About two months ago, I posted a blog asking if and why Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) was necessary to treat . Alcoholics have certainly gotten sober without AA. I wanted readers to suggest what aspects of AA, as opposed to say, training for a triathlon or finding God, they considered necessary pieces of that model.

Readers offered some good responses, including the following:

AA might be necessary for some and not for others, because there are different intensities of alcoholism and different personalities among alcoholics that make AA a better or worse fit ( in front of crowds, , more independent in problem solving, etc.). AA's sponsor, or one-on-one mentoring relationship, is an important element to that program. Unlike other diversions including Church and exercise, AA provides a sustained focus on the specific problems of alcohol in a community of people who have experienced those problems. AA includes a necessary focus on or surrendering willfulness to a higher power.

I recently had an interesting conversation that makes me want to add one more benefit to the list. This point applies to any abstinence program. It's because abstinence is at the heart of AA that I'm writing about it in this context.

One Bonus of Abstinence:

I don't feel drawn to abstinence from my gut, but I can name one good reason it works. When you do choose abstinence rather than moderation, you shift from a framework of "how much" behaviors to "yes/no" behaviors. Some behaviors, which I'm calling "how much" behaviors here, demand a small-scale internal debate each time they pop up. Examples include "How much should I eat for breakfast?" and "How much time should I work on my novel today?" The privately conducted debates behind these questions can give you a sense of freedom. Here you get to tinker with how you act, with what you ingest, with what you produce. You can feel liberated from external rules.

But the fact is that these "how much" questions also tax us. They add to our level of insofar as they demand a lot of brain work. Every time you approach one of these little decisions, you have to deal with a host of issues: moral questions, examination of self, memories of what's worked in the past, estimations of what'll work next time, what others think, etc., etc..

In contrast to "how much" behaviors are "yes/no" behaviors, which are habits we've really adopted, so they're simply not up for debate. "Should I feed my kid?" "Should I show up at the office?" In these instances, you've already set up some internal rule that feels inherent to your --and is no longer questioned. While these habits might sound more boring, they can be productive without being taxing.

Take exercise as an example: I'm a daily runner. Some people think this takes a lot of discipline. But after 20 years of daily running, my morning run is amazingly easy. It's easier for me than it would be for someone who had not yet made the habit part of her identity. I never ask myself "if" I should run some day. I do it without the debate--and in a big way, I get a lot out of it without spending much energy on the task.

When you do make a rule part of your identity, it takes some cognitive load off. If there's any way that abstinence can be incorporated into someone's identity with a sense of joy (even, say, as a 28-day art project), then she might approach drinking with a different frame of mind. At least, for a while, she'll free herself of the stress related to questions of "how much?"