A (partial) defense of food rules

In the 1990s a particular claim about the hazards of weight-loss dieting gained prominence in the scientific literature: following diet rules to restrict food intake may cause overeating, rather than help a dieter eat less. This claim comes from Restraint Theory and has been influential not only within science but in clinical practice and anti-dieting circles more broadly. But the implications of this claim for non-weight-loss diets are ambiguous. Some advocates imply eaters should only use hunger and satiety cues to guide eating and that using food rules is generally unhealthy; others suggest that certain food rules can be used by eaters who are properly “in touch” with hunger and satiety; while others assert that certain types of food rules, like those that are part of religious diets, are generally safe. In this paper, I offer a conceptual analysis of Restraint Theory to advocate against all-or-nothing thinking about food rules. I argue that it is specific features of a food rule – including its content, context of use, and capacities of the person using it – that are crucial to its impact on eating. Indeed, Restraint Theory suggests this is true even of weight-loss dieting rules. Thus, while we should take the potential hazards of using food rules seriously, we should not paint all food rules with the same brush. This conclusion has important ethical implications, as food rules can be useful tools for exercising eating agency, a crucial component of eating well and something which weight-loss dieting tends to undermine.