I had an epiphany about personal energy a while ago that came from self-reflection, reading philosophy (stoicism in particular), and exploring mindfulness. And it's formed a big part of my personal philosophy. I will share in hopes it is useful to others.
I realized that I was waiting to have energy before doing something. Blaming my lack of action on a lack of energy.
But energy -- of the vim and vigor variety -- is not a tank that you must fill before you can use it. It's a choice. It is in fact _created by action_. It's getting up and making things happen even when your tank is empty.
And this doesn't happen by shaming yourself or hating yourself for not being that person. It happens by choosing to be that person. It happens by making that part of your identity.
So no, there is no magic pill. No external thing that will turn you into that energizer bunny type who seems unstoppable. Other than the realization that you choose who you are every moment. So why wouldn't you be the best version of yourself that you can be?
Yes, of course, exercise, eat healthy, drink in moderation, get enough sleep, and manage your stress. All of those help. In fact they're all part of the same choice of who you want to be.
You are not your situation, your possessions, your achievements, or your past. You are your choices and your actions in the present. Think about the kind of person you admire -- their qualities and their actions. Then _be that person_. Choose to make that a core part of your identity. Not your past choices or your past actions, but who you are _right now_.
Realizing this and making that choice may be one of the most energizing moments of your life. It's free and available to everyone. No prescription required.
This is of course partially true, but the notion that you can just decide to be the best version of yourself is a bit weird, as many factors outside your control limit your range of actions. As you mention, physical health is pivotal, and having poor physical health is going to limit you significantly. You can work on your physical health, but as with many low income people you may have to work hard for money and have no physical energy left over for such feats. Poor mental health in particular is going to limit your ability to change 'who you are right now' - it's simply not possible to choose to be positive, for instance.
But I do of course agree it's a good philosophy to recognize you can choose to act in accordance with who you want to be, insofar as it is possible. And at the same, to work to chance your circumstances to expand your possibilities about who you can be.
> but as with many low income people you may have to work hard for money and have no physical energy left over for such feats
People love to bring up edge cases but most people on that situation aren’t on Hacker News.
Vast majority of audience here is in a position to improve their energy.
And I’ve had health and digestive issues that impair me more than average. Guess what? By controlling my environment and inputs I can have a massive difference in my own average energy levels
> it's simply not possible to choose to be positive, for instance
I fundamentally disagree with this statement. There’s always a choice. Do you speak from experience or are you assuming what others with worse physical challenges than you must logically feel?
(I draw a distinction here between acute and chronic issues. If your spouse has just died or you just broke your leg and are in excruciating pain, positivity has little role. I’m talking about longer run)
> You can work on your physical health, but as with many low income people you may have to work hard for money and have no physical energy left over for such feats
If you are physically exhausted from your work, you almost certainly exercised enough during that work to be in good physical health. The health problems of low income people are almost always caused primarily by nutritional issues (too much food, too little, or not the right variety, depending on the context).
I'm coming around to this way of thinking. My personal anecdote: I had my first child in June premature and it has been... difficult. There's no amount of energy that can get you through caring for a newborn. During the most difficult phase I read that exercise can counteract the effects of sleep deprivation. So I started running, then I went back to the gym, and now I go nearly every day. I don't think the exercise itself has given me that much more energy. Rather, it's a change in mindset.
I found it easier to get up early and go to the gym when I realized I'm going to feel like shit in the morning no matter what, so I might as well just get up and go. When I was childless and care-free I would skip if I had one too many beers the night before, a tiring weekend, or just didn't feel "100%". This change in lifestyle made me realize there never was a "100%". Now maybe the exercise gives me a small boost in energy, but most importantly I'm conditioning myself to push myself towards my goals regardless of how much energy I think I have.
>But energy -- of the vim and vigor variety -- is not a tank that you must fill before you can use it. It's a choice. It is in fact _created by action_. It's getting up and making things happen even when your tank is empty.
So very true in my experience with any creative pursuit I've attempted. As others have mentioned, there is a real local maxima that must be overcome, but once you climb the hill and enter the mindset of "getting the thing done", the burst of energy can be so unrelenting until the task is complete. Forcing yourself to this mindset seems like a great approach to me. I still personally need little tricks and triggers to remind myself that 'this', whatever 'this' is, is what I've chosen to do though.
>You are not your situation, your possessions, your achievements, or your past. You are your choices and your actions in the present. Think about the kind of person you admire -- their qualities and their actions. Then _be that person_. Choose to make that a core part of your identity. Not your past choices or your past actions, but who you are _right now_.
I've come to a somewhat similar conclusion. To channel my inner Horowitz, I offer an excerpt from Death Grips' - "Lord of The game".
"Fuck where you're from
Fuck where you're goin'
It's all about where you're at"
The present moment is all we really have, and attempts to perfect it are very high yield in my opinion.
Actually, I've found taking Wellbutrin has increased my energy level considerably. Though, whether it's a direct effect of the medication, I'm not sure.
