Remember a few years ago when New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed banning the sale of large sugar-sweetened drinks—sodas, sweet teas and coffees, energy drinks, and fruit drinks? The plan, called the Big Gulp experiment, would bar venues like restaurants, delis, sports arenas, movie theaters, and food carts from selling sugary beverages larger than 16 ounces, with a $200 fine for oversized drinks. The idea was that people would drink less, be healthier, and generally feel better. But did it work? Not really.
NYC is a vibrant, diverse city with sports, arts, music, fashion, and a strong culture of independence. People hate being told what to do, and when you push rules on them, they often push back. In this case, sugary beverage consumption didn’t decrease—it even doubled in some measures. So why did it fail?
One explanation comes from Dr. Gnel Gabrielyan of Cornell University’s Food & Brand Lab. He points to several factors about our food biases and how we make decisions. The food industry uses marketing tactics that distort our sense of portions. For example, cereals often feature characters looking down at kids on the lower shelves, which targets children who look up and see the box characters looking back at them. The overall idea is that framing and presentation shape how we perceive products and decide what to buy.
Another concept is reactance: when people feel their freedom to choose is being restricted, they resist. If you tell someone not to do something, they’re likely to react unfavorably.
Framing is another key idea. It’s a cognitive bias where people react differently to the same option depending on how it’s presented—whether as a loss or a gain. A classic example is the North Dakota wine experiment, where two wines were labeled differently (one as “Wine from California” and the other as “Wine from North Dakota”). The wines were identical, yet diners rated the California wine as tasting better and believed the accompanying food tasted better too, simply based on the label.
Priming is another influential effect. Priming involves exposure to one stimulus influencing responses to another stimulus. A well-known grocery-store study found that when shoppers were given an apple sample, they spent more on fruits and vegetables than those who received a cookie sample or no sample at all. In another example, giving people a carrot before a meal was intended to nudge them toward healthier choices; the effect depended on offering a real option to choose between healthier and less healthy items. When the choice was broadened to include both carrot and celery, more participants selected vegetables.
How can we apply framing and priming with clients? As trainers and coaches, anything that increases their success and enjoyment in training is valuable. Some ideas:
1) Let clients choose their main lift of the day—squats or deadlifts.
2) Let them choose the variation of the lift—back squat vs. front squat; sumo deadlift vs. trap-bar deadlift.
3) Let them choose their mode of exercise—barbells, kettlebells, or other tools.
4) Give them a window at the end of a session to do whatever they want, whether that’s extra biceps work, glute work, or something else they enjoy.
5) A recent example: after a top set of deadlifts, offer the option to stay or add weight. Provide the choice, and many clients will opt to push a bit further.
6) Allowing clients a sense of autonomy and control over their training can powerfully boost long-term success. You should still guide them and tailor programming to their goals, but giving them some say can improve adherence.
By framing choices and offering gentle priming, we can help clients stay motivated and engaged while maintaining strong professional guidance.
