The psychology of food and weight loss

Weight loss & the Parent contract

Tony White
7 July, 2007

Weight loss is always a Parent ego state contract.

When someone seeks counselling to loose weight one can be fairly safe in saying

that it will be a Parent contract at least in part. A Parent contract is a

contract for change made from the Parent ego state. Contracts from the Parent

ego state rarely work, or they can work for a little while and then don't.

For example a contract (or goal) to loose weight, or to stop drinking, or to

exercise more, or to stop taking drugs, or to work harder are all Parent

contracts to some extent. The reason why they don't last is because they involve

deprivation of the Child ego state, namely the Free Child. When people (the Free

Child) discover something feels good then there is quire a strong drive to have

more of it. This seems to be the normal human condition. If someone discovers

that they very much like the taste of fish and chips then there will be quite a

strong urge to have such food more often.

In reaction to this FC urge the person's Parent ego state may then say "no you

cannot eat fish and chips because they make you fat and are unhealthy". When

this happens then one has intrapsychic conflict. This means there is a conflict

between two parts of the psyche. In this case the Free Child and the Parent ego

state are in conflict. They are at an impasse.

Two forces in the personality collide and you have an impasse


The originator of Gestalt therapy (Fritz Perls) used to talk about it and called it
a battle between top dog and bottom dog. In Transactional Analysis the conflict
is between the Parent and the Child ego states. In the final analysis it is the
bottom dog that wins, or it is the Child that wins out in some way.


It look like Free Child



This raises the question; What happens if FC does not get its needs met? A
number of factors come into play at this point. The first is the degree of the
deprivation. If one is deprived of food the need is very high. If one is deprived
of their favourite TV show for a week then the need may not be so high. Also it
depends on the amount of frustration tolerance the person has.

If a teenager is told they can't go out one Saturday night, some will take it on
the chin whereas others who tolerate frustration much less well may provide
quite a dramatic response.

Some one used to say, "People are where they want to be". Another way of saying
this is, "where there is a will there is a way". Sooner or later the Child ego state
will get its way. So sooner or later the deprived person will get their fish and
chips. When the Parent ego state says no because you will get fat, sooner or
later the Child will get the food in some form. Hence there is no weight lost and
usually there is some put on!




However some people do loose weight. I once saw a journal article titled, "The
anti-diet approach to weight loss". This approach works for those people who
harass themselves. They get strokes by putting themselves down. Those who have
a large internal Critical Parent ego state. If they give them self permission to
eat what they want (anti-diet) then they are more likely to loose weight.

In this instance the person eats and then criticises self for eating and putting
on weight. In this type of weight gain it is the after effect (or hangover) that is
important. So if the person allows self to eat anything they want and not
criticise self then the psychological purpose for the poor eating ceases. Then the
person will tend to eat in a more healthy fashion.




The game of “Internal critic” results in lots of negative strokes or
reinforcement of the eating behaviour

What have I done here?. I have refused to address the weight loss directly (ie
not taken the Parent contract) and snuck around the side and gone through that
door. How?

1. I have discovered the psychological function that the eating/weight gain
serves. It is a source of strokes and results in the game of "internal critic".
2. I have gotten rid of that function (ie the negative stroking and the game)
3. Thus the negative strokes and the game serve no psychological function any
more and thus using eating to get such strokes ceases.

Of course there are other reasons why people over eat and carry excessive
weight but this is just one example of how one can avoid the Parent contract
that a weight loss contract always is.


The psychology of food


With all the comment around about obesity in society, I thought I would make
some comments on the psychology of food and eating that I have seen over the
years.

Food and strokes.
As we know we all need psychological strokes(Attention) to survive and remain
sane. Without them we quickly deteriorate as happens to someone when they are
put into solitary confinement. Food is a very rich and good supply of positive
strokes. Food feels good and not only does one get the strokes from food but the
strokes are physical and inside our very bodies. Food can make us feel good inside.
Very few other things can do that besides alcohol and drugs.

So if someone is stroke deprived then they can become an over eater as it
becomes one of their main sources of strokes. The good part about this is that it
is relatively easy to alter. If the person starts to develop other stroke sources
then the food intake can decrease as it looses some of its psychological
importance.

