How can we frame and prime clients for better outcomes?
– Let clients choose their main lift of the day. Do they prefer squats or deadlifts?
– Allow variation in the lift. Back squat vs. front squat; sumo deadlift vs. trap bar deadlift.
– Let them choose the mode of exercise. Barbells, kettlebells, or other equipment.
– Give clients a window at the end of a session to do what they enjoy, whether that means extra biceps work, glute activation, or a playful challenge.
– Use autonomy to encourage progress. After a top set, offer a choice: stay with the same weight or try a heavier load. Most people choose the option that feels like a win and often perform better as a result.
The overarching idea is simple: giving clients a sense of control over their training fosters long-term success. You set the structure, guide the programming, and still honor their preferences and choices. Autonomy, paired with clear direction, tends to yield the best adherence and results.
