"Not only did I begin viewing creativity as a limited resource I create and have access to over time, but I noticed that some activities, like reading about science, listening to music, and walking around town actually increase the rate at which the well fills up."

+1, many times over.

Taking breaks and having fun are very important to maintaining high productivity and creativity when I am working. Unfortunately it's in stark contrast to the mantras I often hear suggesting "there's someone out there who is working harder than you on the same thing and they're going to win if you let up." That mentality is unhealthy and leads to depression/exhaustion.

> "there's someone out there who is working harder than you on the same thing and they're going to win if you let up."

I've heard Elon Musk say this a lot. It seems to work for him, at least.

https://youtu.be/GtaxU6DZvLs?t=79

We'd need to discuss how you define winning ? I couldn't comment on Elon, I've not met him, I can say that it's not sound to base an assessment of an individuals 'happiness' or 'satisfaction' based on their public standing or wealth or achievements, life is not a jigsaw puzzle whereby all the pieces in the right place bring about the desired outcome.

Yes but he doesn't code. He is more a manager and a good one.

Programming requires a lot of concentration that is hard to sustain for a long time (the author of the post is an iOS programmer).

He used to code and wrote his first product zip2 over the summer in 95. Not sure about the hours - I guess you can do long hours for a couple of months https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sLmeYNmZKY

(In the vid he's saying he used to sleep on a futon in the office as he couldn't afford a flat at the time)

You don't know his baseline personality/attitude. It might be he's good at the relaxing and being creative aspect, and so needs to personally remind himself to work hard. Other people might naturally work very hard, but need to remind themselves to relax.

The training and diet regimen of an elite athlete would kill most of the population. What works for the 0.001% is not necessarily the best approach for everyone.

Such a regimen would kill those who immediately jumped into it from a typically sedentary life, sure. But if eased into, there is no reason most people couldn't handle it. Elite athletes didn't become highly performing in a day, and there are no special biological qualities required to become a high performer. It's just a lot of work, and most prefer to not do that work.

As a not even close to elite runner I disagree. I can do the same workout as a world class runner, relative to my fitness. Run 20 minutes at 80% heart rate. Run 10 minutes at 95% heart rate. Repeat 4 times. (Not a real workout but it proves a point).

What gets me is recovery. I would be unable to run hard for a week after that. Younger pros do like 5 or 6 really hard workouts a week. Older pros a bit less.

I totally would follow them but my body cannot recover between workouts. In my opinion what makes a world class marathoner is not his ability to work hard, it's a special gift to recover. I would work just as hard, but I physically can't as often as they do.

Saying anyone can be an elite marathoner by running like an elite marathoner? Bull. Any decent runner can do a workout or 2. Then you need a week to recover.

What does all this have to do with programming? Maybe nothing. Or maybe what makes the super productive guys so good is they mentally recovery faster? No idea on programming front, but I am confident on the running front it is all recovery.

This is a remarkable point you're making. Everything is relative to one's own reality. Thanks for the comparison with runners, I will use it, it's a telling example of what recovery means.

I'm a programmer, and I don't know how it relates to what I do, but I've already set my mind on finding out.

--edit

Imho the core of this idea is that "recovery" applies to many things: how early can you get another 4-hour coding session? How much did the first one tire you out?

How well do you recover after a failure? Bug in my code? I jump on that immediately and don't think twice about it; an argument with my girlfriend / co-worker / boss / parents? Not so much.

I believe you can train both your body and mind to get better at this; get better sleep, see a therapist.

Even more, you can tweak life's settings to work in your favor: a stable relationship, better/quieter housing (or job), savings etc.

I was a fair recreational runner in my late 20s and the beginning of my 30s. Along about 60 miles per week I would feel injuries getting ready to start, and would know that I was on the edge of over-training. The real top-level runners trained 120 to 160 miles per week, at paces that perhaps I could sustain for half a mile.

There is a world of difference between working hard, and working long.

You can quit a job, but you can't quit a calling!

s/harder/smarter and it probably holds true.

Yes. And course if you believe the premise, then working harder (i.e. more hours) is a net negative.

I would imagine we've all been on death marches at some point in our careers. And yes it can work to meet a deadline but the long term result is usually burnout and piles of technical debt which is always less fun to work on even if you're motivated.

Do you think this is related to biorhythms? I meant to post an Ask HN on it recently, then saw your comment. I know a lot of people will dismiss it as pseudo-science, but my reply to that kind of answer, is sometimes this: if we could go back in time and describe to a cave man or even a person of two or three or ten centuries ago, some of the inventions that we take as commonplace today, like airplanes, computers, land line phones, cellphones, fax, Internet, TV, credit cards, bikes, cars, satellites, CAT scans, X-rays, etc. etc., they would disbelieve us, think we were mad, and maybe burn us at the stake as dangerous witches. Apply the analogy to today. So, many of the things that are dismissed as pseudo-science, may just be things that actually work or are true, but we just don't happen to know how they work or the physical laws that govern them, as of now.

I have found a daily cycle of rest and work much easier to sustain for long stretches of time without creative burnout a lot easier than weekly work/rest cycles. Now I wake up on the weekends and fill note book pages with ideas and plans and concepts and I often go build them, where before it was all I could do to keep working when I had to work without running dry.

I feel like great philosopher, Juicy J, "I'm still working while I'm on vacation, You can't tell me nothing 'bout my dedication"

Well Said Mr. J.

In a similar comment of mine, someone points me the Theory of Complexity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_theory_and_organiza...

> So, many of the things that are dismissed as pseudo-science, may just be things that actually work or are true, but we just don't happen to know how they work or the physical laws that govern them, as of now.

I would say the opposite. Systems we use (like money, laws or politics) that we see as natural or inevitable are based on pseudo-science because we don't know their nature or rules.

We use the discoveries of our ancestors and think we are better than them. We are still in the matrix waiting for the red pill without knowing it.

>biorhythms

Interesting, notice the word "rhythm" at the end of your upper comment, just now.

It most likely is. Studies of published authors find that their writing is either done around sunrise at 6AM; or otherwise in the middle of the night, around 1-3AM.

Mature creators fall into the morning producing group, while 'young geniuses' usually do their best work in the late-night hours.

I think some of the question is Research versus Development. If you're doing creative work, constraints and deadlines help, but working past coherent thinking doesn't. You hit this point later (but still eventually) in Development projects where the creative demands are lower.

Exactly. This reminds me of the book "Willpower" by Roy F. Baumeister.