As food is a strong positive stroke, if someone is in an environment where they
are getting many negative strokes it is appealing to eat as it is one way in which
they can get positive strokes. Sometimes this is called 'comfort eating'. The
strokes from the eating makes one feel 'comforted' and pampered. If one lives
around people who are quite critical environment one can understand why some
eat for comfort.



(A harsh environment can lead to comfort eating to make it feel a bit better, and
it does).




Sometimes the 'harsh' environment can even be inside the persons own head. If
someone has been traumatised by some event in their life then they can feel
considerable pain, angst, anxiety and so on, over and over in their own head.
"Comfort" eating can help ease some of that internal pain. The problem is the
person eats to satiate hunger AND eats to get comfort and that usually results
in over eating.

As we know kids copy parents and if parents are critical of them in childhood
then they internalise that critical parent in their own head. Thus in later life
they can have a big internal critic that jumps on them given the slightest
opportunity. Again comfort eating can be used as a counter to this large internal
critic that one has in side their own head.



(Humans sometimes cannot even recognize when they have enough food)





If the issue of power is poorly handled by parents then a power struggle can
develop between child and parent. This power struggle can be lived out in a
variety of formats such as through temper tantrums or being disobedient. It can
also be lived out through eating. All parents want children to eat and to eat
healthy food. Children learn this and can fight with parents by not eating or not
eating properly. This is a very common feature in anorexia where the child can be
claiming its own sense of personal power by not eating. The same can happen the
other way where the person can defy the parents by over eating.

This can also manifest in another way where the person has a sense of loosing
their own power with themselves. Those with eating disorders often report that
their eating is out of control, many obese people feel like this at least from time
to time. “I have a sense of disempowerment and thus my eating is out of control”.




Food and sex
How one looks physically is determined to a large extent by how much one eats.
Sex involves two people being physically very close and thus both parties see the
other persons body to some degree. In this way over eating and thus obesity can
be used as a protection against sex.

"If I am fat, therefore I am ugly and thus no one will want to have sex with me".

"I just feel so bad about how I look I can't have my husband see or touch me and
thus we can't have sex"

These are two views that some women and men to a lesser degree can maintain.
The psychological drive behind it is a fear of sex, or some other emotional
problem with sex.

Food and feelings
This one is a huge area which can result in over eating. Food and feelings get
mixed up in some way. Sometimes food and love get mixed up. Mother’s sometimes
find that they can express love to their children by feeding them. This is
particularly so if the mother has difficulty with the more open and direct
expression of love and closeness to a child. So she feeds him up instead and that
is how she shows her love to the child

But it does not end there. It does not take long for the child to realise this and
then the mother can use guilt. “If you don’t eat all your food then you are
rejecting me and then I feel bad”, can be the mother’s attitude. Thus the child
will feel guilty if it does not eat the food mother prepares. This will usually
result in over eating to some degree.


Food can be used as a way of dealing with a child’s emotions and emotional
distress. If a child gets angry the mother may think, “That must mean he is
hungry” and she gives him a sandwich. The child starts to mix up anger and hunger
and that can easily lead to obesity. In adulthood every time the person gets
angry they eat. If a child gets distressed about finding his goldfish dead mother
maybe at a loss of how to deal with the distress so she gives him a freshly baked
muffin. Distress and hunger get mixed up and that person later in life solves
their own distress by eating.


As is so often the case, physical activities that are crucial to our physical
survival, such as eating, easily become encased in a web of psychology for the
person. They cease to remain a simple biological function and get embroiled in
powerful psychological motives.



Self esteem


In each of us we all have our ideal or perfect self and our real or actual self.
IDEAL or PERFECT self

Our ideal self is they way we would like to be. How much we should weigh, how our
hair should be, how popular we are meant to be, how funny we are supposed to be,
how we want our nose to be and so on for many, many things.
REAL or ACTUAL self

This is the way we actually see ourselves. How popular we actually think we are,
how our hair actually is, how much we actually weigh, how funny we actually think
we are and so on.

