I don't even drink coffee. I've encountered people who seem absolutely incredulous that I take no stimulants at all. "How do you stay awake?" is something I'm asked. My go-to response now is "I don't. If I'm tired, I get more sleep." Some of these people probably think that I'm lying.
There are a lot of people who think that sleeping at work is a bad idea, but I think it's a lot better than guzzling coffee all day (or taking stronger things). I wouldn't work at a place that didn't allow me to take a nap if necessary. It's not uncommon for me to wake up with the solution to whatever problem I was working on too, so I think it would be wrong to call naps idle time.
As an example, using spaced repetition memory software and getting enough sleep is going to be a lot better for your learning than taking aricept and modafinil. On my PhD quals some people seemed to think I was a wizard for the things I memorized. No drugs were involved, but I did read a few books on memory and religiously used spaced repetition software. I wish this attitude were more common.
Not saying you're wrong, but the sanctimony from both sides can be a little exhausting is all.
For most e.g. programming work (deliverable changes due in a week, or a month, or a quarter), it’s more effective to work only a fraction as much time but all of it in a mentally sharp state, rather than to soldier through while exhausted.
I'm usually far more productive after taking a much needed nap than trying to drink coffee/tea and power through it.
https://www.vox.com/2014/8/28/6074177/coffee-naps-caffeine-s...
I was always surprised when I found myself suddenly so sleepy after a shot of espresso in the afternoon. It was nice to find that there's science backing it up.
At a place I worked at previously, I asked if they had any quiet rooms that would be good to take a nap in. They gave me a key to the lactation room, which was quiet, dark, and great for taking a nap. As far as I can tell I was the only person to use that room when I worked there. And I believe the rooms are required by law for workplaces with a certain number of employees in the US. (If anyone who was nursing wanted to use the room, I'd gladly leave, though as I said, the room seemed to be unused.)
At another place I worked at, I'd often take a nap after lunch in the library. The location was not ideal due to noise, but it was acceptable most of the time.
Right now I'm in grad school, and I moved a small sofa chair that was being surplussed into my office. Works great, and I'm not the only person to use it for taking a nap.
Taking naps at your desk might be okay. For me, it hurts my neck.
Earplugs may be necessary, particularly if you work in an open office. I probably would not be able to fall asleep so easily in an open office. But you can ask around to see if there are any private rooms you can use.
I can also say the only place that would have been amenable to workers taking naps was an academic lab that I worked in during a couple years following my time at school. Have you worked in the private sector much?
"I wouldn't even consider a job that wouldn't let me nap" is not a realistic attitude for basically anyone to have outside of a lucky few in tech.
Wikipedia says lactation rooms have been required by US federal law since 2010:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactation_room#Purpose
> Have you worked in the private sector much?
Not since college. You make a good point here.
I'll keep in mind that this won't be possible everywhere. So far no boss I've had cared that I took naps as long as I put my time in and was productive. I have never counted naps as work, just a break. Asking was not a career ending move in my experience so far, so I know what to do when interviewing. So far I have argued that taking a nap makes me more productive, with good results.
Additionally, when I worked at a federal government lab, I'd regularly take a nap in the library during my lunch hour right after eating. I can't see how any manager could argue against that. I've read of people in private companies doing the same in their cars.
ADHD people don't benefit from the "energizing" properties of caffeine.
Also, the terminology is arbitrary. Water can surely create endorphin when you are really thirsty. Toxins are problematic, but even water is toxic in high quantities. What's really toxic is dogmatism ... and narcotics that numb senses, which is the opposite of stimulation if you think about it. Only, it's not black and white like that, if the body is stimulated to feel less.
Anyhow it's pretty simple to see which side f the equation is the extreme negative. Fiding the middle is difficult and hence dangerous.
Can't say it's true everywhere, I work in Italy and coffee is a ritual, but I sense that recent trends and issues in nutrition are just making people more self conscious about their health. Some do like talking about it, in my experience I haven't seen that happen within "educated" environments.
