Cognitive Load
You make 227 food decisions a day. Automate the small ones.
Small choices compete with important ones for the same attention. The fix is to make fewer of them, on purpose.
September 3, 2026 · 1 min read
(https://ejzvrpsxfdvaidhwedjb.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/blog-images/050bd30e-3a1f-4bb3-b9b3-92ae37926a89.jpg "small") You will make more decisions today than you can count. One estimate puts food decisions alone at roughly 227 a day (Wansink & Sobal, 2007) — most made without noticing.
The model, and its limits
The intuitive account is that decision-making draws on a shared, limited resource that runs down through the day. A well-known 2011 study of parole-board rulings found favorable decisions falling sharply across a session and recovering after breaks — a striking result that has since drawn a substantive published rebuttal arguing that case ordering explains much of the effect (Danziger et al., 2011). The broader "willpower as fuel" model has also failed to replicate cleanly.
Treat it as a model, not a law. The practical point holds regardless of mechanism: a day spent deciding small things in real time is a day with less attention left for the work that matters.
Move the decisions out of the moment
The lever is not willpower. It is architecture — deciding once, in advance, so the choice does not recur.
Protocol: decision elimination
- Batch like with like. Answer messages in two or three fixed windows, not continuously. Do the week's admin in one block.
- Reduce the wardrobe. A small fixed rotation of work clothes removes a daily decision entirely.
- Template the meals. Pick three breakfasts and three lunches for the working week and stop choosing.
- Plan tomorrow tonight. Five minutes deciding what each block of the next day is for means you wake up executing, not triaging.
The goal is a boring baseline. Boring frees up the part of you that does the interesting work.
References
- 1. Wansink, B., & Sobal, J. (2007). Mindless eating: the 200 daily food decisions we overlook. Environment and Behavior, 39(1), 106–123.
- 2. Danziger, S., Levav, J., & Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011). Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. PNAS, 108(17), 6889–6892.
- 3. Weinshall-Margel, K., & Shapard, J. (2011). Overlooked factors in the analysis of parole decisions. PNAS, 108(42), E833. (Rebuttal to Danziger et al.)
Get the next one
One short, evidence-based email a week. No fluff, no “journeys.”