In everybody the IDEAL self is always above the REAL self. Everyone wants to
be different in some ways. Everyone wants to have a bit more of this or a bit
less of that in our bodies and our personalities. It is a matter of degree. For
some people the difference between the IDEAL self and the REAL self is small.
When this is so these people will have a good self esteem. They like themselves.




For other people the difference between the IDEAL self and the REAL self is
very big. How they actually are is very much below what they see as being ideal
or perfect. These people will have a poor self esteem. They do not think much of
themselves. They do not like themselves.


The ideal me




To get the IDEAL self and the REAL self closer it is much easier and better to
make the IDEAL self lower rather than the REAL self higher.

Instead of thinking the IDEAL self is 45 kg it can be 55 kg
Instead of thinking that you have to have a nose like Nicole Kidman you think
that other types of noses are OK as well
Instead of thinking that you have to be like the most popular girl in the class you
think that you can be more how you are.

If you do things like this then you will feel better about yourself and you will
have a better self esteem.

Di life script currency analysis

Results


One and Only ++
Feelings +
Power +
Sex ++
Beauty +
Booze ++
Food +++
Violence +
Words ++

Analysis

Food
Games - Obesity, anorexia, bulimia
Stage - Oral
Lifestyle/occupation - body builder, dietician, cook, calorie counting, mother
Illness - stomach problems, mouth ulcers, IBS,
Therapist - eating disorders, weight loss counselling, alcohol/drug/cigarette counselling
Personality - Schizoid, borderline, antisocial, narcissistic
Issues - can life and death, control, sexual avoidance issues.



As this is an oral issue stage the consequences can vary considerably. Some who have an oral stage fixation can have few difficulties at all and have a work life like Jamie Oliver. On the other hand there can be very real life and death issues. This can result from over eating, under eating or highly restrictive diets and exercise regimes that can be dangerous. Or drug issues like alcohol and cigarette addictions can all result from oral stage fixations.

In females there can be issues around sex. Sometimes (but not all ways) the anorexic woman is protecting herself from sex (and a sexual relationship) by making herself unattractive to males and trying to make herself prepubescent again. The overweight woman may be also trying to make herself unattractive to males so as to avoid sex.



Dependency in relationships can be problematic. The two extremes by either being overly dependent on others or never being dependent on others. Oral stage issues can respond well to therapy and can include working out the relationship dependency issues in the transference with the therapist.

Graffiti

Engage the enemy in therapy.

I have talked before about certain treatment strategies that I do with things like panic attacks and eating disorders.

If a person presents with panic attacks I will at some point ask them to have a panic attack there in the session with me. Some look at me in disbelief, state that they came here to stop having panic attacks and refuse but most will go through with it and produce the panic to varying degrees.

Others who may be bulimic I will get them to make a homework contract to throw up at least once this week. If their purging is not a physically harmful levels that is.

In the past I have tried to explain the theory behind this and never really felt that I have explained it adequately. I have not been satisfied with my explanation. The other day I was relaxing in front of the TV, surfing the channels with my remote and I happened on an interview with Mel Brooks.

He talked about a number of things including the parody that he does of Adolf Hitler in one of his comic sketches called the Hitler Rap.

This has caused quite a controversy as some argue that making fun of Hitler trivialises what he did to the Jews in the second world war. As he explained why he did such a parody I realized he was explaining exactly why I ask the panic attack sufferer to have a panic attack. There he was saying precisely why I do what I do.

If one gets to know thy enemy and engage thy foe then it disempowers them. If one only ever addresses the topic of Hitler in very sombre and serious ways then that is making him to be more important. To engage Hitler in a funny way reduces his impact and importance was the basis of Mel Brooks’ argument.

When a client comes to therapy the first thing they do with the therapist is spend a great deal of time and energy defining the problem, discussing its causes, seeking to stop it, remove it, side step it and so forth. All this focus on the problem in one way empowers it. It makes it even more important in the person’s mind.

Hence I suggest the client at times engage the foe and produce a panic attack, or for the bulimic to go and purge. Panic attacks come and panic attacks go, nobody has ever gone crazy or died from a panic attack, throwing up is throwing up, not the end of the world. It disempowers the enemy (the symptom). It is not something of great awe and immensity.

