why omit the last part?

> Studies suggest that relying on will power is hopeless. Instead, we must find strategies that don’t require us to be strong.

nothing defeatist about it.

not to mention, why judge such a long article which is summarizing a long book by the subtitle which generally isn't even written by the author of the article...

>Instead, we must find strategies that don’t require us to be strong.

Similar to the title, is is again framing it as an either/or situation.

Reality is that strategy+ willpower is the winning approach. Making change will almost always require strength, but strategy can make that requirement lower.

Throwing out your cigarettes/beer/ junk food makes abstinence easier, but it doesnt make abstinence easier than buying more.

Again the article already says all of this. The issue is people judging the entire thing by the title.

then the article is sloppy and inconsistent, because that is the opposite of what the title and conclusion said.

It is like an article with starting and concluding with "bleach is safe to drink", and then discussing the dangers throughout the body.

I dont think everything needs to be dumbed down - but parts of it are literally false and contradictory.

Because that bit is not in the title

Willpower is effective as one component among many. Which means you're not relying on willpower alone. Much like you don't build a table with a single leg.