Every couple hours, those 5 delicious minutes, the fresh air, the nicotine rush, then right back at it.
I quit smoking a few years ago when my wife got pregnant and have smoked only twice since.
I can actually grind more nowadays, and I'm less tired when it ends. It probably doesn't have anything to do with smoking or not, but that fact would be very surprising for my old smoker self.
Well, your respiratory system is probably much healthier now. I would expect better oxygenation to make you less tired, to give you more stamina.
I've never been a smoker, so I'm curious, how big an impact would you say healthier lungs had in your life?
I don't practice any sport consistently, from time to time I'll join someone for a long jog or go hiking or whatever, but only a few times a year. I tend to walk a lot though, as I don't drive.
Maybe there were changes but the lack of being regular and measuring my performance prevented me from noticing them.
The big difference was more about the upper respiratory system, with huge improvements in terms of taste, snoring, and the throat. I wasn't coughing much when I smoked, but I had a significant amount of mucus, especially in the morning, and had to clear my throat often. I'm also less prone to headaches if I drink a bit less fluids than I should, I feel dry but without the pain.
I often ask myself if the positive things about smoking were just delusions to justify feeding the nicotine addiction, or if the physical consumption was a product of my mind being convinced it was a good thing somehow.
Absolutely there's a reason people get addicted to cigs in the first place. But say, driving down a scenic road on nice day with window down, without even the slighted urge to light up a cig, is not something I would have imagined while still a nicotine addict. I mean I'll think about smoking a blunt sure, but that different.
Also glad I quit before all the e-cig stuff came out. If I was able to smoke AND breath prob woulda never got off.
Other than caffeine I don't take drugs and mostly don't drink alcohol either.
Both are good. I created most of the cards I use myself, as I only add what is relevant to me.
There's also a lot of value in learning about how human memory and learning works. Some parts are like learning how to program your brain. Your brain works well with certain data structures. I'd recommend this book for those interested:
https://www.amazon.com/Your-Memory-How-Works-Improve/dp/1569...
I found this useful too https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to-learn
Is there any that you recommend?
I actually felt pretty vulnerable submitting my comment (as opposed to being someone who loves to talk about myself) It seems to be resonating with others now, so that feeling has warn off, but initially I was a little concerned to open up and be so candid in a public forum.
Also, I did not intend to downplay those who are incredibly successful without drugs. I've just witnessed time and time again the scenario where person A is completely awe-struck by person B and their accomplishments and doesn't realize it 's because they have a literal advantage due to performance enhancing drugs.
Then someone says, "oh yeah, so and so takes a ton of adderall, didn't you know?" and everything begins to make more sense.
My comment was more directed towards some of the sensationalist articles you see about stimulant use sometimes where I always get the impression that the journalist talked to one guy who talked their ear off and gave them a bunch of juicy exaggerated quotes.
I don't feel attacked, but I also really hope I'm right about that. People talking about this stuff openly are exposing themselves. I didn't do it to brag. I just saw someone who was making a genuine request for experiences like mine, and I answered.
As someone who's been on both sides, I used to believe stimulants granted exceptional focus and productivity as well. After starting my own business and seeing what real focus and productivity look like, I believe stimulants only help when it comes to slogging through proscribed, boring work.
If it's a task that requires creative focus, you are better off getting a lot of sleep and letting your subconscious churn on the problem.
I've come to learn that there a few different kinds of drug users.
The first are the users who have not yet had to face the reality of drugs or how drugs affect them personally, even if they are suffering consequences from use. The mental gymnastics at play serve to protect and prolong drug use. I see this all the time with white-collar and middle-class users. They may have to take drugs to function, will crash, lose sleep, have mood swings and resultant relationship problems, but it all gets rationalized away because they have a job and aren't homeless yet.
You'll see things like projection, minimization, rationalization, denial, shifting blame and intellectualization used to defend, deflect and justify drug use.
Another type stays rational about drugs, despite how easy it is to let the honeymoon period trick them into believing that there are only positives and no downsides. They don't tend to lean on the psychological defenses mentioned above. They also tend not to abuse drugs chronically or end up dependent.