There are multiple compounds that effect motivational energy, because that behavior is a consequence of how our brain functions. So things that modify the related circuits will modify the behavior. Plus free will is an illusion, and we don't actually "choose" anything. All of our behaviors are a consequence of the biochemical functioning of our cellular circuits. Quite frankly, the GP has no idea what they are talking about.
If you want to start understanding motivation and reward, simply look at the function of mu-opioid agonism in relation to the NAcc and related dopamine task reward circuitry.
It is a choice but it's also a series of choices. The analogy with physical exercise is appropriate - after a long period of sloth trying to be more active can feel incredibly difficult. Subsequent attempts (usually) are gradually less hard.
This is the whole "excellence isn't an act but a habit" thing, usually attributed to Aristotle.
> A lean Montrealer, with a gentle yet poised intensity that one might classify as medium-energy, Picard came at the question of vim and vigor from a near-cosmic vantage. His office, high above the Heights, had a commanding view down the Hudson, a receding sun-blanched shorescape of skyscrapers and tidal swirl that lent his pronouncements an oracular air.
Did this assignment have a minimum word count? I know it's the New Yorker, but gah I couldn't handle it
I get frustrated with the reaction to New Yorker pieces on here. Yes, a New Yorker piece is going to be long and have backstory.
Their feature pieces are like novellas of non-fiction. Many get republished into books, that receive acclaim like the amazing Coming into the Country[1].
It doesn't skim as well as some business insider article that is just a list of bullet points, but it was never meant to.
The New Yorker has some absolutely great pieces and a huge budget for journalism, but that said, I find their writers self-indulge a bit more than I find pleasant. The Walrus doesn't have as many block buster journalistic pieces, but the writing is strong and strikes a better balance between flourish and meat.
I very much enjoy the opportunity to use my right brain for a change. The style lends itself to 'feeling' the subject as much as describing it. This article especially invokes a kind of dreamy inexactitude that perfectly matches with the semi woo of the underlying topic. Intuition is the gift, reason the faithful servant - a view that most programers will disagree with imo.
While we're bashing the style: Is 'scrip' really what they meant in "If a patient says, ‘I want more energy,’ maybe the doctor should just write a scrip for methamphetamine"? I just checked the dictionary to confirm, and 'scrip' is definitely a financial term; surely they meant 'script'?
Or is this a situation where they flaunt common practice to be quirky, like their superfluous umlauts?
It is possible to qualify as a doctor and be unsure if the abbreviation for prescription is Px or Rx
Now you can just check on the internet but back in the day it's something that's apparently so basic and assumed that you could be too embarrassed to ask.
Don't smoke, don't drink, don't use drugs, get enough sleep and exercise, eat enough fruits and veg and not too much junk and you've got like 90% covered, if not all.
Most people (without serious medical issues) moaning about a lack of energy know exactly what's causing it but refuse to change their habits. Whether it's drinking, smoking, junk food, staying up late, etc. they've just become too attached to that way of living.
The article wastes a lot of words on basically nothing.
I kinda agree, even though until I hit bottom I couldn't change my diet/lifestyle either. The odd part in this is that mushy gray context people live in, they're not bad but improving anything requires losing short term, so things stay in that rounded corner crate.
That said, for anybody in a nice city with enough bike lanes, I cannot stress how nice bike commute is for your life. Saving money, time[0], mental energy while restoring health. That a fractal silver bullet for you.
[0] everytime I tried going to work by car or bus, I left home earlier, arrived late at work, and had to pay for gas or tickets. Insane
That is an excellent list of lifestyle factors, but suggesting that genetics impacts 10% or less of biological outcome is pretty bold.
Put another way: everything is nature, nurture and “random”. It’s rare to find an outcome where one of those three completely dominates the causal equation.
That's why I said most people (within two standard deviations from the mean roughly), there will be people for which their genetic component will make up a larger part of why they seem to suffer from low energy.
If I am understanding your argument correctly, certainly agree that e.g. "some people are more genetically inclined to drink". But I think It’s valuable to draw some boundaries between what we can and cannot control, even with genetically varying difficulty.
To state my original point in a potentially clearer way: I suspect there is significant genetic variation in energy, controlling for lifestyle habits. Evidence: 1) Personal observation over years of interest in this topic 2) the fact that there is extensive variation in most quantitative life outcomes, controlling for lifestyle habits
I personally found the mitochondrial-centric viewpoint discussed early in the article quite interesting. Do they serve us or do we serve them? High quality thinking material.
It is the same kind of guidelines I've seen for fighting poverty. The problem: you need investment of energy/money to have more energy/money. If you don't have them in the first place, good luck. With energy it's even more insidious, because if you have the energy, at least you could spend some more time working for money.
Responding to the strawman version of your argument: the critical difference is that there are huge systems designed to extract your surplus money (addictive drugs/gambling at the immoral extreme, supply/demand dynamics for basic goods at the pedestrian extreme).
It is very important to remember that your energy is yours. Almost the essence of what you are. You will have the occasional good day, or just good hour, and that is the opportunity to build. Maybe with unhealthy amounts of coffee, to kickstart. Then two good hours the next day. Then four.
It will necessarily take many calendar weeks, but I implore any discouraged readers to understand that it is possible to bootstrap up to a better place.
