Why do things Roman when you can practice the Orthodox way?
I have considered this - in terms of certain disciplines, if not in terms of switching over.
Besides the natural aversion to fasting, there is a difference between adopting a penance voluntarily and adopting an imposed penance voluntarily.
Most people would think, as I intuitively do, that adopting it voluntarily would be more beneficial, than because 'you have to.' However, I read into it a few years ago and imposed penances are significantly superior.
Side by side one might think that voluntary penances cultivate more strength of will, or resolution, or other virtues more than obligatory ones. However, in the actual execution of the penance, both voluntary and imposed ones are equally difficult and there is no grounds to argue that voluntary ones are superior. Obilgatory penances, on the other hand have the added difficulty of accepting something from authority, the frustration of being expected to comply, etc. In other words, voluntary penances may reign the body, but obligatory penances also reign in pride.
Additionally, connected to the notion that God never asks the impossible, which has various scriptural references, if one is expected by an apostolic authority to do something which is both manifestly good and difficult, then there is an accompanying grace to assist the action to be holy and not prideful. Ie. Prescribed penances are accompanied by grace, whereas voluntary penances may, depending on both the intention and completion, merit grace.
After all that, if I were to voluntarily adopt the Orthodox Lent as a penitential practice, knowing myself, I would just as likely end up even more implicitly proud than I already am, as I would be likely to benefit from it.
As for why I don't switch over the Orthodox, I have issue with some doctrinal and moral compromises which came about when those Churches transitioned from being Universal (Catholic, literally means 'universal') to being national Churches (Greek, Russian, Syrian, Ethiopian, etc. etc.).