The final type, if they haven't died, has been kicked in the ass by drug use and was forced to be brutally honest about it. They might still use, but they know they have a problem, or they might be sober.
If you see a person talking about drug use as if there are no downsides, only positives, you are probably witnessing someone who belongs to the first camp.
Basically food is just a drug too, except by definition.
You could replace 'drugs' in my post above with 'alcohol', 'excessive exercise' or 'binge eating' and it would still hold true.
where do i sign up?!?
Essentially, they explain how the brain "neuroadapts" to high levels of stimulation to where you are just getting normal amounts of pleasure but with all the negative side effects of the food or drugs (e.g. caffeine) and then you have to go through a painful withdrawal period. The book is mainly about healthy eating and also fasting, but the ideas are more broadly applicable.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_Stimuli http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html
> Another type stays rational about drugs, despite how easy it is to let the honeymoon period trick them into believing that there are only positives and no downsides. They don't tend to lean on the psychological defenses mentioned above. They also tend not to abuse drugs chronically or end up dependent.
I’ve personally never come across anyone who (admits) to using anything stronger than Redbull. In fact, we have some employees who don’t even drink coffee, opting for “natural” stimulants which come with less of a crash. Yerba Mate seems particularly popular these days.
However, I may be in my own bubble; I’m very interested in seeing what you find!
Having spent some time in South America, mate sure is nice and a good change of pace. In the countrysides, it's not uncommon to see people with large thermoses slung under the elbow (for hot water) and a mate gourd in the same hand, happily sipping the days away. I'd recommend it for anyone looking to add some variety in your daily routine. Be advised that it is an acquired taste and may take a week to get used to, just like coffee was in the beginning.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerba_mate
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Guayaki-Traditional-Organic-Yerba-Loo...
[2] https://www.amazon.com/Mategreen-M0035-Argentina-Yerba-Gourd...
(though there are cheaper gourds that can just sit without tipping, I prefer the traditional hand-held ones)
Drinks such as coffee have a ton of caffeine in comparison. A cup of coffee has around ~200mg of caffeine, while yerba mate drinks have around ~70mg: http://guayaki.com/caffeine_meter.html
So drinking yerba mate is a lot like drinking tea as far as the caffeine experience goes.
That said, yeah, mate is pretty mild in terms of caffeine content.
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-skeptic14-2008jul14-stor...
This sounds very dubious. Caffeine has only one stereoisomer. And if you mean a structural isomer, then it's not actually caffeine any more.
I find stories like this to be important reminders that it is likely happening around me, and I need to be alert for it.
As for alcohol, San Francisco is a hard drinking town. In other countries if you get a cocktail it will be very carefully measured. Here? Outside of some artisan hipster joints you get hilariously unbalanced drinks. We had a drug/alcohol free policy at work but still had a beer fridge or two. Off-sites were generally open bar. 1:1 meetings? Often at the nearest bar (which typically lasted 1-2 drinks). Weekly team off-site lunches? Booze. First day on the job? Let's go to Kozy Kar (ugh) to celebrate with our high profile investor. Friday night? Let's go to Martuni's and get blitzed. CEO is too drunk to stand? Don't worry he's still good to drive. Hardly Strictly with the coworkers? Sure, let's make a pitcher of margaritas first.
Just to add another datapoint to the "negative" dataset, I don't do any drugs, including coffee. I drink decaf. I feel like being in a "natural" state is when I'm at my best.
I drink alcohol sometimes on weekends, but never while working, it clouds my thinking too.
Just my very personal 2c.
As opposed to people who don't?
or never were. I mean "super" , just regular productive as on "motivated" .
I worked in construction in my younger years and saw this kind of attitude from the occasional meth user on the jobsite. I'm seeing more coherent echoes of it in this thread. Another theme that pops up sometimes is someone who says that they used to take stimulants and they were super productive, but they don't anymore, but actually they still do.