The other point that is different from Mel’s parodies is that it also defines the therapeutic relationship. If I as the therapist also hold the problem in great awe and dread, such that it must be avoided at all costs, then the client has the therapist and the therapeutic relationship confirming the belief in the power of thy enemy. If I suggest to the client they go and do purging homework they see that I am not overawed by it.

I certainly understand that it is a painful problem for the individual and empathise with that but it does not fill me with fear and dread. This will also have a disempowering effect of the problem in the client’s mind. Hence my rule of thumb about treating eating disorders, never spend more than 50% of any session discussing food, weight, eating and so forth. Talk about other non food related matters.

Graffiti

Family systems and illness

Family systems theory as described by Haley (1980) provides further insight into how people can display suicidal behaviour and not necessarily have made the suicide decision. In any relationship with two or more people there is a ‘system’ that develops between them. When the two (or more) personalities meet, over time they work out how to be in the relationship for them. For example one party will take over some roles and the other party will take over other roles.

This can be described in terms of ego states. In a relationship between mother and son the mother may take over the Parent and Adult ego states in the relationship and the son may respond primarily from Rebellious Child ego state. Over time they will work this out often with both parties not even being aware of it. In a family of five members each one will also work out their various roles and positions in the family.

All families develop a system that works for them

Some family systems operate such that one party needs to be ill. If the daughter of the family is ill then all the other family members know what to do in terms of their roles and responsibilities. Examples of types of illness that can originate from a dysfunctional family system can be self harming, drug use, depression and panic attacks eating disorders and suicidal behaviour.

In such circumstances if the daughter is making suicidal statements, gestures or attempts then that is how that family functions. For instance mother and father may start to co-operate and unite against the common cause of the daughters suicidal ‘illness’. It allows them to focus on the daughter and thus they can put to the side their own marital problems.

If the daughter stops making suicidal gestures then mother and father are again confronted with their own relationship so there can be subtle pressure on the daughter to remain suicidal. Having worked in drug rehabilitation this is not an uncommon scenario when one hears the drug user refer to himself as the black sheep of the family.

In such situations when working with the suicidal daughter one can encounter resistance from other family members because if the daughter changes (ie stops being suicidal) then the whole family system has to change. Every person has to alter to some extent and systems will resist change as they strive to achieve homeostasis. Some only have to alter slightly and those who have considerable psychological investment in the daughter being suicidal may be quite resistant to the change.

Treatment of such suicidal people is thus complicated as it involves the person restructuring their relationship with the other family members and that maybe difficult especially if the child is living at home and cannot move out. This also provides an extra avenue of investigation when making a suicide risk assessment.

As is common in the field of psychology often the different approaches whether they may be psychodynamic, organic or systems all tend to take the stance of one size fits all. In this instance all suicidal people are a result of a dysfunctional family system. It is indeed unfortunate how the alternative theories do this as with the human psyche, rarely one size fits all. From my experience of working with the suicidal sometimes the family system is very important and at other times it is only a minor influence. However in assessing and understanding the suicidal person it is very wise to make an assessment of how the suicidal thoughts and behaviour fit for the family system that the person currently lives in.

It is also possible for the individual to have made the suicide decision in childhood and be in a family system where they take the sick role of being suicidal. If that is the case then the risk level of a suicide attempt would certainly increase.

In systems theory every system is naturally homeostatic and will seek to balance itself. Thus it will also avoid or resist change as the balance is disrupted and it is not homeostatic.

So if family member number two changes then that forces all other members to change in some way as well. That change can be anything such as becoming depressed, stop being bulimic, start taking drugs, winning the lottery to becoming assertive. If you change then the system becomes unbalanced and all others have to change so that they system can become homeostatic again.

If you are feeling depressed or anxious that means all those in your ‘family system’, or your inner circle of closest people, are in some way contributing to your depression or anxiety. Indeed if you are feeling happy and joyous they are also contributing to that as well. In systems theory there is no such thing as an ill person, instead it is the system that is ill. If your partner is suffering depression then you are contributing to that in some way as part of the system.

Graffiti