I have done this for most of my life. I play in a band with a bunch of guys who drink shitloads of alcohol and sleep FAR less than I do. When it gets to eleven PM in the bar we play in who's the one yawning? It's me.
I never really feel like I have plenty of energy, because whatever I have I just use to do more stuff :/
Have any fellow HN readers struggled with low energy levels for more than 5+ years and ever figured out how to counteract it?
Curious to hear what worked for you.
Definition of low energy levels in this context:
* struggles to work more than 20 hours a week without spending the rest of each day and the weekend recuperating.
* does not notice any significant differences in energy levels from a healthy diet, regular exercise, and achieving a healthy BMI. (That's not to say there isn't a difference, but it's small and can result in more consistent energy flow - the overall energy level is still low and recuperation is often strongly desired, feeling of fatigue is still constant)
Not to put a big stamp on it but sounds like mild depression which I think has been inflicted on mass by society upon itself.
In not making a judgement on that, but unfortunately the last 2 years hasn't been full of news stories of zoom meetings to discuss happiness and the good times...
The article itself is pretty mediocre, but it touches on some interesting stuff (before continuing to slippy-slide between various unstated definitions of what 'energy' means).
It doesn't have a conclusion, so I'll add one. The article supports it as supported much as any other conclusion (You get a Bayesian update! And you get a Bayesian update!) but it's the one I believe and this little box is /my/ journalistic output:
If you want better energy, you need to try a ton of things. Get ideas from the many gurus past and present, try to figure out a few measures that are not /completely/ subjective (but accept it's not physics) and just /keep trying/. The right answer will change over time, so it's a never-ending cycle. If you have an explanation for that, I'd love to hear it.
But please don't give up, and don't be afraid to feel silly because you're trying last year/decade's fad instead of this one. It's worth it.
New Yorker writers are masters of their craft, so unless you have decades of experience professionally editing and writing, I recommend giving the piece at least a second chance.
That said, I also skipped over tons of passages, for example, the laundry list of energy supplements. I read for different reasons on my phone, compared to when I’m reading a physical copy of the New Yorker. On my phone, I’m rapidly skimming tons of articles searching for interesting facts, which just isn’t suited for reading the New Yorker’s beautiful long-form style.
Yes. It's called literary nonfiction and many people enjoy it.
There's a funny irony here in your suggestion that the New Yorker writers have, in a sort of solipsistic error, forgotten to write for anyone but themselves. In fact, I'd suggest that it's you who have forgotten that not everyone (even on HN, it would seem) shares your tastes!
That's not to say that this piece is an ideal example of the craft. But there will be plenty of readers who appreciate it.
My daughter has always needed her sleep, ever since she was a tot she'd get incredibly ratty and would be out of sorts the next day if she didn't get her full eight hours of undisturbed sleep. I on the other hand have always been able to get away with only a short night's sleep even staying up all night when necessary. My totally subjective opinion is that you only have so many awake hours in your life and I'm running through my ration more quickly and will have a shorter lifespan as a result
Everyone's different like that. I do 6-7 hours of sleep a night which is not ideal but a stable enough middle ground. I get 'stressed' (best word I can think of) if I don't get enough sleep, or more of a worry that I haven't gotten enough sleep. We tend to catch up in the weekends though.
That is an interesting analog to the stylized fact that all mammalian species get about the same number of heartbeats in their life. Mice have a high BPM and short life, whales the opposite
What this article doesn't address is the emotional and psychological factors that contribute to energy or lack thereof. I've found that as I age these become much more significant factors than sleep, eating right, and exercise . . .
> Mitochondrial DNA seems to be passed down from generation to generation exclusively by the mother; sperm contributes nothing
How do mitochondria evolve if they are just clones passed down from mothers? Or rather, how come there are not huge differences between populations of people whose mitochondria evolved in different direction but can never mix?
They don't evolve much, the mitochondrial DNA is very conserved and compact (~16kbp vs ~3Gbp for the entire human genome). Not many levers you can mutate and end up with viable organism.
I realized that I was waiting to have energy before doing something. Blaming my lack of action on a lack of energy.
But energy -- of the vim and vigor variety -- is not a tank that you must fill before you can use it. It's a choice. It is in fact _created by action_. It's getting up and making things happen even when your tank is empty.
And this doesn't happen by shaming yourself or hating yourself for not being that person. It happens by choosing to be that person. It happens by making that part of your identity.
So no, there is no magic pill. No external thing that will turn you into that energizer bunny type who seems unstoppable. Other than the realization that you choose who you are every moment. So why wouldn't you be the best version of yourself that you can be?
Yes, of course, exercise, eat healthy, drink in moderation, get enough sleep, and manage your stress. All of those help. In fact they're all part of the same choice of who you want to be.
You are not your situation, your possessions, your achievements, or your past. You are your choices and your actions in the present. Think about the kind of person you admire -- their qualities and their actions. Then _be that person_. Choose to make that a core part of your identity. Not your past choices or your past actions, but who you are _right now_.
Realizing this and making that choice may be one of the most energizing moments of your life. It's free and available to everyone. No prescription required.