Fat Tuesday: Believe in Will Power, and You Shall Have It

Some people believe that will power is a bodily function that requires glucose to power it. Carol Dweck's new paper shows that its not so.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


“Try? Try? There is no try. Only do.” –Master Yoda

Some people believe that will power is a bodily function that requires glucose to power it. An interesting idea, especially if you are using your will power to resist eating sugar. The belief must also technically be true, at least at its most fundamental level, since will power—if such a thing actually exists (I wouldn’t know)—must be a function of the brain. Since the brain needs glucose like any other organ, it must be that will power burns glucose. But so what? In this sense it’s trivial because everything burns glucose. The current believe on will power is more specific: it says that will power depletes glucose and that ingesting glucose hastens the recovery of will power. So, if you invoke will power does it also deplete all your other sugar-loving bodily functions? Like, um, life itself? Can you literally will yourself into an insulinemic coma, sucking all the sugar from your blood in a flurry of OCD-like focus on, well, anything?

Carol Dweck, of Stanford University, didn’t think so. She contributed her inaugural article as a new member of the National Academy of Science to their proceedings journal (PNAS), which tested the alternative theory that will power’s success, and depletion, depends more on the attitude of the wielder than on glucose consumption. If you believe that will power can be depleted, it will be, and vice versa.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The scientists asked hundreds of subjects whether they thought will power could be depleted and then asked them to drink either a sugary soda or a diet soda, followed by a pair of demanding tasks involving self-control The sugar drinkers did better, and lasted longer, if and only if they believed will power was depletable.

Stephen L. Macknik is a professor of opthalmology, neurology, and physiology and pharmacology at SUNY Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, N.Y. Along with Susana Martinez-Conde and Sandra Blakeslee, he is author of the Prisma Prize-winning Sleights of Mind. Their forthcoming book, Champions of Illusion, will be published by Scientific American/Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

More by Stephen L. Macknik

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe