We often discuss on the Fuhrman forums whether it's better for us to go 90% or 100% nutritarian. Dr. Fuhrman's life plan allows for 10% excursions once you attain health and appropriate weight. I don't think he intends for that 10% to be the worst foods like cheese and ice cream, but even those are allowed rarely. I really think this is an individual choice. For some people, making foods forbidden makes them more desirable, and increases the cravings. For others, eating just a little bit opens the floodgates. It probably depends a lot on how you look at it. For me, both those feelings can occur. Overall though, for me, it seems 100% is much easier than 90%. There is much less deciding involved, and
studies have shown that having too much choice and making too many decisions is exhausting and weakens your willpower. Now 90% might make life easier for other people I interact with and might make me more sociable and less of a standout. But I don't think I can handle it. It is easier for me to go 100%. Plus, I've found people don't care as much as you think when you do funny things like not eat, or top a plate of lettuce with your own fixings, or bring your own food. Also, if I'm 100% most of the time, on a daily basis, then if something really unusual comes up, it's no big deal if I decide to partake. I just have to remember that these unusual events need to be limited to only a few times a year (and that remembering is kind of a hassle so again, it's easier to just stay on plan and have fewer decisions and fewer things to remember!). Like I said, this is a very individual choice. My main point is that even though it might seem counterintuitive, 100% is easier for me than 90% and I'm kind of surprised by that as much as anyone else. Emily discusses something like this in her latest
Diseaseproof post.
