All or Nothing Often Beats Moderation When Self-Control Is Scarce

You might assume moderation is the answer—just one scoop of ice cream, only two drinks. But for many of us, moderating is a struggle because a taste ignites cravings. Dr. Samuel Johnson said it best: “I can’t drink a little, child; therefore, I never touch it.” He found it easier to abstain entirely than to negotiate a limit every time.

In psychological research, people who abstain from temptations often fare better than those who try to manage portion control. Consider how two dieters approach sweets: the first samples a single cookie, then mentally logs her progress. The second declares, “No cookies ever,” and finds the desire fades into the background. It’s not denial; it’s redirecting energy to what truly matters.

Abstainers conserve willpower by erasing the daily decision. Moderators, by contrast, keep mental and emotional resources tied up in endless bargaining over “one more.” If you’re an Abstainer, a clean break can bring clarity and freedom. Note that abstinence isn’t a moral failing; it’s a strategic choice to safeguard your larger goals.

This approach demands self-honesty. Ask yourself: “Does one piece lead to two, to five?” If so, a total cutoff may be the most efficient solution. When you remove the starting line altogether, you’re no longer racing against your impulses. Instead, you step out of the race.

Neuroscience tells us that the amygdala lights up at the first sign of reward, while the prefrontal cortex surrenders quickly once the temptation is real. Give your rational mind the early advantage by putting a firm stop to temptations before they fire up your cravings.

Decide on one temptation that always pulls you off track, then remove every trace of it—delete, discard, and detune your environment. Make a single rule, no “just ones.” When the urge hits, remind yourself that you already chose to opt out. Feel your impulse lose steam as you step away. Try it tomorrow.